Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:02:07.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definiteness, Gender, and Hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian Dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2012

Hans-Olav Enger  and
Greville G. Corbett
Hans-Olav Enger*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Greville G. Corbett*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
*
Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo, PO Box 1102 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway, [h.o.enger@iln.uio.no]
Surrey Morphology Group, School of English and Languages, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, Great Britain, [g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In some Norwegian dialects, such as older Oslo dialect, the noun mamma ‘mother’ unexpectedly appears to be masculine. The Nordreisa dialect (Northern Norwegian) goes one step further. The word looks like it is masculine, but only in the definite form. This is an unusual “split” because gender mixture is normally based on number, not definiteness (but we find some few corroborative examples in other Norwegian dialects and different, but converging evidence on the Web). The Nordreisa example of mamma is unusual also because agreement targets are affected differently. The preference is for masculine agreement within the noun phrase, but for feminine agreement outside it. This is, therefore, an intriguing example since it combines a split based on definiteness with different gender require-ments according to different agreement targets. On careful analysis, and given strict adherence to the classical, agreement-based definition of gender, the unusual behavior of mamma turns out to conform to the Agreement Hierarchy.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , 19 November 2012 , pp. 287 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2012

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Audring, Jenny. 2006. Pronominal gender in spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18. 85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology. 2nd edn.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beito, Olav T. 1954. Genusskifte i nynorsk. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 1999. Gender in North Germanic: A diasystematic and functional approach. Unterbeck, et al., 25–53.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection class, gender and the principle of contrast. Language 70. 737–788.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, & Greville, G. Corbett (eds.). 1993. The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15. 203–224.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1986. Anaphoric relations in English and French: A discourse perspective. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1999. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. Unterbeck, et al., 99–115.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, & Maria, Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 2006. The resilient dative and other remarkable cases in Scandinavian vernaculars. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 59. 56–75.Google Scholar
Dost, Ascander, & Vera, Gribanova. 2006. Definiteness marking in the Bulgarian [sic]. Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Baumer, Donald, Montero, David, & Scanlon, Michael, 132–140. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. (www.lingref.com, document #1441.)Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2005. Definite articles. The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures, ch. 37. http://wals.info, accessed on July 11, 2011.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2002. Stundom er ein sigar berre ein sigar: Problem i studiet av leksikalsk genus. Maal og Minne 2. 135–152.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav.. 2004a. Tre endringer i det skandinaviske genussystemet i lys av grammatikaliseringsteori. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 119. 125–147.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav.. 2004b. On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language 28. 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2005. Do affixes have meaning? Polarity in the Toten dialect of Norwegian meets morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, ed. by Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap, 27–47. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein, Lie, & Kjell, Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1993. Macedonian. Comrie & Corbett 1993, 249–305.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, & David, Zubin. 1996. Prinzipien für die Genus-zuweisung im Deutschen. Deutsch-typologisch, ed. by Lang, Ewald & Zifonun, Gisela, 473–491. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsæth, Else Marie. 2010. En velskapt og våken lita jente: om tvilsomme fraser og akseptabel språkbruk. Unpublished student paper, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian. 2008. Deklinationsklassen-Wandel: Eine diachron-kontrastive Studie zur Entwicklung der Pluralallomorphie im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen (Studia Linguistica Germanica. 92). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lamb, William. 2008. Scottish Gaelic speech and writing: Register variation in an endangered language (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics, 16). Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Levang, Synnøve. 2003. Variasjon i bjerkreimsdialekten. Unpublished student paper, University of Stavanger.Google Scholar
Lie, Svein. 1986. Morfologi—noen tendenser i nyere forskning. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 4. 3–24.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2011a. Norwegian possessive pronouns: Phrases, words, or suffixes? Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy, 339–359. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2011b. Hvor mange genus er det i Oslo-dialekten? Maal og Minne 2. 120–137.Google Scholar
Marković, Svetozar V. 1954. O kolebljivosti slaganja u rodu kod imenica čiji se prirodni i gramatički rod ne slažu (i o rodu ovih imenica). Pitanja Književnosti i Jezika (Sarajevo) 1. 87–110.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2006. Gender meets the usage-based model. Lingua 116. 1369–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolova, Ruselina. 2008. Bǎlgarska gramatika: Morfologija. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski.”Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2005. Forschungsperspektive zur Nominalmorphologie deutsche Dialekte. Moderne Dialekte—Neue Dialektologie, ed. by Eggers, Eckhard, Erich Schmidt, Jürgen, & Stellmacher, Dieter, 45–87. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Opsahl, Toril. 2009. “Egentlig alle kan bidra!” En samling sosiolingvistiske studier av strukturelle trekk ved norsk i multietniske ungdomsmiljøer i Oslo. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Popova, Guergana. 2000. Towards an HPSG account of the Bulgarian definite article. Proceedings of the Fifth ESSLLI Student Session, ed. by Pilière, Catherine, 220–231. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Rice, Curt. 1997. Prosodic output constraints on gender assignment: The problem of dual gender in Norwegian. Handout at the conference “Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages,” Philipps-Universität, Marburg.Google Scholar
Rice, Curt. 2006. Optimizing gender. Lingua 116. 1394–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Hans. 1908. Norske bygdemaal VII–XI. Christiania [Oslo]: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Scatton, Ernest A. 1993. Bulgarian. Comrie & Corbett 1993, 188–248.Google Scholar
Sollid, Hilde. 2005. Språkdannelse og stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk (Tromsø-Studier i Språkvitenskap 24). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Stoykova, Velislava. 2002. Bulgarian noun—Definite article in DATR. Artificial intelligence: Methodology, systems, and applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2002, vol. 2443/2002, 163–183.Google Scholar
Stoykova, Velislava. 2004. The definite article of Bulgarian adjectives and numerals in DATR. Artificial intelligence: Methodology, systems, and applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2004, vol. 3192/2004, 256–266.Google Scholar
Svanlund, Jan. 2001. Metaforen som konvention: Graden av bildlighet i svenskans viktoch tyngdmetaforer. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2009. Constraining gender assignment rules. Language Sciences 31. 14–32.Google Scholar
Trosterud, Trond. 2001. Genustilordning i norsk er regelstyrt. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 19. 29–58.Google Scholar
Unterbeck, Barbara, Matti, Rissanen, Terttu, Nevalainen, & Mirja, Saari (eds.). 1999. Gender in grammar and cognition I: Approaches to gender II: Manifestations of gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji. 1975. Animate concord in Northeast Coastal Bantu: Its linguistic and social implications as a case of grammatical convergence. Studies in African Linguistics 6. 267–314.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1986. Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39. 76–96.Google Scholar