Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:47:46.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scandinavian gender and pancake sentences: A reply to Hans-Olav Enger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2014

Gunlög Josefsson
Gunlög Josefsson*
Affiliation:
Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. gunlog.josefsson@nordlund.lu.se
Get access

Abstract

In a recent NJL article (Enger 2013), Hans-Olav Enger argues against some analyses of gender and ‘pancake sentences’, in particular against Josefsson (2009). In this short contribution, I will discuss what I take to be misunderstandings in Enger (2013). In addition I will discuss some data not included in Enger's (2013) analysis, which I will show to be crucial for the comparison between the different analyses proposed.

Keywords

common gendercountableformal gendernon-countableneuterpancake sentencessemantic gender
Type
Short Communication
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , December 2014 , pp. 431 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2014 

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arboe, Torben. 2009. Motiveret genus – især vedrørende brug af bestemthedsmorfem. In Hovmark, Henrik, Sletten, Iben Stampe & Gudiksen, Asgerd W. (eds.), I mund og bog – 25 artikler om sprog tilegnet Inge Lise Pedersen på 70-årsdagen d. 5. juni 2009, 15–29. København: Afdeling for Dialektforskning, Nordisk Forskningsinstitut, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter. 1983. Agreement and Anaphora. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter. 1986. Pronouns under control: A reply to Liliane Tasmowski and Paul Verluyten. Journal of Semantics 5, 65–78.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter. 1988. Representing and accessing focused referents. Language and Cognitive Processes 3, 207–231.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 1–49.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2010. The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Amberber, Mengistu, Baker, Brett & Harvey, Mark (eds.), Complex Predicates, 48–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1999. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In Unterbeck, Barbara & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 99–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2011. Norwegian and the Wackernagel position. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34 (2), 179–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2010. Vad händer med subjektstvånget? Om det-inledda satser utan subjekt. Språk och stil 20, 81–104.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27 (1), 5–34.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2013. Scandinavian pancake sentences revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36 (3), 275–301.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1987. Subjectless clauses in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 32, 1–26. [Department of Scandinavian languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1993. Non-referential Subjects in the History of Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 1971. Jensen er nede i postkassen med et brev. Konstruktioner med consubjectum i moderne dansk. Danske studier 66, 5–36.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. København: Det danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab/Syddansk universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1997. On the Principles of Word Formation in Swedish (Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A 51). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög.1998. Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax: Word Formation in Swedish (Linguistic Aktuell 19). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1999. On the semantics and syntax of Scandinavian pronouns and Object Shift. In van Riemsdijk, Henk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2006. Semantic and grammatical genders in Swedish: Independent but interacting dimensions. Lingua 116 (9), 1346–1368.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2009. Peas and pancakes: On apparent disagreement and (null) light verbs in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32 (1), 35–72.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2010. “Disagreeing” pronominal reference in Swedish and the interplay between formal and semantic gender. Lingua 120 (9), 2095–2120.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2012a. Disagreeing doubling det. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 90, 111–140. [Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2012b. Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Presented at International Morphology Meeting 15, Vienna, February 2012.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2013. Gender in Scandinavian: On the gender systems in Mainland Scandinavian, with focus on Swedish. Ms., Department of Scandinavian languages, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University. lingbuzz/001966.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2014. Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Language Sciences 43, 62–76.Google Scholar
Klingvall, Eva. 2011. On non-copula Tough constructions in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 88, 131–167. [Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1987. Zum ‘substantivierten’ Adjektiv im Deutschen: Deutsch als eine pro-Drop-Sprache. Studium Linguistik 21, 1–35.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1988. Das ‘substantivierte’ Adjektiv im Deutschen und Englischen: Attribuierung vs. syntaktische ‘Substantivierung’. Folia Linguistica 22, 337–372.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. 1975. Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5 (4), 451–465.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. 1991. Mass terms. In Smith, Barry & Burkhardt, Hans (eds.), Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, 495–499. Munich: Philosophia Press.Google Scholar
Ringgaard, Kristian. 1971. Danske dialekter: En kortfattet oversigt. Århus: Akademisk boghandel.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (3), 501–557.Google Scholar
Skautrup, Peter. 1968. Det danske sprogs historie, vol. 4. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1987. Hur många genus finns det i svenskan? In Teleman, Ulf (ed.), Grammatik på villovägar. Solna: Esselte studium.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien, Norstedt i distribution.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar