# Swedish: Det tas kontakter



## kfz2010

In the following sentence:

"*Det *tas *kontakter *med stora industrier, gymnasieskolor har även kommit i fokus och högskolor och universitet, säger Morell."

Why there are two subjects here, "det" and "kontakter"?

Thanks.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I'm not good at expressing language using proper terminology, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I don't think they're both subjects, the second is a set verb phrase: (Att) "Ta kontakt". Unfortunately I couldn't tell you why we sometimes use "ta kontakt" and sometimes "kontakta", but either way it isn't a subject.

And to clarify:

"Contacts" can be nouns. "He's my contact in Amsterdam" for example. But it's also a verb - "I contacted my friend in Amsterdam." You could even say "I contacted my contact in Amsterdam". Same in Swedish.

"*Det *tas *kontakter *med"
"Contacts are made with.." or "Contacts are established with" etc.


----------



## kfz2010

Thanks Mattias.

As said, it is "contacts are made with...", that corresponds to "tas kontakter med" I think, but there is the additional "Det", so the question would be, why do we need the "*det*" here? And what function does it play in the sentence?


----------



## Den falska sköldpaddan

This question is at the heart of good Swedish syntax, and it deserves an elaborate answer. Putting it briefly, we say and write _Det tas kontakter med stora industrier _because it sounds better. Impersonal constructions like this are very common in Swedish.

It is perfectly correct to say _Kontakter tas med stora industrier_, but it sounds stilted. Similarly, for "A bird is sitting in the tree", we say _Det sitter en fågel i trädet_. One would not expect to hear the correct but unusual sentence _En fågel sitter i trädet_.


----------



## AutumnOwl

I think "det" here is a "dummy pronoun", similar to "it" in English. See: Dummy pronoun - Wikipedia


----------



## MattiasNYC

Den falska sköldpaddan said:


> This question is at the heart of good Swedish syntax, and it deserves an elaborate answer. Putting it briefly, we say and write _Det tas kontakter med stora industrier _because it sounds better. Impersonal constructions like this are very common in Swedish.
> 
> It is perfectly correct to say _Kontakter tas med stora industrier_, but it sounds stilted. Similarly, for "A bird is sitting in the tree", we say _Det sitter en fågel i trädet_. One would not expect to hear the correct but unusual sentence _En fågel sitter i trädet_.



Yeah, curious....

"*Det bjuds på* tårta ser jag!"
"*Det sägs att *gräddtårta är bra för musklerna..."

etc... (damn I'm hungry)...


----------



## Ben Jamin

AutumnOwl said:


> I think "det" here is a "dummy pronoun", similar to "it" in English. See: Dummy pronoun - Wikipedia


It is a dummy subject, not dummy pronoun. There    is no such thing as dummy pronoun.


----------



## myšlenka

kfz2010 said:


> [...] but there is the additional "Det", so the question would be, why do we need the "*det*" here? And what function does it play in the sentence?





AutumnOwl said:


> I think "det" here is a "dummy pronoun", similar to "it" in English. See: Dummy pronoun - Wikipedia


Just to add to AutumnOwl's correct observation that we are dealing with a dummy pronoun here, the function of the additional *det* is that of the _syntactic_ subject. In Swedish, all sentences (with the exception of imperatives) need to have a pronounced subject and that position is usually filled by the noun that expresses who/what is performing the act described by the verb. If that noun is missing for whatever reason, we need something else to fill the subject position of the sentence. This can be done by moving the object of the verb (and possibly the indirect object) to the subject position, but it can also be filled with a dummy subject *det*. Typical types of constructions where this is an option are:
- in a subset of intransitive verbs such as _komma, försvinna, sjunka_ etc where what we usually think of as the subject, is more object-like.
- in passive phrases (like the sentence in the OP). Some other examples are given by MattiasNYC in #6.
- weather verbs like _snöa, regna, blåsa_ etc.


Ben Jamin said:


> It is a dummy subject, not dummy pronoun. There    is no such thing as dummy pronoun.


Ontological claims about what exists and what doesn't exist will obviously depend on the level of analysis. Pronouns exist so why not dummy pronouns? Although I prefer the term _dummy subject_ in this case because we are dealing with a syntactic requirement in Swedish, the term _dummy pronoun_ (though equally valid for the case at hand) may serve in a more general discussion about non-referential pronouns regardless of their syntactic position.


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> Ontological claims about what exists and what doesn't exist will obviously depend on the level of analysis. Pronouns exist so why not dummy pronouns? Although I prefer the term _dummy subject_ in this case because we are dealing with a syntactic requirement in Swedish, the term _dummy pronoun_ (though equally valid for the case at hand) may serve in a more general discussion about non-referential pronouns regardless of their syntactic position.


Can you give an example of a dummy pronoun, not related to the syntactic position?


----------



## Segorian

Ben Jamin said:


> Can you give an example of a dummy pronoun, not related to the syntactic position?


_Dummy subject_ is the term I'm used to, but the label _dummy pronoun_ is useful if we admit that such a pronoun can also have the role of object, for example in phrases such as _She's made it as a singer!_ or _Get it?_


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> Can you give an example of a dummy pronoun, not related to the syntactic position?


I did not make any claims about dummy pronouns not being related to a syntactic position. In a sentence, they will naturally occupy some syntactic position, but insisting that they are necessarily dummy _subjects_ misses what Segorian points out in 10#:


Segorian said:


> _Dummy subject_ is the term I'm used to, but the label _dummy pronoun_ is useful if we admit that such a pronoun can also have the role of object, for example in phrases such as _She's made it as a singer!_ or _Get it?_


And to add some examples from Swedish where the bolded pronoun can be classified as a dummy pronoun:
_Hur har du *det*?_ 
_Vi tog *det* lugnt._

(I hope it works in Swedish. If not, Norwegian will point to the same thing).


----------



## Ben Jamin

What makes these promouns "dummy"?


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> What makes these promouns "dummy"?


Is there a point you want to make or are you just curious? To find an answer to your question, you can read the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry in the link provided by AutumnOwl in #5. But then, we will have gone full circle as this was precisely what you seemed to take issue with in #7.


----------



## Segorian

Ben Jamin said:


> What makes these promouns "dummy"?


Only, I believe, the fact that they are used as dummy subjects in these particular instances. I can see the logic in resisting the label “dummy pronoun” on the grounds that the words in question have no characteristics or properties that make them “dummy” _per se_. A dummy pronoun is only dummy insofar as it is used as a dummy subject. (And now I won't be able to use the word dummy for a while.)


----------

