Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema „Norwegian language – grammar“

Norwegian and Scandinavian languages in general have grown quite popular among Polish students in recent years and more and more Polish universities are trying to offer Bachelor’s and even Master’s programmes in a Scandinavian language. Based on experience as a teacher of a Norwegian grammar course at the University of Szczecin and as a teacher of grammar at the Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences which in 2016/2017 hosted around twenty Erasmus+ students from Szczecin, some of the challenges for Polish students of academic Norwegian will be reflected upon, as well as some of the challenges for a teacher of Norwegian who has very little knowledge of Polish. The main purpose of this paper will be to argue for the importance of grammar skills in language education and especially in language teacher education. This study is a contribution to the Educational Role of Language network.

Abstract This paper explores the conceptions of grammar of first-year teacher students (N = 235) in Norway. A conventional content analysis is used to analyse the answers from the first part of a survey exploring the teacher students’ views of grammar through the following questions: Q1. How would you define the term grammar? Q2. Do you think grammar is an important part of Norwegian as a school subject? Q3. Do you feel confident in grammar? The second part of the survey is a grammar knowledge test. The results show that most students define grammar as writing correctly. Many answers also refer to language structure. Among the less frequent definitions are: theoretical knowledge of language structure, precise communication, text, and constituent analysis. Nearly all students report that they consider grammar important. Moreover, most consider their own grammar competence to be relatively good. However, there is a discrepancy between this self-evaluation and the results from the knowledge test, which are quite poor. Our study contributes to the body of research on teacher students’ conception of grammar, which, in a Norwegian context, has been unexplored. We discuss our findings in the light of national and international literature, and we propose plausible contributing factors. We also reflect upon possible consequences for teacher education.

Despite protracted concerns about Norwegian students’ decline in grammar knowledge, the issue is poorly researched empirically. This article presents and the results from a grammar survey distributed to first-year student teachers (N=235). Our aim is to provide an empirical analysis of the level of Norwegian students’ grammar knowledge as they enter teacher education. We seek to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What characterizes the knowledge of grammar of Norwegian student teachers as they enter teacher education? RQ2: Are there grammatical topics and structures that they master more or less? If so, what characterizes these topics? The results show that the grammar knowledge of student teachers, is rather poor. The students know the word classes verb, noun, adjective and pronoun, as well as the SC subject. Their knowledge is founded on semantics, while the structural features of language seem to be a blind spot. The study contributes to the international research on Knowledge of Language (KaL) from a Norwegian perspective. Due to the two written standards of Norwegian, our study will be the first to report student teachers’ grammar knowledge from such a context.

This research studies language contact as a possible cause of differences between languages in their degree of transparency. As transparency is assumed to facilitate intelligibility and learnability, especially for adult L2 learners, it is hypothesized that in particular contact settings with many such learners, languages tend to show increasing transparency. The study tests this hypothesis by investigating transparency in Norwegian, which has been exposed to extensive contact with Low German and Danish, and the relatively isolated Icelandic language. Based on a set of opacity features formulated in Functional Discourse Grammar, the degree of transparency of the two languages is compared. The results show that, as predicted, Norwegian is more transparent than Icelandic, which seems due to an increase in transparency in Norwegian and general opacity maintenance in Icelandic compared to their ancestor Old Norse. The study thus supports the hypothesized relation between language contact and transparency.

This paper shows that Cognitive Grammar is valuable for typological studies. The Norwegian and Russian reflexive-middle-passive systems are analysed comprehensively and compared. Whereas Cognitive Grammar is compatible with the typological tradition (represented by Kemmer), it needs amendment in certain important respects. The main theoretical contribution of the paper is that the Cognitive Grammar notions of “instantiation”, “prototype”, “entrenchment” and “extension” are useful; without these notions, interesting generalizations about the Norwegian and Russian systems are inexpressible. The main empirical contribution of the paper is that a full-fledged analysis of the Russian system is presented. In addition, Kemmer's analysis of Norwegian is improved upon, partly because findings from the generative tradition are incorporated.

Summary This article adapts Linn’s ‘stylistics of standardization’ concept, which Linn (1998) has used to compare Norwegian and Faroese grammarians, to look at grammaticization processes in the first two grammars of German (Albertus 1573, Ölinger 1574). While both are clearly indebted to traditional Latin grammar and humanist ideals, these two grammars differ interestingly in the picture of the language that emerges from their metalanguage and structural principles. In his reflection on the language, his structuring and naming of linguistic phenomena and his attitudes to variation, Ölinger is the practical pedagogue, who imposes systematicity and aims for a one-to-one form-function relationship. Albertus on the other hand, though he too envisages his grammar being used for learning German, has a more cultural patriotic motivation, celebrating the richness and variety of German, worthy to be ranked alongside Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Albertus and Ölinger thus come up with quite different versions of the (as yet arguably non-existent) High German language. Each grammar yields a different subset of possible forms, reminding us that grammar-writing is always a task of creative construction.

This paper investigates cases of compounding in the heritage language American Norwegian (AmNo), where elements from Norwegian and English are mixed word-internally, e.g., hoste-candy ‘cough candy’, where the Norwegian item hoste ‘cough’ is combined with the English item candy. Norwegian and English create compounds in similar ways, but with certain important differences, e.g., the use of linking elements. Based on data from the Corpus of American Nordic Speech, we investigate the encounter of these two languages within one word and find that both Norwegian and English lexical items occur as both left-hand and right-hand members of mixed compounds. Moreover, these mixed compounds are generally accompanied by Norwegian functional items. Hence, we argue that the overall structure of mixed compounds in AmNo is Norwegian, and English lexical items may be inserted into specific positions. This is successfully analyzed in a DM/exoskeletal model of grammar. We show that our results are in line with what we expect based on previous accounts of AmNo language mixing and Norwegian compounds, and our specific focus on compound-internal mixing provides a novel perspective and new insights into both the structure of compounds and the nature of language mixing.

"Jan Erik Vold’s Concrete Poems: A Way to Enhance Students’ Creativity and Grammar Skills in Norwegian. The current paper aims to present the didactic use of the Norwegian concrete poems. The concept of concrete poetry will be approached through Jan Erik Vold’s literary perspective as the promoter of concretism in Norway. In order to prove the effectiveness of these poems in the teaching process, a survey was conducted including a questionnaire with closed-ended and open-ended questions. The respondents were 1st- and 2nd- year students of BA in Norwegian language and literature and a group of 3rd-year students from The Centre for Language Industries, enrolled at the Faculty of Letters, at Babeș-Bolyai University. This research aimed at the effectiveness of using Vold’s concrete poems when teaching specific language structures in Norwegian. Thus, a survey was done at the end of one semester of experiment when I used Jan Erik Vold’s concrete poems for my students during my Norwegian language courses and seminars. The results showed that especially during these seminars students read, analyse and design concrete poems in Norwegian, including grammatical and typographical poems, ready-mades, tongue twisters and nursery-rhymes-like poems, in order to better understand and to revise a specific grammatical, syntactic or lexical structure in Norwegian. Keywords: Norwegian language, concrete poems, Jan Erik Vold, visual poem, grammatical poem "

Using material from a parallel corpus with originals and translations in both English and Norwegian, the present study sets out to explore the lexicogrammatical properties of Theme and thematic choice in the two languages. Theme is defined according to systemic-functional grammar as the first element that has a function in transitivity, plus any preceding element(s). The extent to which Themes are preserved or altered in the translation process is also studied. There are more similarities than differences between the two languages as regards thematic structure. Some differences are due to the verb-second constraint that applies to Norwegian, but most are due to differences in frequency. Norwegian allows non-subject participants to be thematic more often than English does, while multiple Themes are more frequent in English. Within multiple Themes, the logical relations expressed by textual Themes differ between the languages. Translators tend to preserve the topical Theme of the original in the great majority of cases. When changes are made this may be due to lexicogrammatical differences between the languages or they may represent ‘normalization’ to a more frequent pattern in the target language. Translations are found to differ from original text in the same language as they borrow features from the source language.

Professor Arne Halvorsen (1939-2014) was and remains a central figure when referring to Romanian-Norwegian cultural relations. In 2010 he was awarded the Order of Cultural Merit, in the rank of Commander, by the President of Romania, for his “exceptional contribution to promoting Romanian culture and language as well as Romania’s image in the Kingdom of Norway”. Due to his efforts, a Romanian language lectureship was established at the University of Trondheim (NTNU) in the period 2008-2011. Moreover, he wrote the first Romanian-Norwegian Dictionary (2001) and the first Romanian grammar in Norwegian (2012) – photos below.

This article investigates the morphosyntax of American Norwegian noun phrases that show mixing between Norwegian and English and proposes a formal analysis of these. The data show a distinct pattern characterized by English content items occurring together with Norwegian functional material such as determiners and suffixes. In the article, it will be argued that an exoskeletal approach to grammar is ideally suited to capture this empirical pattern. This framework crucially separates the realization of functional and non-functional terminals in an abstract, syntactic structure. Insertion of functional exponents is restricted by feature matching, whereas insertion into non-functional terminals is radically less restrictive. English exponents for noun stems are thus easily inserted into open positions in the structure, whereas functional exponents are typically drawn from Norwegian, as these are better matches to feature bundles comprising definiteness, number, and gender. In addition to the typical mixing pattern, the article addresses an unexpected empirical phenomenon, the occurrence of the English plural -s, and proposes a possible analysis for this using the exoskeletal framework. The formal analysis of American Norwegian noun phrases also exemplifies how an exoskeletal approach complies with the ideal of a Null theory of language mixing.

