uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Som-satser med och utan som
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Languages, Department of Scandinavian Languages.
2002 (Swedish)Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)Alternative title
Som-clauses with and without som (English)
Abstract [en]

This thesis deals with different types of subordinate clauses in Scandinavian and English, e.g. relative clauses and subordinate wh-questions, that all share the characteristic of having a visible or invisible constituent in a pre-complementizer position (spec-CP). The pre-complementizer constituent, the subject or a non-subject, is sometimes followed by a complementizer (in Cº). In English for example, that is used in that-relatives: obligatorily after an invisible subject, otherwise optionally.

Swedish uses the complementizer att ('that') in that-clauses but another complementizer, som, in various subclauses with a pre-complementizer constituent. For this reason, the different kinds of subclauses that are focused on in this study are captured by the term som-clauses. The problem in focus is the question of why a complementizer like som or that is obligatory in some som-clauses, optional in others, and in still others (such as pronoun-headed relatives) would be ungrammatical.

The analysis of the som-clauses is carried out within a principle- and parameter-based framework. Initially, a split CP is proposed, offering a specific projection for the fronted constituent in som-clauses and for the complementizer som. That on the other hand is placed in a lower projection, an organisation supported by the combined use of som and at ('that') in relatives in colloquial Danish.

The different positions of som and that indicate a functional diversity as well. This in turn has provided a clue to the further analysis, which is also founded on two basic assumptions: 1) a fronted invisible constituent has to be formally identified and 2) every clause has to be typed, for instance as a declarative or an interrogative. Som is primarily associated with the former function, whereas that is a (declarative) clause type complementizer.

Contextual identification of a fronted invisible constituent and of clause type may in some cases permit omission of som and that. Evidently, there is no general demand for an explicit subordinator in subclauses. However, the obligatory use of som in Mainland Scandinavian after (visible) subjects in embedded wh-questions points to a need of a subordinate feature in some cases.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk , 2002. , 318 p.
Skrifter / utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet, ISSN 0083-4661 ; 58
Keyword [en]
Scandinavian languages - general, relative clauses, embedded wh-questions, clefts, complementizers, complemen-tizer omission, subject–non-subject asymmetries, split CP, Swedish, Scandinavian, English
Keyword [sv]
Nordiska språk - allmänt
National Category
Specific Languages
Research subject
Scandinavian Languages
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-2553ISBN: 91-506-1616-1OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-2553DiVA: diva2:161883
Public defence
2002-09-21, Ihresalen, SVC, Uppsala, 10:15
Available from: 2002-08-29 Created: 2002-08-29 Last updated: 2012-02-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stroh-Wollin, Ulla
By organisation
Department of Scandinavian Languages
Specific Languages

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 824 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link