Hans-Olav Enger

Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement

This paper deals with Scandinavian sentences where the predicative adjective apparently disagrees with its subject, such as pannekaker er godt ‘pancakes-pl. is good-neut.sg.’, vodka er sunt ‘vodka-masc. is healthy-neut.sg.’. In this paper, the use of neuter in such sentences is seen as a case of semantic agreement. Thereby, pancake sentences comply with Corbetts (1979) agreement hierarchy. The controllers in pancake sentences are low on the individuation scale. This is the reason why they are neuters. The controllers in pancake sentences are mirror-images of the controllers in more well-known examples of semantic agreement. Not only morphosyntax but also semantics, pragmatics and discourse play a role in agreement.

Scandinavian pancake sentences revisited

This paper defends the analysis of Scandinavian ‘pancake sentences’ as semantic or referential agreement (Enger 2004). Alternative analyses assuming that pancake sentences are to be analysed as syntactic agreement (Josefsson 2009), have some drawbacks. Notably, the distinction between different kinds of gender is not well motivated; the connection between different uses of the neuter is lost, and the use of ‘light verbs’ and of invisible elements is problematic. The referential agreement analysis, in combination with the Agreement Hierarchy, yields diachronic predictions that turn out to be correct; the syntactic analysis does not yield anything equivalent. Furthermore, the agreement pattern for very ‘general’ nouns follows more naturally under the referential agreement analysis.

Do affixes have meaning? Polarity in the Toten dialect of Norwegian meets morphological theory

In many approaches to morphology, an affirmative answer to the question in the title is more or less taken for granted. Within what one might refer to as ‘morpheme-based’ approaches, a central idea is that affixes and stems are both morphemes. However, in the ‘word-based’ school, including such scholars as Anderson (1992), Beard (1995), Stump (2001) and Spencer (2001, 2003), the answer is not equally obvious. This tradition takes the word—the lexeme—as its major unit, and it has been quite influential among morphologists, for good reasons. Within this tradition, much emphasis has been placed on certain differences between affixes and stems, including their semantics.1 There are different positions within this school, but the most radical position is that affixes basically are semantically empty. Thus, Beard (1995:20) says quite explicitly that affixes “bear no semantic content” and that bound grammatical morphemes “have no semantic or grammatical content” (Beard 1995:69). Summing up so far, there are two possible extreme positions:

Definiteness, Gender, and Hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian Dialects

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 requirements 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

A possible constraint on non-affixal inflection☆

Starting out from observational gaps in the Norwegian verb inflection, a constraint is suggested on non-affixal inflection. A previous suggestion is shown not to suffice. A revised version, the Stem Alternation Constraint, is suggested. This constraint seems empirically adequate when confronted with examples from German, Italian and Polish. Theoretical implications are considered. The constraint indicates that paradigms are organised, that Bybees notion of autonomy is useful, and that non-affixal inflection is not a ragbag of isolated facts without theoretical interest.

Constraints on diachronic development: the Animacy Hierarchy and the Relevance Constraint

Abstract The present paper investigates language change in the categories of Number, Gender, Case and Definiteness from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. On the basis of data from Germanic and Slavic, as well as from Greek, Breton, Spanish and Persian, it is claimed that the observed changes are constrained by the Animacy Hierarchy and what we call the Relevance Constraint, which says that language change targets the part of the lexicon where the categories in question are most relevant for human experience and the changes do not make any ‘leaps’ along the Hierarchy. It is suggested that animacy and relevance presuppose a linguistic theory based on embodiment and construal, such as cognitive linguistics.

