Multilingual Urban Scandinavia 2010
DOI: 10.21832/9781847693143-008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chapter 5. Subject–Verb Order Variation in the Swedish of Young People in Multilingual Urban Areas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Kotsinas (1998) observed frequent use of uninverted word order (XSV) 6 where Swedish has obligatory verb-second (V2) order (i.e., XVS or SVX). However, Ganuza (2008) showed that XSV was limited to a small group of adolescents, related to a combination of interacting linguistic and sociopragmatic factors, and the apparent frequency of XSV resulted from its salience to native listeners. Other grammatical and discourse features analyzed in connection with multilingual adolescents (Ekberg, 2011; Svensson, 2009; Tingsell, 2007) involved more or less salient markers of a potential new youth variety.…”
Section: Immigration and “New Varieties” Of Swedishmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, Kotsinas (1998) observed frequent use of uninverted word order (XSV) 6 where Swedish has obligatory verb-second (V2) order (i.e., XVS or SVX). However, Ganuza (2008) showed that XSV was limited to a small group of adolescents, related to a combination of interacting linguistic and sociopragmatic factors, and the apparent frequency of XSV resulted from its salience to native listeners. Other grammatical and discourse features analyzed in connection with multilingual adolescents (Ekberg, 2011; Svensson, 2009; Tingsell, 2007) involved more or less salient markers of a potential new youth variety.…”
Section: Immigration and “New Varieties” Of Swedishmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contact between different languages and between different varieties of the same language are both at work in modern-day cities, which are characterized not only by high degrees of international migration but also by intranational mobility. There now exists a considerable literature addressing the question of how contact between different languages impacts local varieties of the majority languages in cities in Europe and North America (see Kotsinas [1988b/2014], Ganuza [2008], and contributions to Källström & Lindberg [2011] for Swedish; Quist & Svendsen [2010] for Scandinavia in general; Schoonen & Appel [2005] for the Netherlands; Quist [2008] for Denmark; Svendsen & Røyneland [2008] for Norway; Wiese [2009] for Germany; and Eckert [2008] for the United States). Although some studies also consider features associated with dialect contact (e.g., Hoffman [2010] and Hoffman & Walker [2010] in Canada; and Cheshire, Kerswill, Fox, & Torgersen [2011] in the United Kingdom), less attention has been paid to the simultaneous effect that urbanization has on bringing dialects in closer contact with each other (but see Nordberg [1994]).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its aim was to describe, analyze, and compare ways of speaking Swedish and multilingual youth's identity work as it appeared among adolescents in several multilingual areas in the major cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö. It also aimed to provide multidimensional perspectives on the language practices of young people in contemporary multilingual urban settings in Sweden (e.g., Almér, ; Boyd, ; Boyd, Walker, & Hoffman, ; Ekberg, Opsahl, & Wiese, ; Ganuza, ). Participants in the SUF project were both monolingual Swedes and bilingual immigrant youth.…”
Section: Multilingual and Multiethnic Communities Of Practice In The mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, instances of Sen stack han (“Then he left”; ADVERBIAL VERB SUBJECT) alternate with Sen han stack (ADVERBIAL SUBJECT VERB). Possibly due to its salience, this feature is commonly assumed to be much more frequent than empirical evidence has shown it to be; for most of the young people who use it, it is confined to peer-to-peer interactions and specific functions (Ganuza, 2008). Noninversion is also a well-known syntactic feature in learner Swedish, which is probably why it is generally interpreted as an indication of nonnativeness—regardless of the speaker’s actual linguistic background.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 From a social point of view, the variation has been analyzed in terms of new or emerging varieties of the majority language (e.g., Fraurud & Bijvoet, 2004; Kotsinas, 1988; Quist, 2000). Here, two major strands can be discerned: approaches that are mainly descriptive or variationist (Cheshire, Fox, Kerswill, & Torgersen, 2008; Ganuza, 2008; Opsahl & Nistov, 2010; Torgersen, Kerswill, & Fox, 2006; Wiese, 2006, 2009) or those that are more interactionist or ethnographic (Aarsaether, 2010; Haglund, 2010; Jaspers, 2008; Jonsson, 2007; Keim, 2003; Quist, 2005; Rampton, 1995; Werndin, 2010). In a recently concluded research project in Göteborg, Malmö, and Stockholm (the SUF project), various psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic approaches were combined (see Boyd & Fraurud, 2010; Ganuza, 2008; Prentice, 2010; Svensson, 2009; Tingsell, 2007; Werndin, 2010, and contributions in Källström & Lindberg, 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%