This paper investigates the use of aspectual constructions in Dutch, Norwegian, and German, languages in which aspect marking that presents events explicitly as ongoing, is optional. Data were elicited under similar conditions with native speakers in the three countries. We show that while German speakers make insignificant use of aspectual constructions, usage patterns in Norwegian and Dutch present an interesting case of overlap, as well as differences, with respect to a set of factors that attract or constrain the use of different constructions. The results indicate that aspect marking is grammaticalizing in Dutch, but there are no clear signs of a similar process in Norwegian.*

The present paper reports on two empirical studies concerning the acquisition of possessive systems by L2 learners of Norwegian and German respectively. The first study investigates comprehension and production in written translation while the second study is a set of offline experiments testing the interpretation of possessives by both native speakers and German learners of Norwegian. Norwegian distinguishes between reflexive and irreflexive possessives, while German does not. The reflexive stem form si* is phonologically similar to German sein*, but may correspond to ihr*, a feminine or plural possessor, as well. These differences make the acquisition of Norwegian and of German as a foreign language a complex procedure of restructuring both at the phonological and the grammatical level. Results of the study indicate that the only partly overlapping forms and structural constraints on possessives in the two languages are cognitively demanding in L2 acquisition and subject to transfer effects.

No abstract

No abstract

A case study of highly comparable scientific texts in English and Norwegian demonstrate important differences in use of a number of text comventions. Of particular interest is the use of event nominalizations, English showing a markedly higher frequency of use than Norwegian. A Multitranslation corpus of Norwegian professional translators demonstrate leanings towards English text conventions in their translations, deviating from text conventions used by Norwegian professionals in the same scientific field. The present article makes a closer atudy of the degree of complexity in nominalizations in the comparable texts and discusses the variability of the translations in view of the Norwegian conventions established on the basis of quantitative measures. The study indicates that translators follow different linguistic strategies of scientific text production than professional scientists in the field.