Download Workshop on SYNTACTIC MICROVARIATION – ABSTRACTS

Workshop on SYNTACTIC MICROVARIATION – ABSTRACTS
Sjef Barbiers
Meertens Instituut (Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences)
Issues in Syntactic Microvariation: Some Results from the SAND-Project
1. Introduction
Traditional dialectology is primarily concerned with the geographic distribution of linguistic
variables, a.o. to gain insight in the internal and external history of a certain variable.
Traditional generative syntax concentrates on the in-depth analysis of one or more, often
standard, languages, to gain insight in Universal Grammar. In this talk I present some results
from the recent large-scale project Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND) to show
how geographically oriented research provides generalizations that are relevant for generative
syntactic analysis. In particular, I discuss the geographic distribution and linguistic analysis
of anaphor systems. The talk includes a demonstration of the Dynamic Atlas, a research tool
that enables the researcher to search the entire SAND-corpus on-line and to directly visualize
the search results on geographic maps.
2. Background: The SAND-project
In the SAND-project, data were collected in 267 different locations distributed over the
Netherlands and Flanders. Since the position of the dialects is very weak in many parts of the
language area, considerable methodological problems had to be solved. I briefly sketch the
research design and methodology we used to obtain reliable data. In each location we tested
at least 160 sentences, often more, depending on the location and the variation attested. The
choice of test sentences was theoretically informed and included the following empirical
domains: (i) the left-periphery of the clause, (ii) the pronominal system, (iii) negation, (iv) the
right periphery of the clause. The 267 interviews were recorded, digitized, transcribed,
annotated and stored in a relational database. A brief overview of the choices we made in
each data processing stage will be provided.
3. Some results: Distribution and analysis of anaphor systems
The Standard Dutch anaphor system consists of a strong short distance reflexive anaphor
zichzelf ‘SE-self’, a weak medium distance reflexive anaphor zich ‘SE’ and a pronoun hem
‘him’. In the dialects of Dutch, we find a wealth of strong reflexive forms, including hemzelf
‘him-self’, zijn eigen ‘his-own’, zichzelf ‘SE-self’, ze zelve ‘his self’, zijn zelve ‘his self’,
zijn eigen zelf ‘his own self’. As weak reflexives we find hem ‘him’ zijn eigen ‘his own’ and
zich ‘SE’. Clear analytical and geographical generalizations arise from this at first sight rather
baroque state of affairs (cf. Barbiers & Bennis, to appear). For example, certain morpheme
combinations do not occur as complex anaphors (zich eigen ‘SE own’ and hem eigen ‘him
own’), and there are neither dialects that combine zichzelf ‘SE-self’ as a strong reflexive
with hem ‘him’ as a weak reflexive, nor dialects with hemzelf ‘him-self’ as a strong reflexive
and zich ‘SE’as a weak reflexive. Given the generative insight that reflexively used pronouns
must be embedded in a complex structure to avoid binding by a too local antecedent (i.e.,
condition B violations; cf. Helke 1970, Pica 1987, Postma 1997, a.o.), the Dutch dialect data
provide evidence for three different ways to satisfy this requirement, a syntactically complex
possessive structure, a morphologically complex possessive structure and a syntactically
complex non-possessive structure. The resulting three principal reflexive systems show a
clear geographic distribution, and the language area as a whole can be seen as transitional
between the possessive German strategy and the non-possessive English strategy to form
reflexives.
