Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Stylistic Fronting (SF) is a V2-like phenomenon in Old Scandinavian,¹ whereby a non-subject element is moved to the left of the finite verb in I, but only if the subject position (Spec, IP) is phonologically empty, as in the subject relative clause in (1b) below, with SF of the negation:

(1a) som han skapade ey ‘which He did not create’ (MB I B:26)

(1b) som ey thiænar t honum ‘who does not serve him’ (MB I B:8)

In pre-minimalist generative grammar, SF was regarded a more or less normal type of syntactic movement (Platzack 1987; Jónsson 1991 inter alia). In minimalist syntax, however, several properties of SF, most importantly its optionality coupled with its apparent semantic vacuity (Maling 1980), have been taken to favor a phonological analysis (Holmberg 2006:551 ff.). Most prominently, Holmberg (2000) argues SF is EPP-driven syntactic movement, but of phonological features only, leaving semantic and syntactic features behind.

In this presentation, I argue that SF indeed takes place in syntax, as in Holmberg (2000), but, contrary to Holmberg (2000), involving not only phonological features. As such, SF is more or less a normal type of syntactic movement. Other work on SF (e.g. Ott 2009) has pointed out the theoretical and conceptual problems with the view that SF moves phonological features only. In addition to this, I present new empirical evidence from Old Swedish that cannot be explained by Holmberg’s (2000) analysis.

Specifically, in Old Swedish, SF may target a left-branch modifier in an NP, such as a quantifier (nokor ‘some’, ängin ‘no’ etc.) or an adjective. Normally, prenominal adjectives agree morphologically with the head noun in number, gender and definiteness. Focusing on the latter case, an important rule is that when the head noun is morphologically definite, the weak adjective declension is used instead of the default strong declension (Stroh-Wollin & Simke 2014:102 f.; cf. also Pfaff 2017:292 f.).2 Mysteriously, however, when a prenominal adjective is stylistically fronted, it consistently surfaces in the strong declension, even when the head noun is definite: 

(2a) sum höghsta hauer [t kærona] ‘who has the highest accusation’ (MEL:221)

(2b) thr liten hauer [t kniwen] ‘who has a small knife’ (KS:82)

(2c) thz ... som minzstan haffwir [t krafftin] iffwir annor ‘that which has the least power over the other’ (MB I B:56)

The pattern demonstrated in (2) holds as a rule: SF disrupts the syntactic definiteness agreement between modifier and noun, which alters the form of the fronted element. I argue that this is unexpected under Holmberg’s (2000) analysis, according to which the phonological matrix of the fronted element is copied as is.

In my presentation, I explore the theoretical implications of this, examining the syntax, semantics and optionality of SF in Old Swedish.

Notes

¹ Swedish SF disappears in the 1600s (Platzack 1987:398), but it is retained in Modern Icelandic (Maling 1980).

² As Stroh-Wollin & Simke (2014:96) note, there is not an absolute one-to-one relation between definiteness and the weak adjective declension. As such, a few qualifications must be made. For instance, strong forms are not uncommon in semantically definite NPs. My focus here, however, is on morphological definiteness, specifically that of the head noun. Further, as mentioned by Stroh-Wollin & Simke (2014:106), the reduction of adjectival forms in the feminine declension in later Old Swedish may cause apparent counterexamples, where seemingly strong forms modify morphologically definite nouns. In my presentation, I will discuss these and other issues and show that the analysis presented here holds up to scrutiny.

Quoted Old Swedish texts

MB I B = Paraphrase of the Pentateuch, ca 1330. Cod. Holm. A 1, 1526. Ed. by Thorell (Samlingar utgivna av Svenska fornskriftsällskapet 60, 1959).

MEL = Country law of King Magnus Eriksson, ca 1350. AM 51, 1350–1400. Ed. by Schlyter (Samling av Sveriges gamla lagar 10, 1862).

KS = Book on the government of rulers, ca 1330. Lost manuscript. Ed. by Bureus (En nyttigh bok om Konnunga styrilse och höfdinga, 1634), republished by Moberg (Samlingar utgivna av Svenska fornskriftsällskapet 69:1, 1964).

References

Holmberg, Anders (July 2000). Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an expletive. In: Linguistic Inquiry 31.3, pp. 445–483.

Holmberg, Anders (2006). Stylistic Fronting. In: The Blackwell companion to syntax. Ed. by Martin Everaert & Henk Van Riemsdijk. Vol. 4. Wiley, pp. 532–565.

Jónsson, Jóhannes Gı́sli (1991). Stylistic fronting in Icelandic. In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 48, pp. 1–43.

Maling, Joan (1980). Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. In: Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 2. Ed. by Höskuldur Þráinsson, pp. 175–193.

Ott, Dennis (2009). Stylistic fronting as remnant movement. In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83, pp. 141–178.

Pfaff, Alexander (Oct. 1, 2017). Adjectival inflection as diagnostic for structural position: inside and outside the Icelandic definiteness domain. In: The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20.3, pp. 283–322.

Platzack, Christer (Aug. 1987). The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.3, pp. 377–401.

Stroh-Wollin, Ulla & Rico Simke (2014). Strong and weak adjectives in Old Swedish. In: Adjectives in Germanic and Romance. Ed. by Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde & Harry Perridon. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 95–112.