Abstract The notion of complexity has been applied to descriptions and comparisons of languages and to explanations related to ease and difficulty of various linguistic phenomena in first and second language acquisition. It has been noted that compared to baseline grammars, heritage language grammars are less complex, displaying morphological simplification and structural shrinking, especially among heritage speakers with lower proficiency in the language. On some recent proposals of gender agreement in Spanish and Norwegian (Fuchs et al., 2015; Lohndal & Putnam, 2020), these differences are representational, affecting the projection of functional categories and feature specifications in the syntax. An alternative possibility is that differences between baseline and heritage grammars arise from computational considerations related to bilingualism, affecting speed of lexical access and feature reassembly online in the minority language. We illustrate this proposal with empirical data from gender agreement and differential object marking. Although presented as alternatives, the representational and computational explanations are not incompatible, and may both be adequate to capture varying levels of variability modulated by linguistic proficiency. These proposals formalize bilingual acquisition models of grammar competition and directly relate the availability and type of input (the acquisition evidence) to the locus and nature of the grammatical differences between heritage and baseline grammars.

The purpose of this article is to give a description of the syntax of clausal complementation in Norwegian within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). The data are mostly authentic sentences from text corpora and web pages. The description given is rather different from traditional descriptions. An important point to be made is that Norwegian (finite and non-finite) clausal complements are not homogeneous with respect to their syntactic properties. Even if most clausal complements behave like objects, Norwegian also has clausal complements that do not behave like objects. This phenomenon is well known from other languages, but has never been observed in the literature on Norwegian. The structure and function of non-object clausal complements are discussed, and the traditional idea that they are PP obliques is rejected.

Our main objective in this paper is to show how linguistic properties can be transferred from one system to another. Consequences of transfer are evaluated, both positive and negative, for the acquisition of possessives in French L2 or L3 by Norwegian learners. We take as a starting point a comparative description of the possessive systems in French and Norwegian and examine interlanguage grammars of adult learners of French both in a Norwegian university setting and in an immersion context. On the basis of results from production-comprehension tests we can predict and explain interlanguage errors in the students' L2-grammar (negative transfer) using comparative grammatical constraints (reflexive-irreflexive contrasts, binding constraints, explicit marking of the possessor, orientation towards the possessor or the possessum, etc.). We can also predict cases where the learners make fewer errors or no errors at all (positive transfer). In this way we are able to measure the importance of transfer, both negative and positive, for the acquisition of French as foreign language by Norwegian adult learners.

The presentational focus construction in Norwegian can have an agent in object position, as in Det arbeidet en mann i skogen ‘It worked a man in the-woods”. This creates problems for linking theory, in which a robust generalization says that agents are not realized as objects. Optimality Theory makes possible a new approach to this classical problem in Scandinavian generative grammar. The constraint that agents are not realized as objects must compete with other constraints. In Norwegian, it is ranked below a requirement that a presentational focus must be realized in object position. The Norwegian situation is compared to languages with different constraint rankings.

This paper discusses word-internal mixing in American Norwegian. The data show that the functional vocabulary is Norwegian whereas many of the lexical content items come from English. We argue that language mixing provides important evidence for grammatical theory: Specifically, the data support a late-insertion exoskeletal model of grammar like Distributed Morphology, in which the primitives of syntax are abstract feature bundles (morphemes) and bare roots. In such a theory, the structure is a separate entity, a sort of skeleton or frame, built of abstract morphemes. The phonological exponents of the roots and abstract morphemes are inserted late into designated slots. We show how such a model can explain the observed pattern for mixing within verb phrases and noun phrases in American Norwegian.

The grammar book Pitesaami Grammar, a study in comparison to Lulesaami has been developed in the period 2011-2014 within the project "From coast to coast", which focuses on the encounters, environment and migration within the Pitesaami area on the Norwegian and Swedish sides of the border. The focus of the project has among other things been the comparative study between the Pite- and Lulesaami languages, aiming to produce a descriptive grammar of the Pitesaami, the result of which is this book. The Pitesaami – one of many varieties, or dialects, of the Saami language – is spoken today in the area of Arjeplog by only forty or so speakers. Pitesaami is a threatened language without any officially accepted orthography, but a proposed and well-functioning one exists today, very similar to the Lulesaami orthography and used in this study. The Pitesaami language, as well as Lulesaami, is characterized by consonant gradation. In addition, in inflected and conjugated words, even the vowels change according to specific rules presented in this study. Like other Saami dialects, Pitesaami is rich in forms but also very regular. There are nine personal forms within the verbal paradigm. Three of them, the dual forms (us two, you two, those two), are a rarity among current languages. Nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals are inflected into nine different cases. This study explains all these phenomena and clarifies the structure and grammatical rules of the Pite- and Lulesaami. This grammar aims to assist those who want to learn the language and should be regarded as part of a revitalization process. Combined with dictionaries, texts, sound-recordings and living speakers, this grammar will enable you to understand the construction of the language, so you can start practicing both to speak and write it.<p><br />Good luck with your Saami studies!</p>

Abstract In this paper, we explore the role of cognition in bilingual syntactic processing by employing a structural priming paradigm. A group of Norwegian-English bilingual children and an age-matched group of Norwegian monolingual children were tested in a priming task that included both a within-language and a between-language priming condition. Results show that the priming effect between-language was not significantly smaller than the effect within-language. We argue that this is because language control mechanisms do not affect the access to the shared grammar. In addition, we investigate the interaction between the children’s performance in the priming task and in a non-linguistic cognitive task and find that the two measures are not correlated; however, we find a correlation between the cognitive task and language control, which we measured by counting the number of trials produced in the non-target language. Our findings suggest that language control and domain-general executive control overlap only partially.

This study investigates how child speakers of a verb second (V2) language acquire the supposedly more basic SVO word order of English. Data comes from approximately 100 Norwegian school children aged 7 to 12 in their acquisition of three related syntactic constructions. The focus of the investigation is the extent of language transfer from the L1, related to questions of markedness. It is shown that there is considerable transfer of Norwegian word order, and the children need to ‘unlearn’ the V2 rule acquired for their first language in the process of learning English. In a cue-based approach to second language acquisition, the input cues that are necessary to reorganize the children’s internalized grammar are identified, and the frequency of these cues is argued to be responsible for the order of acquisition of the various constructions.

SamandragKorleis kan funksjonell grammatikk skape grunnlag for djupnelæring i norsk-faget? I norskfaget er det ein lang tradisjon for å skilje tydeleg mellom språket som system og språket i bruk, og ein gjennomgang av nyare lærebøker retta mot lærarstudentar viser at ein framleis i stor grad held fast på dette skiljet. Dei tilrådde grammatiske termane til bruk i skuleverket bygger på ein strukturalistisk og dels generativ grammatikktradisjon der tekstar blir sett på som uinteressante som studieobjekt. I læreplanen i norsk er det derimot nettopp tekstar som er det sentrale, og det er såleis lite samsvar mellom teoretisk tilnærming til det grammatiske systemet og vektlegginga av grammatikken som metaspråk for arbeid med tekst i læreplanen. Funksjonell grammatikkundervisning er ikkje det same som funksjonell grammatikkteori, og i artikkelen blir det argumentert for å legge ei funksjonell tilnærming til språksystemet til grunn for arbeidet med grammatikk i skulen. I funksjonell grammatikk ser ein språksystemet og tekstlege realiseringar av systemet som to sider av same sak, og ein vil såleis ha eit betre grunnlag for å sjå ulike delar av faget i samanheng. Med ei djupare forståing for tydinga til språklege kategoriar vil ein også skape større potensial for overføring av kunnskap mellom ulike teksttypar og mellom ulike språk.Nøkkelord: funksjonell grammatikk, metaspråk, djupnelæringFunctional grammar as metalanguage in school– an opportunity for deep learning when working with language and textAbstractHow can functional grammar create a foundation for deeper learning in Norwegian studies? In Norwegian schools, there is a long tradition for distinguishing clearly between the language system and language in use, and a review of newer textbooks for teacher students shows that this approach is still valid. The officially recommended grammatical terminology for use in schools is based on a structuralist and partly generative grammar tradition in which texts are seen as uninteresting as objects of study. In the curriculum, on the other hand, texts are the most central objects of study, which means that there is little harmony between the theoretical approach to the grammatical system and the emphasis on grammar as metalanguage for work with texts in the curriculum. Functional grammar teaching is not the same as functional grammar theory, and in the article it is argued for a functional approach to the language system as a basis for the teaching of grammar in schools. In functional grammar, the language system and textual realisations of the system are two sides of the same coin, and it therefore provides a good basis for seeing connections between different subject areas. With a deeper understanding of the meaning of language categories, one will also create greater potential for transferring knowledge between different text types and between different languages.Keywords: functional grammar, metalanguage, deep learning

This article investigates the morphosyntactic status of dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese. We hypothesize that these three languages represent three diachronic stages signalled synchronically by the degree of preservation or non-preservation of dative under movement. Thus, we explore the synchronic status of dative under passive movement and topicalization in the three languages, while simultaneously paying attention to the larger questions of diachronic preservation and non-preservation of dative. We suggest that our findings have interesting ramifications for the categorization of case as structural and non-structural in generative grammar.