The No Blur Principle and Faroese conjugation

Abstract The paper presents the approach referred to as the ›No Blur Principle‹ (NBP), aka ›Vocabular Clarity‹. This approach can account for an otherwise unexpected case of diachronic productivity in Faroese verb conjugation, viz. the spreading of the suffix -i in the present tense 3rd sg., not associated with the largest class. Even if the NBP is meant as a synchronic restriction, the paper shows some consequences for diachrony – yielding the right ›predictions‹ (in a weak sense of the word). Given the NBP analysis of Old Norse, there is a good reason why the suffix -a, at first sight a much better candidate for productivity (as it is associated with a more type-frequent class than -i), could not spread – at least not without extensive ›reshuffling‹ of the affixes first; no such reshuffling was necessary for the spreading of -i, which was the ›class-default‹ affix anyway. The traditional account of the spreading of Faroese -i,which goes back to Rask (1811, p. 279), has it that this spreading is due to influence from the subjunctive. This is problematic, because one would not normally expect affixes to spread from the subjunctive to the indicative, and because a similar development in some few dialects of Norwegian cannot plausibly be accounted for along such lines. While the NBP account does not exclude Rask’s hypothesis, it can help us overcome these problems. The fact that the NBP helps us answer questions of productivity must count in its favour, and some other arguments in its favour are also marshalled. The Faroese development also shows that productivity for affixes and words need not behave in identical fashion; thus supporting a theoretical distinction. Thanks to audiences in Oslo (ICHL 21, August 2013), Zürich (Doktorierendenkolloquium Linguistik, October 2013), Copenhagen (Dano-Norwegian seminar on historical linguistics, January 2014), Tromsø (NORKOG, June 2014), Bergen (Forskergruppe nordisk språkvitenskap, September 2014), and Berlin (Freie Universität, December 2014), in particular to Tore Nesset, Helge Sandøy and Horst Simon. Very helpful comments on written versions have been given by Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Oda Røste Odden, Arne Torp and two anonymous PBB referees. Thanks for saving me from a number of embarrassing mistakes. Remaining weaknesses are my own.

Vocabular Clarity meets Faroese noun declensions

Abstract The No Blur Principle (NBP) or Vocabulary Clarity (VC) approach (Carstairs- McCarthy 1994, 2010) is a possible restriction on the behaviour of inflectional affixes (grammatical units), originally motivated by an analogy with words (lexical units). The restriction is grounded in synonymy avoidance, in the observation that “Every two forms contrast in meaning” (Clark 1993) and in behaviour in multivocabular situations, where speakers have more than one vocabulary although they have only one grammar (e.g. Dyirbal, Javanese). There have not been many suggestions for restrictions on the behaviour of affixes in the morphological literature, so the approach deserves attention. In this article, the NBP or VC-approach is applied to Faroese noun declensions. While these Faroese data seem problematic at first, it is argued that they can be perfectly accommodated within the NBP/ VC-aproach.

Vocabular Clarity and insular Scandinavian: A response to Ϸorgeirsson

In his article “Testing Vocabular Clarity in insular Scandinavian”, Haukur Þorgeirsson (HT) discusses the analysis of Faroese noun inflection presented in Enger (2013a). It is rewarding to see that the NBP/VC motivates careful consideration of alternative analyses and additional facts. HT raises valid questions and interesting challenges, including issues that were not dealt with in sufficient detail by Enger (2013a); yet I cannot agree with his main conclusions. Given space limitations, this reply will concentrate on some central points of disagreement (rather than on issues where I must simply stand corrected). These points include the analysis of the genitive (where there seems to be a misunderstanding), issues of segmentation, and how to deal with zeroes. The issue of zeroes also leads me to suggest that one previously accepted counter-example is perhaps not quite as strong as it may seem.

David Fertig: Analogy and morphological change

This is the first volume in “a series of advanced textbooks on language change and comparative linguistics ... aimed at advanced undergraduates in Linguistics and students in language departments, as well as beginning postgraduates ... Volumes in the series are serious and scholarly university textbooks, theoretically informed and substantive in content”, say the series editors. This volume is written by Professor David Fertig of the State University of New York at Buffalo, well known for important studies on German and Germanic morphology. Analogy and morphological change lives up to the editors’ intentions in containing a wealth of interesting material and valuable discussion. Fertig’s enthusiasm and erudition make for a nice read. He manages to show why morphological change is theoretically important and why the view of analogy as a “wastebasket” is hasty. Fertig’s own preferences are for a paradigmatic and fairly concrete model of morphology, but he tries admirably hard to be balanced and fair, and does not give the impression that everything, including the wheel, has been invented recently. The book contains thought-provoking discussions and difficult theoretical questions that relate to analogy and morphological change, never settled by a mere couple of facts. It is also nice to see sociolinguistic insights incorporated. I have not had the opportunity to test Analogy and morphological change on students yet, but I would like to try; the book should prove inspiring, as Fertig is so good at pointing out research problems. There are some imperfections, naturally, and it is in the nature of things that most of this review deals with them rather than with the many good points. On some points (see below), Fertig expects a lot from the reader: not all discussions are equally clear, and sometimes there seems to be some internal inconsistency in the book; it is not always perfectly edited, and I sometimes wonder if the author is actually changing his mind between chapters. The Neogrammarian Hermann Paul is the most quoted linguist in this book, and if one scholar is Fertig’s “hero”, Paul is – other much quoted names include Paul Kiparsky, Henning Andersen, Joan Bybee, Martin Haspelmath, Brian Joseph and, more unexpectedly, the nineteenth-century linguist Benjamin I. Wheeler. In