Pan African Medical Journal

Abstract DP-conjunctions with a mismatch in person features call for additional resolution rules to determine the values the agreement target has to copy. Across languages, resolution for person features typically follows a hierarchy of the form 1 $$\succ $$ ≻ 2 $$\succ $$ ≻ 3 —with some well-known exceptions, namely German and Dutch coordinations conjoining 2nd and 3rd person which allow for both agreement options. This paper takes a closer look at resolution agreement in German, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, and Icelandic. The German(ic) anomaly provides evidence for the presence of an underlying binary feature system and the need for set union as a resolution mechanism. The pattern is derived within the framework of Distributed Morphology where vocabulary insertion happens late and is thereby sensitive to decomposed and unified feature sets. Crucial for the account is an independently motivated impoverishment rule that tracks the absence of 1st person inclusive exponents in Germanic.

A generalization that has emerged in the literature on verb clusters in West Germanic languages is that so-called 2-1-3 orders (where verb n selects verb n+1) are absent with core clustering verbs. In this paper we show that Dutch permits 2-1-3 order as an optional variant of the more widely acknowledged 1-2-3 order. The 2-1-3 order is subject to a range of restrictions involving the lexical items in the cluster, the morphological form of these items, whether other elements intervene, and where focus is placed. We argue that these restrictions are best understood if the 2-1-3 order is derived from an underlying 1-2-3 cluster through a post-syntactic inversion rule. This rule shares various properties with other inversion rules but cannot be reduced entirely to a familiar rule type.

AbstractThis paper argues in favor of the hypothesis that there are two definite articles in natural language, a weak article which expresses uniqueness and a strong article which expresses anaphoricity. The study is based on the distribution of definite articles in Icelandic, and they are found to alternate along the same empirical dimension as weak and strong articles in German. Furthermore, the Icelandic pattern manifests a structural interaction which is similar to English do-support, and we refer to it as the-support. We argue that the similarities between do-support and the-support suggest that studies of the two phenomena can benefit from considering them to be related at a deep abstract level. Thus, consequences ensue for the theory of suffixation under adjecency.

AbstractLong extraction, that is, the displacement of a constituent across a clause boundary, is considered a process of broad applicability. This view is challenged by the claim that extracting a phrase from a that-clause into a relative clause is ungrammatical in German. Since the evidence for this claim is extremely limited, we ran three acceptability experiments investigating long extraction in German. As expected from a large range of studies on long extraction in German, long extraction was judged as less acceptable than corresponding sentences without long extraction. Importantly, long extraction was equally acceptable across the three contexts that were tested—relative clauses, embedded questions and main clause questions. Our experiments, thus, show that long extraction applies across different structural contexts in German, as expected if long extraction is a general syntactic process. In addition, this paper presents new evidence concerning the sources of individual variation with regard to the acceptability of long extraction. First, we confirm that long extraction gets less acceptable when going from the South to the North of the German speaking area. Second, we tested whether individual participants differ with regard to how easily they accept non-standard constructions. To this end, we ran an additional experiment on verb-cluster formation, including sentences that are ungrammatical according to prescriptive grammar but that are, nevertheless, accepted by many speakers of German. The acceptability of long extraction correlates with the acceptability of non-standard verb clusters even when regional background is controlled for.

This paper presents a cross-dialectal study of grammatical gender in Norwegian nominal phrases. Specifically, we investigate the decline of the feminine gender in three age groups across seven different dialects. The dialects vary in their morphological richness of gender marking: some dialects traditionally have more distinctive marking of the feminine gender. With an elicited production experiment, we investigate gender marking on the indefinite determiner and the definite suffix. We find that feminine gender is in decline in all dialects, but there are clear differences between the locations and between age groups. The feminine indefinite determiner ei is replaced by the masculine en at different rates and to a different degree in the various dialects. We furthermore find that the feminine definite suffix -a is retained in all locations except for Stavanger. We argue that the decline of the feminine gender can be explained by an interplay between the morphological richness of the given dialect and dialect contact. The former helps to retain the feminine as a separate category, while the latter accelerates the loss of the feminine.

AbstractThis paper investigates the properties of nominal phrases and demonstratives used as verbal anaphora in Norwegian, Danish, English, and Scots-English, e.g. English Can John make good curry? – That he can; Norwegian Anja ligger godt an, det samme gjør Madelène lit. ‘Anja is in a good position, Madelène does the same [thing]’. Following Lødrup (Proceedings of NELS 24, 1994), Houser et al. (Proceedings of WECOL 34, 2007), Bentzen et al. (J Comp Ger Linguist 16:91–125, 2013), these anaphoric expressions are argued to be surface anaphora and to conceal elided vPs. Contrary to previous analyses, the nominal phrases are argued to themselves be contributing meaning beyond the vPs they conceal; they are argued to be overt background arguments for an ellipsis-licensing head with semantics similar to Rooth’s ∼ operator (Nat Lang Semant 1(1):75–116, 1992). The paper also explores cross-linguistic variation in the discourse/antecedence conditions on such anaphora, and their fronting behavior. In Danish and (general) English, such anaphora must generally topicalize, whereas in Norwegian and Scots-English, they can more freely appear in situ (in post-auxiliary position). Developing Mikkelsen’s (J Linguist 51(3):595–643, 2015) analysis of Danish det, this behavior is encoded as a feature [uTop] which must be checked; Norwegian is argued to have more possibilities to check this feature in situ than Danish, while in Scots-English, that is argued to be a propositional anaphor, lacking the relevant feature.