ABSTRACTThe present study investigated the contribution of cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors to the narrative production of Norwegian second language learners. We assessed cognitive ability and first and second language proficiency in 66 kindergarten children with Urdu/Punjabi as their first language. Number of children's books in the home and time spent in kindergarten were treated as contextual factors. Oral narration was assessed in Grade 1. A series of fixed-order hierarchical regression analyses displayed a complex relationship among cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors and various facets of narrative production of young second language learners; nonverbal ability and books in the home predicted the mastering of story (macro)structure, while linguistic (vocabulary and grammar) and both contextual variables predicted microaspects of narrative proficiency. The results suggest that combining home book reading practices, kindergarten attendance, and second language interventions might improve language minority children's narrative production and chances of school success.

SUMMARY This article adapts Linn’s ‘stylistics of standardization’ concept, which Linn (1998) has used to compare Norwegian and Faroese grammarians, to look at grammaticization processes in the first two grammars of German (Albertus 1573, Ölinger 1574). While both are clearly indebted to traditional Latin grammar and humanist ideals, these two grammars differ interestingly in the picture of the language that emerges from their metalanguage and structural principles. In his reflection on the language, his structuring and naming of linguistic phenomena and his attitudes to variation, Ölinger is the practical pedagogue, who imposes systematicity and aims for a one-to-one form-function relationship. Albertus on the other hand, though he too envisages his grammar being used for learning German, has a more cultural patriotic motivation, celebrating the richness and variety of German, worthy to be ranked alongside Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Albertus and Ölinger thus come up with quite different versions of the (as yet arguably non-existent) High German language. Each grammar yields a different subset of possible forms, reminding us that grammar-writing is always a task of creative construction.RÉSUMÉ Cet article prend comme point de départ la ‘stylistique de standardisation’ que Linn (1998) a utilisé dans sa comparaison d’un grammairien norvégien et d’un grammairien féroïen. Cette approche est adaptée ici pour permettre la comparaison des processus de grammaticisation dans les deux premières grammaires allemandes (Albertus 1573, Ölinger 1574). Tandis qu’Albertus et Ölinger doivent tous les deux beaucoup et à la grammaire latine traditionnelle et aux idéaux humanistes de l’époque, leurs grammaires diffèrent de manière intéressante en ce qui concerne l’image de la langue allemande que créent leur métalangage et leurs principes d’organisation. Dans ses réflexions sur la langue, dans la structure et la façon de nommer les phénomènes linguistiques, et dans son attitude envers la variation, Ölinger est le pédagogue pragmatique, qui cherche à imposer un système et à produire une relation unique entre forme et fonction. Albertus, pour sa part, s’il écrit lui aussi sa grammaire pour faciliter l’apprentissage de la langue, semble avoir une motivation patriotique, célébrant la richesse de l’allemand, digne d’être rangé à côté du latin, du grec et de l’hébreu. Albertus et Ölinger offrent donc deux versions différentes de la langue allemande — chaque grammaire produit un sous-ensemble de formes possibles, nous rappellant que la tâche d’écrire une grammaire est toujours un processus de ‘construction créative’.ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In diesem Artikel wird Linns Ansatz einer ‘Stilistik der Standardisierung’, den Linn (1998) für den Vergleich eines norwegischen und eines färörischen Grammatikers anwandte, auf Grammatisierungsprozesse in den beiden ersten deutschen Grammatiken (Albertus 1573, Ölinger 1574) angewandt. Während beide Grammatiken offensichtlich sowohl der traditionellen lateinischen Grammatik als auch humanistischen Idealen manches schulden, unterscheiden sie sich systematisch im Bild der Sprache, das aus ihrer Metasprache und ihrem Aufbau entsteht. In seiner Reflexion über die Sprache, in der Strukturierung und Benennung sprachlicher Phänomene, und in seiner Einstellung der Variation gegenüber, ist Ölinger durchweg der pragmatische Pädagoge, der ein System — und möglichst eine Eins-zu-eins-Form-Funktion-Beziehung — sucht und findet. Albertus, obwohl er seine Grammatik ebenfalls als Lehrtext konzipiert, geht eher von einer kulturpatriotischen Motivation aus, um den Reichtum der deutschen Sprache zu feiern — einer Sprache, die nicht weniger vollkommen sei als Lateinisch, Griechisch und Hebräisch. Albertus und Ölinger entwerfen also ziemlich verschiedene Versionen der (noch nicht wirklich existierenden) hochdeutschen Sprache — jede Grammatik läßt jeweils verschiedene Formen zu, und wir erkennen noch einmal, dass die Grammatikschreibung stets einen Prozess ‘kreativer Konstruktion’ darstellt.

