Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T18:12:22.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness, participation and grammatical paradigms: Jakobson and Hjelmslev revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2012

Eva Skafte Jensen
Eva Skafte Jensen*
Affiliation:
The Danish Language Council, H.C. Andersens Boulevard 2, DK-1553 København V, Denmark. esj@dsn.dk
Get access

Abstract

The topic of this paper is markedness theory as initially developed in early works by Jakobson and Hjelmslev. The aim is to show how this early theory is (still) useful in the analysis of language-particular grammatical paradigms, and, further, to investigate which aspects of this early theory of markedness might still benefit from further refinements. One major point of this paper is to reinforce the notion of participation (a term originally suggested by Hjelmslev) as crucial in the understanding of markedness theory. Another major point is to show how the markedness relations of a paradigm depend not only on the members of the paradigm in question but also on the contexts in which the members of the paradigm are being used. Examples from Modern Danish grammar are given as illustration. The approach is functional-structural in the sense of Engberg-Pedersen et al. (1996).

Keywords

DanishfunctionalismgrammarHjelmslevJakobsonmarkednessparadigmsparticipationstructuralism
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 2012 , pp. 145 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of 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

Ågerup, Anita Maj. 1996. Nominale ledsætninger med helsætningsordstilling i det danske talesprog. En syntaktisk og semantisk-pragmatisk analyse. MA thesis, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2001a. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Andersen (ed.), 225–248.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2001b. Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In Andersen (ed.), 21–57.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning (ed.). 2001c. Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2008. Naturalness and markedness. In Willems, Klaus & de Cuypere, Ludovic (eds.), Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, 101–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Torben. 1982. Modalpartikler og deres funktion i dansk. Danske Studier 1982, 86–95.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2003. Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26, 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2008. Stød, diachrony and the non-stød model. Nowele 54/55, 147–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistella, Edwin. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjerrum, Anders. 1966. Grammatik over Skånske Lov efter B 74. København.Google Scholar
Bußmann, Hadumod. 1983. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.Google Scholar
Christensen, Tanya [Karoli]. 2002. Det funktionelle paradigmebegreb. MA thesis, Roskilde Universitetscenter.Google Scholar
Christensen, Tanya Karoli. 2007. Hyperparadigmer. En undersøgelse af paradigmatiske samspil i danske modussystemer. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetscenter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cramer, Jens, Henriksen, Lars Anton, Kunøe, Mette, Larsen, Erik Vive, Togeby, Ole & Widell, Peter. 1996. 699 varme termer. Leksikon til sprogkundskab. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1946 [1987]. Elementær Dansk Grammatik, 3rd edn.København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dubois, Betty Lou. 1989. Pseudoquotation in current English communication: “Hey, she didn't really say it”. Language in Society 18, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durst-Andersen, Per. 1996. Russian case as mood. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4 (2), 177–273.Google Scholar
Durst-Andersen, Per & Herslund, Michael. 1996. The syntax of Danish verbs: Lexical and syntactic transitivity. In Engberg-Pedersen et al. (eds.), 65–102.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, ElisabethFortescue, Michael, Harder, Peter, Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster (eds.). 1996. Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 429–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1995. Trends in Phonological Theory Until 1975: A Historical Introduction (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 27). København: C. A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1997. Roman Jakobson and Denmark. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 29, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter. 1999. Wortbegriff und Nomen-Verben-Verbindungen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18 (2), 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 84–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Givón, T[almy]. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Language, 58–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans. 1991. Sociolingvistikkens (u)mulighed. København: Tiderne Skifter.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1927. Bestemt og ubestemt substantiv. Bidrag til dansk substantivsyntaks, vol. I. Kjøbenhavn: Arnold Busck.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1967. Moderne dansk, vol. II. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab & Grafisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 2006. Dæmonernes port, 5th edn.København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 1990. En plads til sprogvidenskabens hittebørn. Om talesprog og sætningsskema. In Jacobsen, Henrik Galberg (ed.), Selskab for nordisk Filologi: Årsberetning 1987–1989, 26–45. København: B. Stougaard Jensen.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1934 [1972]. Sprogsystem og sprogforandring (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 15). Copenhague: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935. La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale 1 (Acta Jutlandica 7.1). Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget. [2nd edn. 1972, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.]Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1937. La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale 2 (Acta Jutlandica 9.2). Aarhus & København: Universitetsforlaget og Levin & Munksgaard. [2nd edn. 1972, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.]Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1939. Note sur les oppositions supprimables. Essais linguistiques (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 12), 82–88. Copenhague: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In Jakobson (1971), 3–15.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In Jakobson (1971), 23–71.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2000. Danske sætningsadverbialer og topologi i diakron belysning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2002. On the development of Danish sentence adverbials. In Jansen, Hanne, Polito, Paola, Schøsler, Lene & Strudsholm, Erling (eds.), L'infinito & oltre. Omaggio a Gunver Skytte, 463–480. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2007. Der var engang en mand – om markeret og umarkeret artikelbrug i moderne dansk og gammeldansk. In Jørgensen, Henrik & Widell, Peter (eds.), Det bedre argument. Festskrift til Ole Togeby, 299–320. Århus: Forlaget Wessel & Huitfeldt, & Nordisk Institut.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2009. Markeret hvad angår hvad? Om markerethedsteori i grammatikken. In Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster, Jansen, Hanne, Jensen, Eva Skafte & Strudsholm, Erling (eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik (Fællespublikation 16), 171–190. Odense: Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2011. Nominativ i gammelskånsk – afvikling og udviklinger. København & Odense: Universitets-Jubilæets danske Samfund & Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Jensen, Per Anker. 1985. Principper for grammatisk analyse. København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag & Arnold Busck.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Henrik. 2000. Studien zur Morphologie und Syntax der festlandskandinavischen Personalpronomina – mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Dänischen (Acta Jutlandica LXXV:2, Humanities Series 73). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, Kathrine Thisted. 2010. Når verber mister tryk. Valens og aspektualitet i forbindelse med inkorporation og tryksvage verber i dansk. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 125, 155–181.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard. 1991. Unit accentuation as an expression device for predicate formation in Danish? Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 23, 145–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard & Herslund, Michael (eds.). 2002. Complex Predicates and Incorporation – A Functional Perspective (Travaux de Cercle de Linguistique de Copenhague 32). København: C. A.Reitzel.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58 (4), 832–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1931. Die phonologischen Systeme. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4, 96–116. [Reprint 1968, Nendeln/Lichtenstein: Kraus Print.]Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7, 4th impression, 1958). Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1969. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wiwel, H. G. 1901. Synspunkter for dansk Sproglære. København: Det nordiske Forlag.Google Scholar