Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:09:20.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Null Referential Subjects in Övdalian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2010

Henrik Rosenkvist
Henrik Rosenkvist*
Affiliation:
Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature, Helgonabacken 12, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden. Henrik.Rosenkvist@nordlund.lu.se
Get access

Abstract

This article is concerned with the description and analysis of Övdalian referential null subjects. A general background to Övdalian is provided together with the syntactic restrictions on the possible null subjects (wįð ‘we’ and ið ‘you’). Interestingly, these null subjects in Övdalian do not appear in the same syntactic positions. This syntactic difference leads us to the conclusion that the distribution of the two possible null subjects must be explained individually. I argue here that the syntactic restrictions indicate that null wįð requires a link to the surrounding context in order to be identified, whereas the identification of null ið seems to be dependent on the agreement affix. I build on the proposal of Koeneman (2006), and argue that affixes may have pronominal properties, proposing that this gives an explanation as to why null ið is not restricted in the same fashion as null wįð. Finally, Övdalian is discussed in a wider Germanic context, and it is shown that Övdalian is one of a small number of non-standard Germanic languages which allow referential null subjects.

Keywords

null subjectsÖvdaliansyntax
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 2010 , pp. 231 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2010

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

Ackema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike & Weerman, Fred. 2006a. The role of agreement in the expression of arguments. In Ackema et al. (eds.), 1–34.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike & Weerman, Fred (eds.). 2006b. Arguments and Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Åkerberg, Bengt. 2000. Ulum Dalska: Grammatik 2000. Lecture notes.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2006. Uniform and non-uniform aspects of pro-drop languages. In Ackema et al. (eds.), 127–158.Google Scholar
Axel, Katrin & Weiß, Helmut. To appear. Pro-drop in the History of German. From Old High German to the modern dialects. In Gallman, Peter & Wratil, Melani (eds.), Empty pronouns. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2009. Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63 (1), 2–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Joseph. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3, 209–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2010. Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. In Biberauer et al. (eds.), 153–199.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian & Sheehan, Michelle (eds.). 2010. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Björklund, Stig. 1956. Älvdalsmålet i Johannis Prytz’ comoedia. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Björklund, Stig. 1958. Gammalt och nytt i Älvdalsmålet. Älvdalens sockens historia V, 149–193. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1986. I-subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 375–416.Google Scholar
Brännström, Edvin. 1933. En syntaktisk egendomlighet i norrländska dialekter. Nysvenska Studier 13, 112–127.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Katrin. 1995. Null subjects and clitics in Zürich German. In Penner, Zvi (ed.), Topics in Swiss German Syntax, 59–72. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cooper, Katrin & Engdahl, Elisabeth. 1989. Null subjects in Zürich German. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 31–44.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & van Koppen, Marjo. 2006. Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialect: Big DP's and coordinations. Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects. http://www.dialectsyntax.org/index.php/dialect-syntax-archive-mainmenu-66 (28 September 2010).Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2005. Att sätta älvdalskan på kartan. Första konferensen om älvdalska. http://www.nordiska.uu.se/arkiv/konferenser/alvdalska/konferensrapport.htm (14 April 2010).Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2009. Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: The case of Elfdalian and Swedish. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 50–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Marja. 2006. The resilient dative and other remarkable cases in Scandinavian vernaculars. STUF 59 (1), 56–75.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3), 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M. Eugenia. 2000. The loss of the ’Avoid Pronoun’ principle in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, Mary & Negrão, Esmeralda (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, 17–36. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert-IberoAmericana.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 1998. On verb-second violations in Swedish and the hierarchical ordering of adverbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 61, 1–22.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25 (4), 691–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The Rise of Agreement. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbacz, Piotr. 2006. Verb movement and negation in Övdalian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 78, 173–190.Google Scholar
Garbacz, Piotr. 2010. Word order in Övdalian. Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Gary. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Givón, T.Syntax, vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haag-Merz, Christine. 1996. Pronomen in Schwäbischen – Syntax und Erwerb. Ph.D. dissertation. Marburg: Tectum Verlag.Google Scholar
de Haan, Germen. 1994. Inflection and cliticization in Frisian. NOWELE 23, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane (ed.). 1997. The New Comparative Syntax. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica 41, 279–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, David. 2008. Subjektsutelämning och subjektsplacering i fornsvenska. Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
Hallberg, Göran. 2005. Dialects and regional linguistic varieties in the 20th century I: Sweden and Finland. In Bandle, Oskar, Braunmüller, Kurt, Jahr, Ernst Håkon, Karker, Allan, Naumann, Hans Peter & Teleman, Ulf (eds.), The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 2, 1691–1706. New York & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgander, John. 1996. Mobilitet och språkförändring. Exemplet Övre Dalarna och det vidare perspektivet (Högskolan Dalarna Rapport 3). Falun: Högskolan Dalarna.Google Scholar
Helgander, John. 2005a. Komplexitet, förenkling och utjämning – några tankar kring förändringar i nutida älvdalsmål. In Melander, Björn, Claesson, Görel-Bergman, Josephson, Olle, Larsson, Lennart, Nordberg, Bengt & Östman, Carin (eds.), Språk i tid. Studier tillägnade Mats Thelander på 60-årsdagen, 110–122. Uppsala: Swedish Science Press.Google Scholar
Helgander, John. 2005b. Älvdalsmål i förändring – några reflektioner kring en fallstudie. Första konferensen om älvdalska. http://www.nordiska.uu.se/arkiv/konferenser/alvdalska/konferensrapport.htm (14 April 2010).Google Scholar
