Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:45:15.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Norwegian “Type Anaphora” are Surface Anaphora

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2012

Helge Lødrup
Helge Lødrup*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo, Pb 1102, Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway, [helge.lodrup@ilf.uio.no]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Norwegian pronoun det ‘it, that’ is basically third person neuter singular. Under certain conditions, it can have antecedents that are not neuter singular (for example, Marit kjøpte en kylling—Detkjøpte John også ‘Marit bought a chicken.masc—John bought one too’). Used this way, the pronoun does not refer to the same object as its antecedent; Borthen 2003 refers to it as a “type anaphor.” This article argues that type anaphora are not a unitary phenomenon. There are two groups with very different properties. One group realizes what was called surface anaphora in Hankamer & Sag 1976. The other group has a generic or eventive interpretation.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 07 February 2012 , pp. 23 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic 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

Andréasson, Maia. 2008. Not all objects are born alike: Accessibility as a key to pronominal object shift in Swedish and Danish. Proceedings from the LFG08 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy, 26–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2009. Pronominal object shift—Not just a matter of shifting or not. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84. 1–20.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology dissertation. (Available at: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mM0Y2M3N/).Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2004. The Norwegian type-anaphor det. Proceedings from the 5th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC 2004), ed. by Branco, António, McEnery, Tony, & Mitokov, Ruslan, 1–6. Lisboa: Edições Colibri.Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2005. Type-anaforen det. MONS 10: Utvalde artiklar frå det tiande Møte om norsk språk i Kristiansand 2003, ed. by Lie, Svein, Nedrelid, Gudlaug, & Omdal, Helge, 117–131. Kristiansand, Norway: Høyskoleforlaget AS.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Matt. 2003. Ellipsis in DP. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz MA thesis. (Available at: http://glyphobet.net/dpe_tree/html/npe_tree.html).Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27. 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1977. Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13. 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein, & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referanse-grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hagen, Jon Erik. 1978. Counting objects: A dubious constraint on Norwegian pronominalization. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 2. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, Jon Erik. 2002. Norsk grammatikk for andrespråkslærere. Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–288.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, & Ivan, A. Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–426.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1986. The headedness of NPs in Norwegian. Features and projections, ed. by Muysken, Pieter & van Riemsdijk, Henk, 89–122. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herold, Jenny Ström. 2009. Proformen und Ellipsen: Zur Syntax und Diskurspragmatik prädikativer Anaphern im Deutschen und im Schwedischen. (Lunder germanistische Forschungen 70.) Visby: eddy.se.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael J., Mikkelsen, Line, & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2007. Verb phrase pronominalization in Danish: Deep or surface anaphora? Proceedings from the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Brainbridge, Erin & Agbayani, Brian, 183–195. Fresno CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael J., Mikkelsen, Line, & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2011. A defective auxiliary in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23. 245–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 21–35.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2006. Semantic and grammatical genders in Swedish–independent but interacting dimensions. Lingua 116. 1346–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2009. Peas and pancakes: On apparent disagreement and (null) light verbs in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32. 35–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2010. “Disagreeing” pronominal reference in Swedish and the interplay between formal and semantic gender. Lingua 120. 2095–2120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 363–385. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. More than words, ed. by Kaufmann, Ingrid & Stiebels, Barbara, 179–226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Lori S. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 590–654. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1994. “Surface proforms” in Norwegian and the definiteness effect. Proceedings from the 24th Meeting of North East Linguistics Society, ed. by Mercé, Gonzalez, 303–315. Amherst: GLSA, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1996. Properties of Norwegian auxiliaries. Proceedings from the 9th International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, ed. by Kjartan, G. Ottósson, Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld, & Torp, Arne, 216–228. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2007. Norwegian anaphors without visible binders. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge, & Hobæk Haff, Marianne. To appear. Another overt surface anaphor: Norwegian “and that”. Proceedings from the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Kr. 1911. Dansk ordføjningslære. København: Lehmann & Stages Forlag.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2007. On so-called truncated clefts. Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze: Intersprachliche und Intrasprachliche Aspekte, ed. by Geist, Ljudmila & Rothstein, Björn, 47–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1980. Deletion and logical form. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., & Hankamer, Jorge. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2000. Negation in Swedish: Where it's not at. Proceedings from the LFG00 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway, 244–263. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan, & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska akademiens grammatik. Vol. 2, Ord. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101–139.Google Scholar