Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In some limited cases, English allows a particular preposition to combine with a certain kind of subordinate clause, as exemplified by in “I take the proposal seriously, in that I loathe it”. In contrast, Norwegian systematically allows prepositions to combine with subordinate clauses (as in , literally “It resulted in that we won”). I argue that the English case should be handled as the subcategorization for a certain complement class by a particular lexical entry, while the Norwegian case indicates that the extended projection of clauses can continue up to the preposition. This highlights an important difference between lexical selection and extended projection, revealing a hitherto underappreciated source of parametric variation, and sheds light on several properties of extended projections as well as of prepositions. Specifically, the extended projections of N and V may “converge” at P, challenging the notion of extended projection as being confined to a single lexical category.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abney, Steven
    1987 The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adger, David
    2013A syntax of substance. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2001Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2011 The aspectual properties of nominalization structures. InAlexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 47–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.178.11ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.178.11ale [Google Scholar]
  5. Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia & Florian Schäfer
    2011 Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. InAntonia Petronella Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds.), The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation, and change, 25–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.171.04ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.171.04ale [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Mark C.
    1988Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baltin, Mark R.
    1989 Heads and projections. InMark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 1–16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boeckx, Cedric
    2010 Why edges are needed. InAnna Maria Di Sciullo & Virginia Hill (eds.), Edges, heads, and projections: Interface properties, 11–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.156.04boe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.156.04boe [Google Scholar]
  9. Borer, Hagit
    1984Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110808506
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808506 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2005The normal course of events (structuring sense, vol. ii). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Borsley, Robert D. & Jaklin Kornfilt
    2000 Mixed extended projections. InRobert D. Borsley (ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories, 101–131. San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press. 10.1016/S0092‑4563(00)80021‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-4563(00)80021-5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Borthen, Kaia
    2003 Norwegian bare singulars: NTNU, Trondheim dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bresnan, Joan
    1972 Theory of complementation in English syntax. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brody, Michael
    2000 Mirror Theory: Syntactic representation in Perfect Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry31(1). 29–56. 10.1162/002438900554280
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554280 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, Noam
    1957Syntactic structures. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2007 Approaching UG from below. InUli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2008 On phases. InRobert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130. 33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. den Dikken, Marcel
    2010 On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: Cartography of syntactic structures, vol.6, 74–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Elbourne, Paul
    2008 The argument from binding. Philosophical Perspectives22(1). 89–110. 10.1111/j.1520‑8583.2008.00142.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00142.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Emonds, Joseph
    1985A unified theory of syntactic categories (Studies in Generative Grammar 19). Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110808513
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808513 [Google Scholar]
  24. Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo
    1997Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1968 The case for case. InEmmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gawron, Jean Mark
    1986 Situations and prepositions. Linguistics and Philosophy9(3). 327–382. 10.1007/BF00630274
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630274 [Google Scholar]
  27. Grimshaw, Jane
    1991Extended projections. Ms. Brandeis University.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005 Extended projection. InJane Grimshaw (ed.), Words and structure, 1–73. Stanford, Ca.: CSLI. Revised version of 1991 ms.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser
    2002Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 39). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Haumann, Dagmar
    2011The syntax of subordination. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackendoff, Ray
    1973 The base rules for prepositional phrases. InStephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1977X̄ syntax: A study of phrase structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Koopman, Hilda
    2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. InHilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203171608
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman
    2011 Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua121(7). 1297–1313. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Koster, Jan
    1978 Why subject sentences don’t exist. InSamuel Jay Keyser (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages, 53–64. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lohndal, Terje
    2014a Sentential subjects in English and Norwegian. Syntaxe et Semantique15(1). 81–113. 10.3917/ss.015.0081
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.015.0081 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2014b Sentential subjects: Topics or real subjects?InRobert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 315–324. Somerville, Ma.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pesetsky, David
    1982 Paths and categories. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pietroski, Paul M.
    2005Events and semantic architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ramchand, Gillian
    2008Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius
    2002 The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. InLine Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 21, 387–400. Somerville, Ma.: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences46(B). 152–174. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rauh, Gisa
    1993 On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. InCornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, 99–150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.99
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.99 [Google Scholar]
  44. van Riemsdijk, Henk
    1990 Functional prepositions. InH. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in diversity, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110847420.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.229 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1998 Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics2. 1–48. 10.1023/A:1009763305416
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009763305416 [Google Scholar]
  46. van Riemsdijk, Henk & Riny Huybregts
    2002 Location and locality. InMarc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.), Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models group in Tilburg, 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens In-stituut. www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/progressingrammar/
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rijkhoff, J.
    2002The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InLiliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sheehan, Michelle & Wolfram Hinzen
    2011 Moving towards the edge. Linguistic Analysis37(3–4). 405–458.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Stowell, Tim
    1981 Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1996 The phrase structure of tense. InJohan Rooryck & Lauri Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  52. Svenonius, Peter
    1996 Review of den Dikken 1995, Particles. Language74. 816–820. 10.2307/416108
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416108 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2003 Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics31(2). 431–445.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2007 Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. InEric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument structure, 71–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.108.08sve
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.108.08sve [Google Scholar]
  55. 2008 Projections of P. InAnna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial p, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.04sve
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.04sve [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010 Spatial prepositions in English. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: Cartography of syntactic structures, vol.6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2016a Complex predicates as complementation structures. InLéa Nash & Pollet Samvelian (eds.), Approaches to complex predicates, 212–247. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. 10.1163/9789004307094_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004307094_009 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2016b Spans and words. InHeidi Harley & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 199–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.229.07sve
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.07sve [Google Scholar]
  59. Svenonius, Peter & Knut Tarald Taraldsen
    2007The construct state in Norwegian prepositional phrases. Ms. CASTL, University of Tromsø.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Talmy, Leonard
    1978 Figure and ground in complex sentences. InJoseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol.4, 625–649. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Terzi, Arhonto
    2010 Locative prepositions and Place. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: Cartography of syntactic structures, vol.6, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2017 Complex spatial expressions. InMartin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 1–25. Wiley2nd edn.. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom034
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom034 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wiltschko, Martina
    2014The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139833899
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): extended projection; functional hierarchy; Norwegian; Preposition; selection
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error