Hesselman, Bengt. 1937. Bröllopsdikter på dialekt och några andra dialektdikter från 1600- och 1700-talen. Stockholm: Hugo Gebers.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich. 1997. Pro-drop, clitisering en voegwoordcongruentie in het Westgermaans. Vervoegde Voegwoorden, 68–86. Amsterdam: Meertens Institut.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich & Marácz, László. 1989. On the position of inflection in West-Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 62–75.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2003. Questions, answers, polarity and head movement in Germanic and Finnish. Nordlyd 31 (1), 88–115.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4), 533–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Null subject parameters. In Biberauer et al. (eds.), 88–124.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2008. Liberalizing modals and floating clause boundaries. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 82, 103–130.Google Scholar
Hróarsdottir, Þorbjörg, Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Bentzen, Kristine & Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2007. The afterglow of verb movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 45–75.Google Scholar
Huang, James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Neil. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth. 1989. The null-subject parameter and parametric theory. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2007. Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 103–161.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olof. 2006. Deriving the difference between full and partial pro-drop. In Ackema et al. (eds.), 76–100.Google Scholar
Levander, Lars. 1909. Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna. Ordböjning ock syntax. Stockholm: Norstedt & Söner.Google Scholar
Levander, Lars. 1917. Uppteckning av dialekt. ULMA 396 (13), 10.Google Scholar
Levander, Lars. 1928. Dalmålet, vol. 2. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria 2002. V1 Declaratives in Spoken Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept for Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Näsman, Reinhold. 1733. Historiola Lingvæ Dalecarlicæ. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4, 181–234. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1883. Översättning av Prytz komedi. De svenska landsmålen, Bihang 1, 69–76.Google Scholar
Nyström, Gunnar & Sapir, Yair. 2005. Introduktion till älvdalska. Lecture notes.Google Scholar
Olsson, Ruth. P. 1988. Mumunes Masse. Mora: Wasatryck.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Karl & Pajusalu, Renate. 2004. The conditional in everyday Estonian: Its form and functions. Linguistica Uralica 4, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajusalu, Renate. 2005. Anaphoric pronouns in Spoken Estonian: Crossing the paradigms. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Minimal Reference: The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, 107–134. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer 1998. Svenskans inre grammatik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2003. Agreement and Null Subjects. Nordlyd 31 (2), 326–355.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2004. Agreement and the Person Phrase Hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 73, 83–112.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer & Rosengren, Inger. 1998. On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 177–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. In Reibel, David & Schane, Sanford (eds.), Modern Studies in English, 201–233. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1998. Subject-prodrop in Yiddish. In Bosch, Peter & van der Sandt, Rob (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, 82–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prytz, Johannes. 1622. En Lustigh Comoedia Om then Stormechtige Sweriges. Published by J. A. Lundell in De svenska landsmålen, Bihang 1, 1883.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduard. 1986. The null object in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Silva-Corvalan, Carmen (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, 373–390. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo & Vanelli, Laura. 1982. I pronomi Soggetto in Alcune varietá Romanze. Scritti Linguistici in Onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 121–145. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Martin. 2005. Älvdalska – en önordisk språkö på fastlandet? Första konferensen om älvdalska. http://www.nordiska.uu.se/arkiv/konferenser/alvdalska/konferensrapport.htm (14 April 2010).Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders. 2005. On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer. In Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhentz, Ursula & Koster, Jan (eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 538–553. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Biberauer et al. (eds.), 1–57.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang. W. 1999. Morphology-driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-drop. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik. 1994. Tecken på syntaktisk utveckling i älvdalsmålet under senare tid. BA dissertation, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik. 2006. Null subjects in Övdalian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 78, 141–171.Google Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik. 2007. Subject doubling in Övdalian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 77–102.Google Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik. 2009. Referential null subjects in Germanic languages – an overview. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84, 151–180.Google Scholar
SAG (Svenska Akademiens Grammatik). Ulf Teleman, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. 4 vols. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2009. Hebrew as a partial null-subject language. Studia Linguistica 65, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 1993. Agreement-drop in Old Icelandic. Lingua 89, 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2004. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16, 219–251.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2010. Conditions on argument drop. LingBuzz: lingBuzz/000671 (4 March 2010).Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á & Egerland, Verner. 2009. Impersonal null subjects in Icelandic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63, 158–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. & Maling, Joan. 2010. The Empty Left Edge Condition (ELEC). In Putnam, Michael T. (ed.), Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, 57–84. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steensland, Lars. 2000. Älvdalska. In Vamling, Karina & Svantesson, Jan-Olof (eds.), Världens språk. Lund: Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
Steensland, Lars. 2006. Liten älvdalsk-svensk och svensk-älvdalsk ordbok. Älvdalen: Ulum Dalska.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald. 1978. On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter. Presented at Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald. 2005. Resumptive pronouns, Case and the anti-that-trace effect. Presented at Princeton University.Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein. A. 2007. Pinning down fluctuating grammars. Ms., CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1997. V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses. In Haegeman (ed.), 189–213.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 1998. Syntax des Bairischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1956. Svensk språkhistoria III. NNS 6. Akademitryck, Edsbruk. [Reprinted 1992]Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit. 2005. The Development of Word Order in Norwegian Child Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn, Bentzen, Kristine & Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg. 2007. Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10, 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar