Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-24T22:25:45.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Norwegian Right-Dislocated Phrases are not Afterthoughts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Thorstein Fretheim
Thorstein Fretheim
Affiliation:
Thorstein Fretheim, Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim, N-7055 Dragvoll, Norway. Email thorstein.fretheim@avh.unit.no
Get access

Abstract

A right-dislocated phrase in Norwegian is either a full lexical phrase of the canonical sort, which is richer in semantic content than its coreferential intraclausal partner, or it is a pronoun which adds no semantic content that was not already present in the coreferential intraclausal phrase. A frequently occurring subcategory of right dislocation in Norwegian involves a lexical phrase in situ and a coreferential dislocated pronoun. While an afterthought analysis of pronominal right-dislocated items may easily be dismissed offhand, an afterthought account of the canonical type of Norwegian right dislocation may seem initially plausible. However, on the basis of prosodic, syntactic and pragmatic criteria it is argued that there is no viable afterthought analysis of any subtype of right dislocation in Norwegian.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , June 1995 , pp. 31 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. 1986. Intonational Structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3, 15–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1991. Intonational Phrases and Syntactic Focus Domains. In Verschueren, J. (ed.), Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1992. Themehood, Rhemehood and Norwegian Focus Structure. Folia Linguistica XXVI/1–2, pp. 111–150.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1993. The Norwegian Boundary Tone Agreement Condition. In Canakis, C. P., Chan, G. P. & Denton, J. M. (eds), Papers from the 28th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. 1990. Syntactic Change. Toward a Theory of Historical Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: an Introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of Topic-comment Structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language 69, 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, R. A. 1992. Intonasjon i interaksjon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. & Hirschberg, J. 1990. The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E. (eds), Intentions in Communication Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 271–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. 1977. The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 52, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E.Detachment in Catalan and Information Packaging. Journal of Pragmatics 22, 573–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaskó, I. 1993. “Altså” and “nemlig”: two views of causality. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics 17, 29–45.Google Scholar
Vaskó, I. & Fretheim, T. forthcoming. Some Central Pragmatic Functions of the Norwegian Modal Particles “altså” and “nemlig”. In Swan, T. & Westvik, O. J. (eds.), Papers from the Tromsø Symposium on Modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar