Double Definiteness in Scandinavian

Julien, Marit

doi:10.7557/12.27

Cited by 9 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(9a) is shown in (10), which is the structure after valuation of the unvalued features in D. 6 6 Notice that (9a)/(10) exhibit double definiteness, i.e. definiteness realized both by a determiner and by a functional suffix on the noun, which is characteristic for Norwegian DPs, see Julien (2003; for discussion. Still, the definiteness feature is not shown in the representation (10) (nor in our subsequent representations of the Norwegian DP) for expository purposes, since what we concentrate on here is the logic of Moro's (2014) analysis of DP internal mixing, where definiteness is left out of consideration.…”

Section: A Possible Minimalist Lexicalist Analysis Of Mixing In Amerimentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

Grimstad

Riksem

Lohndal

et al. 2018

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents empirical evidence that disfavors using highly lexicalist minimalist models, such as the one presented in Chomsky (1995), when analyzing language mixing. The data analyzed consist of English – Spanish mixed noun phrases discussed in Moro (2014) as well as English – Norwegian mixed noun phrases and verbs taken from the Corpus of American Norwegian Speech. Whereas the lexicalist model in Chomsky (1995) only can explain a subset of the mixing patterns attested in both authentic English – Spanish mixed noun phrases and the American Norwegian corpus, we show that an alternative exoskeletal model can account for all of them. Such a model would entail that rather than assuming lexical items with inherent, functional features that determine the derivation, syntactic structures are generated independently from the lexical items that come to realize them.

show abstract

Section: A Possible Minimalist Lexicalist Analysis Of Mixing In Amerimentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

Grimstad

Riksem

Lohndal

et al. 2018

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the translation test the (French) No2 learner has to decide whether to use the reflexive (si*) or the non-reflexive forms (hans/hennes/dens/dets/deres). In addition (s)he has to choose between the prenominal or the postnominal position of the possessive, and, in the latter case, associate the position of the possessive with double definiteness (see Fabricius-Hansen et al (2017); Julien (2003Julien ( , 2005; Lødrup (2011)). It should be noted that both for the judgment and the translation test the French informants are fully aware of being tested for possessives.…”

Section: Translation Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical L2 perspective on possessives: French/Norwegian

Helland

2017

OSLa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this chapter is to present empirical evidence for transfer effects between Norwegian (as L1 or L2) and French (as L1 or L2). We start out with theoretical assumptions from a contrastive-comparative treatment of possessives in European languages (chapter 1, this volume) and develop hypotheses for L2-acquisition of possessive systems in Norwegian and French. The various degrees of complexity between the two linguistic sub-systems lead to different kinds of challenges in L2-acquisition based on morphological, syntactic and semantic criteria. Norwegian has a morphologically more complex possessive system than French. The French learner of Norwegian as L2 then has to acquire a system with more formal options than in her mother tongue, whereas the Norwegian learner of French as L2 acquires a system with less formal options. Based on empirical findings, the chapter shows why some parts of the possessive L2 systems are harder or easier to handle than others.

show abstract

“…Interestingly, the same word order is attested in Swedish and Norwegian, although it only occurs in verse and in certain fixed expressions. For the Norwegian example (73), Julien (2003) proposes a structure parallel to (72), viz. one in which the suffixed noun moves as a dP to Spec,DP: DEF-SG green-W "the green forest" Lohrmann (2011), partly based on Julien (2005), proposes that, in Scandinavian, D dominates the feature 'discourse', whereas d dominates the feature 'specific reference' (in Julien's analysis d contains the feature 'inclusiveness').…”

Section: Double Definitenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The adjective in Germanic and Romance

Velde¹,

Sleeman²,

Perridon³

2014

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this introductory chapter the similarities and differences in the development and the current behavior of the adjective in Germanic and Romance, both within and between the language families, are discussed. A deeper analysis suggests that what seem to be differences may in fact be similarities and vice versa. Topics that are discussed are the emergence of the adjective as a category, the distinction between attributive and predicative adjectives, the position of adjectives within the noun phrase, and adjectival inflection. This introduction forms the basis for the chapters that follow and in which current visions on variation and change with respect to the adjective in Germanic and Romance are presented in more detail.

show abstract

Double Definiteness in Scandinavian

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

An empirical L2 perspective on possessives: French/Norwegian

The adjective in Germanic and Romance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About