Marja Leinonen
University of Tampere
Pathways to definiteness
This paper aims to establish pathways towards definiteness in two languages
that have been in contact for hundreds of year. North Russian dialects display a use of
postpositive "emphatic" particles based on a distal demonstrative "to", which by its frequency
differs considerably from standard Russian and southern Russian dialects. The basic
descriptions of north Russian dialects refer to them as nearly "empty", fulfilling a prosodic
function of speech only (e.g. Pozharickaja 1997). More detailed descriptions indicate certai
pragmatic functions as well. In the neighbouring Komi Zyryan, a Fenno-Ugric language,
possessive suffixes (2nd + 3rd person) have taken on a function that can be called definitizing
(Serebrennikov 1963, Prokusheva 1984). A similar phenomenin is found further south, in
Udmurt and Mari. In both north Russian and Komi, the use of the said suffixes is preferable
in certain contexts, which point towards the beginnings of the category of definiteness. Some
similarities can be found in, e.g., the use of the Finnish anaphoric pronoun "se" + NP (Laury
1997, Juvonen 2000). In the paper, I shall continue the analysis begun in 1998 (Leinonen
1998), where the theoretical basis of definiteness was Chafe's conceptualization of
prominence and accessibility. It was found that the possessive suffixes of Komi express not
only possession, but also definiteness, prominence and deixis (due to the 2-3 person forms),
while the north Russian particles express mainly prominence and concretization. Meanwhile,
other concepts for the emergence of definiteness have been developed, and a typological
connection with possessive suffixes has been noticed by others as well (Fraurud 2000). The
new Komi grammar speaks of non-possessive demonstrative usage of the suffixes detailing
certain semantic-pragmatic spheres (Önija komi kyv morfologija 2000). Bartens (2000) also
refers to a topicalizing, determining, possibly focusing function of the suffixes. My analysis
will be based on transcribed dialectal texts (Russian dialects) and modern prose (Komi). The
components of definiteness will be reshuffled as need be in each material.
References:
Bartens, Raija: Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Memoires de la Societe FinnoOurgrienne 238, Helsinki.
Fraurud, K. 2000: Possessives with extended use: a source of definite articles? In:
Dimensions of Possession, ed. M. Herslund & I. Baron. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Juvonen, Päivi 2000: Grammaticalizing the definite article. A study of definite adnominal
determiners in a genre of spoken Finnish. Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
Laury, R. 1997: Demonstratives in interaction. The emergence of a definite article in Finnish.
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Leinonen, Marja 1997: The postpositive particle -to of Northern Russian dialects, compared
with Permic languages (Komi Zyryan). Studia Slavica Finlandensia, tomus XV, ed. Jyrki
Papinniemi & at, Helsinki.
Pozharickaja, S. K. 1997: Russkaja dialektologija. Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.
Prokusheva, T. I. 1984: Kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v komi jazyke. In:
Vzaimodejstvie finno-ugorskih i russkogo jazykov. Trudy IJALI, Syktyvkar.
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1963: Istoricheskaja morfologija permskih jazykov.
Moskva. Önija komi kyv morfologija, ed. G. V. Fedjunjova. Syktyvkar.
Ken Ramshøj Christensen
Aarhus Universitet
Negative Objects, NEG-shift, and Cross-linguistic Microvariation
In the Scandinavian languages, negative objects undergo obligatory
leftward movement to license sentential negation, i.e. NEG-shift, as
required by the Negative Criterion (Haegeman & Zanuttini 1991). When the
main verb is in V2 position, all the Scandinavian languages may have
NEG-shift. In English on the other hand, NEG-shift is never licensed.
In clauses with compound tense, however, the Scandinavian languages
fall into two groups: those that allow NEG-shift, e.g. Swedish in (1), and
those that don’t, e.g. colloquial Norwegian in (2).
(1) Sw: a. *Hon har
läst inga böcker
b. Hon har inga böcker läst
(2) No: a. *Ho har
lest ingen bøker
b. *Ho har ingen bøker lest
(She has no books read)
When the object is the complement of a preposition, the languages are
further divided into those that allow preposition stranding, such as
Icelandic, those that have pied piping, such as Faroese, and those that
have neither, e.g. Danish.
(3) Ic: a. *Jón hefur
talað við engan
b. Jón hefur engan talað við
(4) Fa: a. *Jógvan hevur
snakka við ongan
b. Jógvan hevur við ongan snakka
(5) Da: a. *Jon har
snakket med ingen
b. *Jon har med ingen snakket
c. *Jon har ingen snakket med
(John has no-one talked with)
I will present an analysis that accounts for the different degrees of
restriction on NEG-shift, from English which never allows NEG-shift to
(one dialect of) Icelandic that always allows it; the analysis will also
account for the different strategies used to avoid such constructions in
the other Scandinavian languages.
Ellen Brandner
Universität Konstanz
Microvariation within Germanic to-infinitives
Infinitival complements in Germanic are known for their variable behaviour both under a
diachronic as well as under a dialectal perspective, especially w.r.t. the distribution of the
marker "zu/to". In this talk I will concentrate on the Alemannic dialect of German (spoken in
South Germany). The interesting fact about this dialect is that "zu" as an infinitival marker is
virtually non-existent: Infinitival complements show either left-peripheral complementizers
like "gi" with directional verbs and "zum" for purposives (they pattern in this respect more
with the Scandinavian infinitival constructions) or they show a bare infinitival forms. This is
restricted to those verbs that are said to "construct coherent", i.e. basically modal verbs,
phase verbs, and verbs like to forget, to order, to succeed. The behaviour of these infinitivals
has properties of mono-clausal constructions.
In other cases where Standard German has a "zu"-infinitive, e.g. main verbs like to promise,
to convince etc. and some complements of adjectives or nouns, alternative strategies like
finite clauses, nominalizations etc. are used. But Alemannic is known to have had the particle
"zu" in former stages, although there seems to be rather free variation, cf. texts by Notker
where the same matrix verb obviously freely alternates in the choice of its complements.
Additionally, there seems to be no problem for contemporary speakers of Alemannic to
integrate "zu" into their infinitival syntax, influenced by the Standard German version of
infinitival complements.
Given the hypothesis that parametric variation is always located in the lexicon, then the lack
of "zu" in Alemannic should have (maybe minimal) consequences for the structure of the VP
in that Standard German should have a more articulated infinitival structure than Alemannic
in those cases where Alemannic uses a bare infinitive. I would like to claim that this in fact
the case and that it can be seen in another area of infinitival syntax.
Alemannic is one of the German dialects that uses to a great extent what is known as "verb
projection raising", i.e. in embedded clauses we find the order which corresponds to the order
of selection in a left-headed right-branching VP:
(1) Compl. Subj Aux (DPs, ADVsŠ) (modal verb) (DPs, ADVsŠ) main verb (Alm.)
(2) Compl. (DPs, ADVsŠ) Aux main verb modal verb or main verb
Aux (SG)
In Alemannic, the base order of the construction surfaces directly without further movement.
I will assume that the base structure is a sequence of stacked VPs which is not interrupted by
any functional projection. This explains why the bare infinitival constructions can only occur
with a sub-class of verbs, namely the coherent verbs. DPs can occur lower or higher in the
complex VP, due to the scrambling property of German. Other infinitival constructions do
not exist.
In Standard German, the syntax of infinitivals is more complex since "zu" belongs to the
functional inventory. "Zu" however does not behave like a typical left peripheral infinitival
complementizer. One possible solution could be that "zu" as a preposition c-selects a nominal
complement. This selectional requirement cannot be fulfilled by an infinitival and thus it
moves to the specifier of "zu". In a final step "zu" clitizises to the left of the adjacent verb.
This operation then has been over generalized to the pattern in (2), maybe in the course of the
strong prescriptive tendencies in Standard German from which the dialects were exempted.
The question then is how can the infinitival marker be so easily integrated in the modern
Alemannic dialect. I would like to suggest that it is not analysed as a functional element that
projects a category, rather as a formative, belonging to the derivational component and thus it
does not influence the functional architecture of the construction. Evidence for this claim
comes from the fact that speakers of the dialect tend to use both markers in complementizer
introduced infinitives.
(3) Š.. zum ŠŠ.zu + V
In sum, the comparison between these two variants of German shows that the classical
conception of a parameter can also be upheld in the area of microvariation in that the method
of reducing two (or more) different phenomena to one underlying difference can be
successfully used.