Norwegian is peculiar not only with a view to the written language, which has two official standards, but also regarding the spoken language, which lacks a standardized form. In fact, Norway is one of the most dialect-speaking countries in Europe. The use of a regional dialect in all fields of one’s life is rather perceived as part of one’s identity, and a sign of democracy and decentralization. Although theoretically there are four main dialects, in practice the variety of dialects differing in grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation is much wider, and depends on the part of the country or even on a specific town. The present paper is mainly focused on analyzing how the issue of diatopic variation in the Norwegian spoken language has been depicted in recent years (2008-2012) in Norway’s largest daily newspaper, Aftenposten. Even if dialects are accepted in everyday life, one of the recurrent debates in the newspaper is however related to using a standard form at least in the news programs from the largest Norwegian television and radio company, NRK, where the language ought to be considered a point of reference. Another topic of interest is related to the dialects used in dubbing in children’s television series.

The aim of this study is to investigate the criminal discourse of the Sweden Democrats through an ideational analysis of their criminal policy programme. The study applies an analytical tool drawing on systemic functional grammar. Analysing nuclear participants and using readability index, the article explores the question of how model readers are constructed in the text. The conclusion is that the Sweden Democrats focus mostly on material processes that refer to physical violence (very rarely on other types of crime). The party’s view on criminal policy is focused on support for the police force. The Sweden Democrats’ descriptions largely adopt the perspective of crime victims, while the model reader is a law-abiding and well-educated citizen.

The article describes a pilot implementation of a grammar containing different types of locative PPs. In particular, we investigate the distinction between static and directional locatives, and between different types of directional locatives. Locatives may act as modifiers as well as referring expressions depending on the syntactic context. We handle this with a single lexical entry. The implementation is of Norwegian locatives, but English locatives are both discussed and compared to Norwegian locatives. The semantic analysis is based on a proposal by Markus Kracht (2002), and we show how this analysis can be incorporated into Minimal Recursion Semantics (MRS) (Copestake et al. 2005). We discuss how the resulting system may be applied in a transfer-based machine translation system, and how we can map from a shallow MRS representation to a deeper semantic representation.

The value of oral corrective feedback for the development of metalinguistic knowledge has been acknowledged in the research literature for decades. Yet, teachers in second language teacher education programmes still tend to provide written feedback almost exclusively, leaving untapped potential for successful formative assessment. This study aims to investigate the potential complementarity of written and oral feedback through a qualitative case study of one teacher educator’s grammar feedback practices in English as a second language. Eighteen student teachers at a Norwegian university college received individual written and oral corrective feedback on their essays. The provided feedback was analysed using Ellis’s (2009) and Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) taxonomies. Inter- and intra-rater reliability tests confirmed the findings. The analysis shows that written and oral feedback fulfil different functions and have complementary roles. The described case may function as an inspiring example of exemplary practice for teacher educators and language teachers.

This paper reports on an exploratory study of cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of relative clauses by young Norwegian learners of English, comparing L1 Norwegian and L2 English material from the TRAWL (Tracking Written Learner Language) Corpus to L1 English material from the GiG (Growth in Grammar) Corpus. Previous reports of cross-linguistic influence in this domain have usually involved language pairs that have very different relativization strategies. This study investigates whether similarities between relative clause systems may lead to more subtle effects in the choice of relativizer, the type of head nominal, the syntactic function of the relativized item, the extent of relativization from embedded clauses and the use of relative clauses in special constructions such as existentials and clefts. Although the material is limited, the study found traces of the Norwegian system in the learners L2 English, signalling that this is an area worth further investigation. The learners struggled with the choice between who and which, but used that/zero in a very similar way to their L1 English peers. The L2 English group also had slightly higher frequencies of relative clauses belonging to existentials and clefts, and where the relativized item stemmed from a further embedded clause. These results are consistent with a usage-based theory of second language acquisition, where learners are assumed to transfer features of constructions from their L1 when they are similar enough for them to make a cross-linguistic identification.

The aim of this study was to explore English teachers’ teaching techniques perceived as important when teaching English as a third language (L3) to minority adult students in secondary schools. Using a quantitative research approach, 95 teachers from two districts in the Viken county of Norway completed a 15-item questionnaire titled. Perceived Strategies for English Teaching Scale and an open-ended question about ways of teaching vocabulary for effective English teaching to support students learning in their classrooms. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and t-tests were used to analyse the data. The results showed that teaching vocabulary, reading, and grammar, among others, were strategies considered as important in teaching English. Reflecting on teachers challenging roles in teaching English as L3 to minority adult learners with varied English knowledge a collaborative teaching strategy was found to be very useful. The respondents also identified certain ways of teaching vocabulary to support students learning. Implication for further research is discussed. Keywords: Norway, English teaching, minority students, teaching strategies

I will present the results of a two-year project (L'Italiano interattivo) which started in 1989 in collaboration with the Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. So far two Italian video discs have been repurposed. The learner-directed courseware gives the student a high degree of freedom to choose which activity to work with at any moment—video, exercises, grammar, dictionary or transcripts of the dialogues/commentaries. The program, which has been developed in SuperCard, is organized as a hypermedia system where video, text, graphics and audio are linked together in a web of information.

AbstractFollowing Denis Bouchard's neo-Saussurean Sign Theory of Language, with a focus on the notion of Grammar Semantics, this article sketches a proposal for a unified understanding of the most multifunctional among Norwegian verbs, namely få ‘get’. Based on Bouchard's analysis of French être ‘be’ and avoir ‘have’ and corresponding signs in other languages, I propose that få is the dynamic version of ha ‘have’, which is a bivalent transitive copula. This abstract semantic value is shown to form the basis for the many contextual interpretations få receives, in its use both as a main verb and as an auxiliary. To my knowledge, a monosemic, unified understanding of få that covers all its uses and interpretations has not yet been proposed, especially not one that highlights its relationships with være ‘be’, ha ‘have’ and bli ‘be, become, get’. The study also includes a contrastive analysis of få and the English verb get.

This historical study of the tense morphology of moribund North American heritage Norwegian (AmNo) provides new diachronic insight into the language change of this variety. Change has been found in present-day (post-2010) AmNo tense morphology. Previous work argues that the observed changes have arisen with the present generation of speakers. However, this has not been proven with a systematic study of early AmNo data. AmNo presents a unique opportunity to explore the diachrony of old (moribund) heritage varieties since historical data have recently become available in the Corpus of American Nordic Speech (CANS). The present work uses such data from CANS, specifically a subcorpus of selected speakers from Coon Valley and Westby (WI) from 1942, which is supplemented by targeted searches in both a subcorpus of all speakers of CANS recorded in 1942 and a subcorpus of all speakers recorded from 1987 to 1992. The study found no evidence of change in the older stages of AmNo. This lack of evidence for change supports the claim that the change in the present-day tense morphology of AmNo has arisen with the present generation of speakers. A probable cause for the lack of change in early AmNo is that the AmNo language communities, to a large degree, functioned in Norwegian up until the 1940s. Thus, Norwegian was available to speakers to a much higher degree than it has been for the present generation. This study provides novel insight into language change in moribund heritage varieties, but it also argues that the study of further grammatical variables and heritage varieties is needed to increase our understanding of the language and grammar of the last multilingual speakers of moribund varieties.

AbstractIn a recent paper published in this journal, Laura Janda makes a number of claims about metonymy, specifically about metonymy in word-formation as part of grammar. In a nutshell, what she says is that suffixed nouns such as Russian saxarnica (from saxar ‘sugar’) ‘sugar bowl’, Czech břicháč (from břicho ‘belly’) ‘person with a large belly’, or Norwegian baker ‘baker’, are metonymic extensions from saxar ‘sugar’, břicho ‘belly’, and bake ‘bake’, respectively. It is our contention that this claim about metonymy being involved in word-formation phenomena such as suffixation is misconceived and leads to an overuse of the term ‘metonymy’. We first comment on Janda's views on cognitive linguistic research on metonymy in grammar and word-formation, and then evaluate the evidence that she provides to support her central claim – from some general claims about metonymy and grammar to the way she identifies metonymy in word-formation. Finally, we point out a series of problems ensuing from the concept of word-formation metonymy. The analytical parts of Janda's article are in our view a more or less traditional cross-linguistic inventory of suffixation patterns that do not exhibit metonymy as such. However, some genuine metonymies that crop up among her examples are glossed over. In other words, we claim that her analysis ignores metonymies where they appear and postulates metonymies where they do not exist.