AbstractIn Alemannic dialects of German, [n] is particularly vulnerable to assimilation, deletion, and epenthesis. Although these changes are not necessarily uniform across all Alemannic varieties, the Alemannic dialect areas all exhibit some, if not all, of these processes. In this article, we present data from a diverse array of Alemannic dialects and show that [n] behaves similarly throughout Alemannic, assimilating to the place of following stops, deleting word-finally, and repairing hiatus through epenthesis. We contend that coronal [n] is interacting with so many processes because it is unmarked in terms of place and manner. This paper contributes to the phonological literature on dialectology and Markedness Theory. First, by considering similar processes which occur across multiple Alemannic dialects, we show how Alemannic prefers eliminating or modifying word-final [n]. Second, this analysis gives insight into theories of segment (un)markedness; thus, the data presented in this paper support descriptions of unmarked segments as undergoing assimilation, deletion, and epenthesis, while they challenge markedness accounts by scholars who bar [n] as an epenthetic segment. Third, we provide data for a language family in which one segment undergoes all three processes of assimilation, deletion, and epenthesis; this is unprecedented in the literature on unmarked segments, which typically focuses on languages which possess only one of these three processes.

AbstractThe present paper investigates participial root configurations, i.e. participial clauses that are grammatically independent of a host clause. Unlike previous work, which has focussed on either directive or (non-directive) performative uses of so-called past participles (i.e. participles that have passive and/or perfect(ive) interpretations), the present paper establishes a typology of ‘root participles’ in Germanic and contrasts the properties of four main types: (1) directive (RPdir), (2) expressive (RPexp), (3) commissive (RPcom), (4) representative root participles (RPrep). The main claim with respect to the properties of these distinct types is that they differ in terms of whether they include a verbal or an adjectival (passive) participle. In fact, arguments based on argument structure, orientation, aspect, and adverbial modification are presented to substantiate the claim that types (1) and (2) are formed with verbal and types (3) and (4) with adjectival participles. Additionally, the distinct types will be shown to differ in their status of either being non-sentential (i.e. structurally different from potential clausal counterparts) or merely elliptical (just phonologically reduced): types (1) and (3) can be shown to be non-sentential and hence receive a dedicated syntactic analysis, where special attention is paid to the contribution of the (imperative vs. declarative) left periphery.

AbstractGothic preverb compounds illustrate several interesting characteristics, including multiple preverb stacking, idiomatisation, tmesis (i.e., separation by clitics), and P-copying (i.e., multiple pronunciation of the preverb). This paper is a close examination of the morphosyntax of these compounds, highlighting novel empirical generalisations about the Gothic language with key theoretical implications for our understanding of Germanic complex verbs and the alternations they participate in. In particular, this paper proposes a structural distinction between preverb compounds which are obligatorily semantically transparent and those which are optionally idiomatic. In arguing that transparent compounds involve the mechanism of preposition incorporation and m-merger, paralleling recent accounts of clitic doubling, while idiomatic compounds involve a thematic high applicative projection, this paper captures nuanced differences in these compounds’ case assignment and argument licensing behaviour. These structural differences will be shown to derive these two compound types’ constrained interaction with the aforementioned phenomena of stacking, tmesis, and copying. In addition, this paper compares Gothic complex verbs to their cross-linguistic correlates within and beyond Germanic, whilst also providing a diachronic pathway for the development of (multiple) preverb compounds.

AbstractThe present article provides a case study of the forms corresponding to the meaning ‘small’ in Swedish, which exhibit a number-based suppletive alternation: descriptively, liten appears in the singular while små appears in the plural. We demonstrate that this alternation is best treated as contextual allomorphy, and provide six arguments that favor this account over a plausible alternative, according to which the forms realize two distinct roots with different lexical semantics. We situate a Distributed Morphology-based account of the alternation within the broader context of inflection in the language, and address challenges and complications to the allomorphy approach from outside of the root’s ‘typical’ adjectival contexts, including adverbs and compounding. This study supports the existence of root suppletion conditioned by inflectional features, and has implications for our understanding of locality conditions on root suppletion as well as contextual allomorphy more broadly.

AbstractPossessive alternates (prenominal and postnominal) have mirrored properties in Italian and Norwegian when taking into consideration frequency, derivation, and markedness; i.e., the variant that is base-generated in one language is considered the derived one in the other language. Thus, in both languages there is a variant used for unmarked contexts (i.e., topic) and for marked contexts (i.e., contrast). Previous studies have shown that Italian children acquire the use of the variants with ease, whereas Norwegian children were found to overuse the marked variant, even in unmarked contexts. Here, we reanalyse the co-occurrences of the possessive and the noun in the monolingual corpora for the two languages available on CHILDES, by focusing more attentively on the contextual use of the variants, to reveal whether the same principles underly the acquisition process. Our findings contradict the previous claims on the acquisition of Italian but are in line with the previous findings for Norwegian. Both groups of children overuse the marked but base-generated variant, indicating the relevance of syntactic economy in language acquisition.

AbstractThe present paper proposes an alternative analysis of so-called expletive es in German. It is argued that es has semantic content that serves to anchor the utterance in the context. In particular, I argue that es constitutes a weak demonstrative element binding a situation argument. The account gets rid of the assumption that the relevant head in the clause is endowed with an EPP-feature and restores the original principle underlying it, namely the requirement that every predicate needs a contentful subject argument it can be predicated of. The account also explains in more depth the obligatory and optional occurrences of es and proposes that there are essentially two occurrences of es to distinguish in terms of their syntactic properties.

AbstractThis paper examines definiteness marking in American Norwegian (AmNo), a heritage variety of Norwegian spoken in the US. The description adds another language to the much-studied variation within Scandinavian nominal phrases. It builds on established syntactic analysis of Scandinavian and investigates aspects that are (un)like Norwegian spoken in the homeland. A central finding is that the core syntax of Norwegian noun phrases is retained in AmNo, while the morphophonological spell-out is sometimes different. Indefinite determiners, for example, are obligatory in AmNo, but some speakers produce them with non-homeland-like gender agreement. One systematic change is observed: double definiteness has been partially lost. The typical AmNo modified definite phrase lacks the prenominal determiner that is obligatory for varieties in Norway. I argue that this is a syntactic change which allows the realization of D to be optional. This is a pattern not found in the other Scandinavian languages. At the same time, this innovative structure in AmNo is not like English, the dominant language of the AmNo speakers. This demonstrates heritage language change that is distinct from both the homeland language and the dominant language.

AbstractNorth Eastern English differs from Standard English with respect to agreement: According to the Northern Subject Rule, 3sg agreement marking (verbal -s) occurs on verbs in clauses with non-3sg subjects provided that they are not personal pronouns adjacent to the verb. However, data from the Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English shows that verbal -s also does not occur with non-adjacent personal pronouns subjects in contemporary North Eastern English. I argue that verbal -s with non-pronominal non-3sg subjects follows from two conceptual assumptions: firstly, the requirement to order feature-driven elementary operations and secondly, splitting up $$\upvarphi $$ φ -Agree into two separate operations (i.e., person and number Agree). The difference in agreement between North Eastern English and Standard English stems from the different ordering of features on T. In Standard English, person and number probes are ordered before the structure building feature, which triggers movement. In the North Eastern English order, however, the structure-building feature intervenes between the two probe features. The full DP/pronoun split is explained by different kinds of movement: In the case of a full DP, subject movement to Spec/TP bleeds number agreement and verbal -s emerges, while pronominal subjects remain in the c-command domain of T because they head-move to T.

AbstractThis paper discusses the morpho-syntax of phrasal proper names like Deutsche Bahn ‘German Railway’ and Norske Skog ‘Norwegian Forest’ in German and Norwegian. As regards determiner elements, there are three types of phrasal proper names in German: some proper names do not have a definite article, some do, and yet others exhibit a possessive. Depending on the syntactic context, the first two types pattern the same as regards the presence or absence of the article but contrast with the third, where the possessive is always present. It is proposed that proper names in German vary in their structure as regards the presence of the DP-level: unlike articles, possessives have a referential marker, and a DP is obligatorily projected with the latter element. Norwegian is different. While proper names in Norwegian also vary in the presence or absence of determiners, there is no flexibility—determiners are always present or always absent, independent of the syntactic context. It is proposed that unlike in German, the DP-level in Norwegian is always present. As argued by Roehrs (Glossa J Gen Linguist, 5(1):1–38, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1267), phrasal proper names involve a regular syntactic derivation. Given that elements of regular DPs are sensitive to definiteness in Norwegian, it is proposed that Norwegian proper names involve an obligatory definiteness feature. As this feature surfaces in the DP-level, the latter must be present in that language in all instances. Besides this cross-linguistic difference, we document that phrasal PN may show features of recursivity evidenced most clearly in Norwegian.