Lieselotte Anderwald
University of Freiburg
Variation in verbal paradigms: First evidence from FRED
The English past tense with its distinctions of regular vs. irregular inflection/weak vs. strong
paradigms has taken on great significance in morphological theory as it serves as the test case
for (and against) various mental models, from connectionism to dual route/word-and-rule and
perhaps beyond. Descriptions however are almost exclusively based on standard English;
although they sometimes make extensions from the standard system to non-standard systems,
these are mostly based on anecdotal evidence.
This is no coincidence, for although it is well-known that spoken non-standard English differs
with respect to many verbal paradigms from the standard, existing descriptions of nonstandard verbal paradigms are patchy, and in most cases are restricted to a handful of verbs in
one dialect only.
My pilot study puts the data situation on a firmer footing, as for the first time dialect data
from across a range of British dialects can be directly compared. With the help of FRED (the
FReiburg English Dialect corpus), I will look at some high frequency verbal paradigms that
display interesting variation in the non-standard systems, and investigate whether there are
(functional or other cognitive) principles in common to them all that can be invoked for
explanation. These FRED data can also serve as a testing ground for the morphological
models, investigating whether and how they can be extended to non-standard paradigms.
Camilla Wide
Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland
[email protected]
The construction [te/de/tåm/dåm + noun + suffix of definiteness] in the Eastern Nyland
dialects of Finland
Definite noun phrases are construed in the following way in standard Swedish:
a) noun + suffix of definiteness (-en, -et, -en, -na), e.g., bil-en (car-the; the car)
b) definite article (den/det/de) + modifier + noun + suffix of definiteness,
e.g., den röda bil-en (the red car-the; the red car)
With the exception of determinative noun phrases in restrictive subordinate clauses of the
type Den (röda) klänning(en) som jag mest älskade (SAG 2:301), definite noun phrases with
bare nouns are construed with definiteness suffixes only in Swedish (cf. bilen ‘the car’).
Acccording to the dictionary Ordbok över Finlands svenska folkmål (den, s.v. 8), however,
noun phrases lacking modifiers can be construed with the definite article (and suffixes) in the
Eastern Nyland dialects of Swedish in Finland.
gee hii de bookin ‘give me the book’ (Helsinge)
ja mådist taa te bååtn för annårs sku ja int a slåppi åå meen ‘I had to take the boat because
otherwise I would not have got rid of him’ (Borgå)
The te/de/tåm/dåm element of the Eastern Nyland NP structures could alternatively be
analyzed as a demonstrative pronominal modifier (cf. Reinhammar 1975:66f., 79). The
Eastern Nyland construction [te/de/tåm/dåm + noun + suffix of definiteness] would then be
related to the standard Swedish demonstrative construction [den/det/de + noun + suffix of
definiteness], which is exemplified with the following examples in SAG, the Swedish
Academy Grammar (2:322–323; the words in italics would be stressed in spoken language).
Vad ska vi göra med all den veden?
Ge mig den saxen.
My analysis indicates that the structure [te/de/tåm/dåm + noun + suffix of definiteness] does
not go well with the categories established for describing standard Swedish. As many
speakers of Eastern Nyland dialects use several different types of definite and demonstrative
expressions in parallell, it is necessary to compare the function of the construction to other
similar constructions. My paper describes the communicative function and structural
properties of the construction [te/de/tåm/dåm + noun + suffix of definiteness] per se in
authentic spoken language data. In particular, I will point out the constructional differences
between dialectal and standard usage. Construction Grammar and Interactional linguistics
form the theoretical foundation for my analysis.
Literature:
Ordbok över Finlands svenska folkmål. 1976–. Helsingfors: Forskningscentralen för de
inhemska språken.
Reinhammar, Vidar. 1975. Pronomenstudier. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik.
Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.
Alison Henry
University of Ulster at Jordanstown
Transitive expletives in Belfast English and Microparametric variation
It will be argued in this paper that the facts of microparametric variation provide
evidence in favour of a model of syntax where movement is free subject to certain universal
and language particular constraints, rather than one where movement only occurs if forced.
This paper considers in particular transitive expletives in Belfast English. Standard
English does not have transitive expletives, which are however found in other languages such
as Icelandic, German and Dutch. A number of proposals have been made for what licenses
transitive expletives in languages such as Icelandic, as opposed to the mainland Scandinavian
languages where they are not found. On all of these characteristics, however, Belfast English
falls on the side of the Mainland Scandinavian languages rather than Icelandic. Nevertheless,
Belfast English transitive are very similar to Icelandic transitive expletives, for example in
that they are best with a quantified associate, and not good with bare plurals for example
(Vangsnes 2001)
Belfast English transitive expletives differ from Icelandic only in that the associate
may appear in a wider range of positions. In Icelandic, the associate may not appear after
intermediate auxiliaries, but only after the first auxiliary; however in Belfast English the
associate may occur in any specifier position between the specifier of vP and the specifier of
T:
(1) There should have been lots of students finishing the assignment by now
(2) There should have lots of students been finishing the assignment by now
(3) There should lots of students have been finishing the assignment by now
It is difficult to account for this range of positions in terms of movement forced for example
by the EPP, since none of these positions requires to be filled independently. Rather, it seems
that there is a language-particular specification of available specifier positions together with
free movement to these positions.
Belfast English also demonstrates the availability of additional subject positions in
other structures such as imperatives, where the subject may appear in a range of positions
(5) You read that book
(6) Read you that book
(7) Be you reading that book when I get back
(8) Have you been reading that book for an hour when I get back
(9) Have been you reading that book for an hour when I get back
The link between the availability of additional subject positions and the availability of
transitive expletives and location of the associate is further argued for in that those speakers
who allow transitive expletives with a range of associate positions also allow variability in
subject positions in imperatives, while speakers who do not allow the former also do not have
the latter.
It is thus argued that the availability of transitive expletives depends on the number of
positions a language makes available for subject DPs: in standard English, only SPEC/VP
and the specifier of the highest T constituent are available, whereas in Icelandic, there is an
additional subject position and in Belfast English, a wider range of subject positions
available.
Finnur Friðriksson
Gothenburg University
Syntactic variation in contemporary Icelandic
Icelandic is generally known as one of the prime examples of a highly stable language where
dialectal variation is minimal. In recent years however, claims have been made that this
stability and homogeneity is being disturbed by a number of ongoing changes, some of the
more prominent of which are of a morphological or syntactic nature. The features in question
are “dative sickness”, a tendency for impersonal verbs that normally take accusative-case
subjects to take dative case-subjects instead; “new passive” i.e. a change in how passive
sentences are constructed; and genitive avoidance” which is the merging of genitive case or
genitive case endings with accusative/dative case. This last feature might in turn be an
instance of a more major change as many teachers of Icelandic now claim that the entire case
inflectional system of Icelandic is under threat, or at least showing signs of general
instability.
The little work there exists on these alleged new features suggests that the claims made about
ongoing changes have some footing, especially as regards “dative sickness” (Svavarsdóttir
1982) and “new passive” (Sigurjónsdóttir and Maling 2001). The results of this research also
show some signs of differences emerging, on the one hand, between speakers in Reykjavík
and in the rest of Iceland and, on the other, between speakers of different educational levels.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that “new passive” is a spreading innovation as it appears
to be used more by children and teenagers than by adults. All of this contrasts quite sharply
with the reults of the present study which, contrary to the previous ones, is based on authentic
spoken and written data rather than different kinds of tests. What emerges here is that, with
the possible exception of “dative sickness”, none of the features in question occur frequently
enough to be regarded as established in any way. Also, there are no clear differences between
the various social groupings of the informants, and even though it can be claimed that “dative
sickness” is fairly well established in the language it shows signs of being an instance of
stable variation rather than of change in progress. However, the data also shows that the
discussion about these features needs to become more nuanced. Thus, to take two examples,
“dative sickness” emerges primarily with certain types of subjects and even though the case
inflectional system as a whole appears to be stable, there are a few groups of words that tend
to appear in a non-standard form. If this is taken into consideration we might get a few hints
about where to look for future changes in Icelandic.
References
Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður & Joan Maling (2001). “Það var hrint mér á leiðinni í
skólann: Þolmynd eða ekki þolmynd?” Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 23. 123-180.
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta (1982). “”Þágufallssýki”. Breytingar á fallnotkun í frumlagssæti
Ópersónulegra setninga”. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4. 19-62.
Patricia Poussa & Kristian Dyrvold
University of Umeå
[email protected]
Where as a relative marker? A problem in micro-syntax
I shall argue in this paper that the dialect syntactician must be constantly aware of the
interplay of phonological processes and pragmatics in spoken interaction, and that this is
particularly important in circumstances of language/dialect contact. We too often make our
interpretations on the basis of the syntax and semantics of the modern written standard
languages, forgetting the primacy of speaker-hearers in the development of dialect syntax.
In this paper I start from the traditional dialect of Norfolk, England, whose main expressed
relative in the SED tape recordings (of c60-year old agricultural workers recorded c1960 by
Nelson Francis) was invariable what, with null relatives very common in object positions
(Poussa 1993-4). In transcribing all the relative clauses in the data I found a few difficult-toclassify relatives, including two relative uses uses of where, as in the following examples,
from two speakers in two separated northern relic areas. I transcribed them as follows, in
conventional orthography.
GRIMSTON (north-west Norfolk)
If there was a bird what I’d shot, he’d pick it up for me.
Same as this was a bank where I put the stick on.
LUDHAM (north-east Norfolk)
Gordon’s now, what they built up there, I hen’t been to see it.
But on the land, where it stand on...
The dialect is nonrhotic, but according to A. J. Ellis the 19th-century dialect included an
”intrusive” linking final /r/ at word-boundaries.
I shall argue that this form could be historically a reanalysis of what, which was in use as an
all-purpose relative in East Anglia since the early 19th century (and possibly already in the
18th century), according to the north-west Norfolk glossarist Robert Forby (Forby 1830). The
processes I would suggest in the history of this dialect are the glottalising of final /t/,
followed by the addition of of linking /r/. The result would be analysable as where, in these
particular syntactic environments, and thus preserved.
I shall argue that recent work in early transported varieties of English can supply some
supportive evidence of the early use of dialectal relative what as part of the input to some
Atlantic pidgins and creoles.
Sten Vikner
University of Aarhus
([email protected], www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/)
Two-verb sequences and dialect variation in continental Germanic
This paper will present two examples of syntactic analysis based on dialect variation:
I.
Considerable variation is found in the order of the non-finite verbs in main clauses like
(1a)
(1b)
Dutch Hij zal haar horen roepen
('He will her hear shout')
German
Er wird sie rufen hören
('He will her shout hear')
both across nine Germanic languages/dialects (Dutch, Afrikaans, West Flemish, Frisian,
Standard German, Swabian German, Saint Gall Swiss German, Zurich Swiss German and
Berne Swiss German) and across six constructions (perfect, passive, durative, causative,
perception verbs, and modal verbs).
Based on the facts that Yiddish shows an amount of variation similar to the one found
in the (other) Germanic SOV-languages and that no variation at all is found in the Germanic
SVO-languages, I will argue that Yiddish is an SOV- rather than an SVO-language.
II.
Considerable variation is found in the order of the verbs in embedded clauses like
(2a)
(2b)
Dutch ... dat hij haar hoort roepen ('... that he her hears shout ')
German
... dass er sie rufen hört
('... that he her shout hears')
across the same nine dialects and across the same six constructions as in I. above.
Based on the fact that this variation and the variation discussed under I. above shows
a surprising degree of parallelism (identity on 49 out of 54 three-way choice points), I will
argue that it makes no significant difference whether the higher of the two verbs concerned is
finite, as hoort/hört in (2), or non-finite, as horen/hören in (1). This again means that in
embedded clauses in the SOV-Germanic languages, there can be no obligatory movement
that involves only finite verbs. This amounts to saying that there is no V-to-I-movement in
SOV-Germanic.