Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T20:11:54.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the history of definiteness marking in Scandinavian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2009

JAN TERJE FAARLUND
JAN TERJE FAARLUND*
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, University of Oslo
*
Author's address: Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1020Blindern, NO-0315Oslo, Norwayj.t.faarlund@iln.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The definite article in many European languages has its origin in a demonstrative or a pronoun. The development into a definite article is a typical case of grammaticalization. In this article I will demonstrate that this kind of grammaticalization, like all kinds of grammaticalization, can be explained as a case of reduction through reanalysis at acquisition. In addition to the prenominal definite article shared with other Germanic languages, the Scandinavian languages also have a postposed definite article. In Old Norse the postnominal definite article is a clitic merged as a head in D, while in its modern descendent Norwegian it is an inflectional suffix checking a grammatical feature in the Infl domain, expressing definiteness within the DP according to general principles of agreement. Thus, so-called ‘double definiteness’ (den gamle hesten ‘the old horse.def’) has become possible as an agreement phenomenon. In Old Norse, the clitic cannot trigger definiteness agreement. This change from a clitic to an inflectional suffix is obviously a case of grammaticalization, but it has wider implications than just the change of morphosyntactic status. ON is shown to have had two projections in the D domain (þau in stóru skip ‘those the large ships’). Later the independent definite article inn was lost and replaced by the demonstrative þann>den. As a result (or cause?) its projection was lost, and the postposed article was left without a free-word counterpart. This, combined with phonological reduction and semantic bleaching, reduced it to an inflectional suffix.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 617 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I want to thank Werner Abraham, Hans-Olav Enger, Volker Gast, Elly van Gelderen, Terje Lohndal and two anonymous JL referees for valuable comments and suggestions. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the workshop New Perspectives on Morphological Change at the Freie Universität Berlin in October 2006, and at the workshop Issues in Comparative Germanic Morphosyntax at the Università di Napoli “Federico II” in May 2007. I am grateful for the input from the participants at those events.

References

OLD NORSE SOURCES

Bárð, (1350): Vigfússon, Guðbrandur (ed.), Barðarsaga Snæfellsáss [Nordiske Oldskrifter 27]. Copenhagen 1860.Google Scholar
Barl, (1275): Rindal, M. (ed.), Barlaams ok Josaphats saga. Oslo 1981.Google Scholar
Gunnl, (1300): Jónsson, Finnur (ed.), Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu. Copenhagen 1916.Google Scholar
Hkr, (1300–1700): Jónsson, Finnur (ed.), Heimskringla [Noregs konunga sögur af Snorri Sturluson I–IV]. Copenhagen 1893–1901.Google Scholar
Hóm, (1200): Indrebø, Gustav (ed.), Gamal norsk homiliebok. Oslo 1931.Google Scholar
Nj, (1300): Jónsson, Finnur (ed.), Brennu-Njálssaga (Njála). Halle 1908.Google Scholar

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner. 2007. The discourse-functional crystallization of the historically original demonstrative. In Stark, et al. (eds.), 239–254.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2007. On the interface between (double) definiteness, aspect, and word order in Old and Modern Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 17–44.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2005. On the handbook of historical linguistics. Diachronica 22, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti. 1998. Feature distribution in Swedish noun phrases. Oxford: Publications of the Philological Society.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Harries, Pauline. 2008. The development of Scandinavian bound definiteness marking and the clitic–affix distinction. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 20, 289–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Lund.Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge J. J. 1979. Omkring fremveksten av artiklene i norsk. Språklig markering av referensielle forutsetninger. Maal og Minne, 40–78.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2003. Skandinavisk -s(t) en gang til: grammatikalisering fra klitikon til avledningsaffiks. In Faarlund, Jan Terje (ed.), Språk i endring. Indre nosk språkhistorie, 29–56. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2004. The syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2005. From clitic to affix: On the history of Scandinavian reflexive verbs. NOWELE 46/47, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2008. A mentalist interpretation of grammaticalization theory. In Eythorsson, Thórallur (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, 221–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron L. 1998. Clitics. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 101–122. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37, 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16, 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Some problems in a theory of clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Allison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet. 2005a. Sounds definite-ly clitic: Evidence from Scandinavian tone. Presented at the Workshop on Weak Words, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Allison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet. 2005b. Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28, 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2007. On the structure and development of nominal phrases in Norwegian. In Stark, et al. (eds.), 285–308.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1903. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ottosson, Kjartan G. 2008. The Old Nordic middle voice in the pre-literary period: Questions of grammaticalisation and cliticisation. In Josephson, Folke & Söhrman, Ingmar (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, 185–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1999. Clitics: A state-of-the-art report. In Riemsdijk, Henk van (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 1–30. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian. 2006. Morpho-syntax of the Germanic Noun Phrase: Determiners move into the Determiner Phrase. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sandström, Görel & Holmberg, Anders. 1994. Adjective Incorporation and the syntax of the Scandinavian noun phrase. Department of General Linguistics, University of Umeå. Report 35, 81–97.Google Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth, Leiss, Elisabeth & Abraham, Werner (eds.). 2007. Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein. 1999. The identification of functional architecture. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univesity Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59, 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar