Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T19:25:27.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Ergativity in Modern Norwegian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

John Ole Askedal
Get access

Abstract

The present paper deals with the syntactic status of the indefinite NP in Norwegian existential-presentative constructions with a formal subject det in a typological perspective. It is argued that the NP in question is identifiable as a syntactic object both on account of its behaviour and control properties and its coding properties. Moreover, this analysis parallels Itkonen's description of “existential subjects” in Finnish as belonging to an “inverted ergative system”, which is clearly relationally different from the two kinds of ergativity systems described elsewhere in the literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , June 1986 , pp. 25 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Abraham, W. (ed.) 1982. Satzglieder im Deutchen. Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1976. On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages. In Li Ch. N. (ed.) 1976, 1–23.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1982. On the Syntactic Representation of So-Called “Existential-Presentative Sentences” in Norwegian and German. A Contrastive Analysis. In Fretheim Th. & Hellan L. (eds.) 1982, 11–25.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1984. On Extraposition in German and Norwegian. Towards a Contrastive Analysis. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 7, 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askedal, I. O. 1985. Zur kontrastiven Analyse der deutschen Pronominalform es und ihrer Entsprechung det im Norwegischen. Deutsche Sprache 13, 107–136.Google Scholar
Bech, G. 1952. Über das niederländische Adverbialpronomen ER. Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag — Amsterdam: Taalinstituut de Natuurmethode.Google Scholar
Bechert, J. 1979. Ergativity and the Constitution of Grammatical Relations. In Plank Fr. (ed.) 1979, 45–59.Google Scholar
Bechert, J. 1982. Grammatische Kategorien: Affinität, Markiertheit und pragmatische BergÜndung. Beobachtungen am Kontinuum der Nominativ-/Ergativsprachen. In Abraham W. (ed.) 1982, 41–58.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The Passive in Lexical Theory. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) 1982: The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 3–86.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Harbert, W., Hermon, G., & Sridhar, S. N. 1980. The Acquisition of Subjecthood. Language 56, 719–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1978. Ergativity. In Lehmann W. P. (ed.) 1978, 329–394.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1983. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, P. 1962. Elementœr Dansk Grammatik. 3. Udgave. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falster, Jakobsen L. & Olsen, J. 1984. Subjekt — Sobjekt? Eine Diskussion der Subjektsdefinition im Dänischen. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 7, 1–40.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Th. 1977. Syntaktisk analogi — noe mer enn en billig nødløsning? En undersøkelse av konstruksjoner med det formelle subjekt det. In Fretheim Th. (ed.) 1977, 113–170.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Th. (ed.) 1977. Sentrale problemer i norsk syntaks. Oslo etc.: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Th. & Hellan, L. (eds.) 1982. Papers from the Sixth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass. — London: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. 1984. Dœmonernes Port. 3. udgave. København: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. 1977. Variasjon over grammatisk tema: form og innhold i norsk. In Fretheim Th. (ed.) 1977, 69–112.Google Scholar
Hellberg, S. 1970. On Existential Sentences. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 1, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Holch, Justesen A. 1952. Hollandsk Grammatik. København: Jespersen og Pios Forlag.Google Scholar
Hovdhaugen, E. 1977. Om og omkring passiv i norsk. In Fretheim Th. (ed.) 1977, 15–46.Google Scholar
Itkonen, T. 1979. Subject and Object Marking in Finnish: An Inverted Ergative System and an “Ideal” Ergative Sub-System. In Plank Fr. (ed.) 1979, 79–102.Google Scholar
Jenkins, L. 1975. The English Existential. TÜbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, H. 1957. Om den traditionelle Brug af Ordet “Subjekt”. En Beskrivelse af grammatisk Sprogbrug og en Undersøgelse af dens Hensigtsmœssighed. Danske Studier 52, 9–40.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 1977. On Relational Constraints on Grammars. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (eds.) 1977: Syntax and Semantics, Volume 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 151–178.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject”. In Li Ch. N. (ed.) 1976, 303–333.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1978. The Syntax of Subject-Final Languages. In Lehmann W. P. (ed.) 1978, 267–327.Google Scholar
Koefoed, H. A. 1967. Structure and Usage as Applied to Word-Order. Bergen — Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. (ed.) 1978. Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin, Tex.— London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Ch. N. (ed.) 1976: Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ljunggren, R. 1926: Om den opersonliga konstruktionen. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1977. An Introduction to Modern Faroese. 3rd Printing. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókgrunnur.Google Scholar
Plank, Fr. (ed.) 1979. Ergativity. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1982. Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen. In Abraham W. (ed.) 1982, 171–211.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. J. 1983. On the Subject of Nonargument Subjects. In Abraham, W. (ed.) 1983: On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam — Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1974. There, There, (There, (There, (There …))). In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, 569–587.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 1984. Icelandic Word Order and θaδˇ-Insertion. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 8, 1–21.Google Scholar
Sasse, H. J. 1977. Gedanken Über Wortstellungsveränderung. Papiere zur Linguistik 13/14, 82–142.Google Scholar
Sundman, M. 1980. Existentialkonstruktionen i svenskan. Åbo: The Åbo Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1982. The Head of S in Germanic and Romance. In Fretheim Th. & Hellan L. (eds.) 1982, 151–161.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A.Maling, J., & Thrinsson, H. 1985. Passive and Oblique Case. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 16, 1–34.Google Scholar