Children are often exposed to considerable variation in the input. Nevertheless, there is very little overgeneralization in child language data and children are typically found to make errors of omission, not errors of commission, a fact which is often referred to as conservative learning. In this paper, these findings are accounted for by a model of micro-cues, a generative approach to language acquisition arguing that children are sensitive to fine syntactic distinctions from early on. The micro-cues are small pieces of abstract syntactic structure resulting from parsing the input. This means that UG provides children with principles, features, and the ability to parse, but not the micro-cues themselves, which are considered to be part of the knowledge of a specific language. The model also considers children’s errors to generally be due to economy and the language acquisition process to be development in small steps, from specific to more general knowledge. Keywords: Conservative learning; economy; English; grammar competition; Norwegian; (over- and under)generalization; parameter; rule “size”; word order

This article introduces American Swedish (AmSw) into the discussion of the C-domain in heritage Scandinavian. The study is based on spontaneous speech data from the Swedish part of the Corpus of American Nordic Speech (CANS), compared to a baseline of homeland Swedish dialect speakers. We show that the C-domain in AmSw is primarily characterized by stability; this is evidenced by a relatively robust V2 syntax and left dislocation patterns that resemble the homeland baseline. However, we also show that AmSw diverges in some respects: there are some V2 violations and a stronger preference for SV clauses (subject-initial main clauses) at the expense of XVS clauses (non-subject-initial main clauses). These results are similar to previous findings from American Norwegian. We argue that the diverging patterns exhibited by AmSw speakers are not indicative of any fundamental change in their Swedish grammar. The occasional V2 violations are attributed to parallel activation of English and Swedish, and speakers sometimes failing to inhibit English, which is their dominant language. The increase of SV clauses is analyzed as a preference for the canonical word order of the dominant language, but within the limits of what the heritage grammar permits. The patterns in AmSw can be described as cases of attrition and cross-linguistic influence; however, we argue for a nuanced use of these terms.

Abstract In the present study, we investigate how the relationship between human and nature is rendered as Norwegian children’s book author Maria Parr’s novel Keeperen og havet [Lena, the Sea and me] is translated into Danish, English, French, German, and Swedish. Our focus is mainly on book cover images, and methodologically we use concepts and tools from Kress and van Leeuwen’s Grammar of visual design. Nature and landscape are prominent in Parr’s œuvre, which is set in the Western part of Norway, where mountains and the sea are always present. Results show that the French cover positions itself as the most ecocentric one, whereas the Swedish and the German covers are much more anthropocentric.

The article introduces Alexander Kuchin and his “Small Russian-Norwegian dictionary”, which was published in 1907 by the publishing house “Pomor” (Finnmarken) in Vardø (Norway) and was very popular at that time. Its author, Alexander Stepanovich Kuchin, a man with a unique destiny, is known to compatriots as the only Russian who participated in the discovery of the South Pole in the Roald Amundsen’s expedition, and also as the first of our countrymen who, after the discovery of Antarctica in 1820 by the expedition of Faddey F. Bellingshausen and Michael P. Lazarev, landed on the coast of the Southern continent. A talented young man who died in the expedition of Vladimir A. Rusanov at the age of only 25, made a great contribution to science, research and navigation. Born in the village of Kushereka in the Onega district of the Arkhangelsk province, Alexander received a good education for that time. He graduated from a two-grade parochial school in Kushereka, brilliantly studied at the Onega City School, attended classes at the Tromsø school for a year and was the only one in the course graduated from the Arkhangelsk Merchant and Maritime School with a gold medal. He read H. Ibsen, K. Hamsun, J. Falkberget and other writers in the original. Alexander was also lucky to work at the biological station in Bergen under the direction of Bjørn Hjelland-Hansen, one of the founders of oceanography as a science; here he also met Fridtjof Nansen, one of the national Norwegian heroes, which played a significant role in A. Kuchin’s life. The “Small Russian-Norwegian dictionary” was published in 2,000 copies and was very popular that time. The dictionary contains around 4,000 words on 48 pages. There are no proper names in it, but at the end of the dictionary basic information about the phonetics and grammar of the Norwegian language is disposed. It is focused on Russian users and arouses undoubted interest among linguists, since it appeared in 1907, two years after the termination of the union with Sweden. It is valuable that Alexander Kuchin, not being a linguist, fixed the language used by common people such as fishermen and trawlermen in the North of Norway (particularly in Finnmark and Troms). Such a democratic version of the language is also of special scientific interest. In general, the dictionary was caused by necessity, appeared at a proper time, was well compiled and completely fulfilled the functions assigned to it.

Summary The first descriptive grammar of Greenlandic Eskimo was published in 1760 by Paul Egede, continuing the work of his father, Hans, and his missionary collaborator, Albert Top. Curiously, however, the comparative study of Greenlandic had already been inaugurated in 1745, when Marcus Wöldike (1699–1750), professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, read a remarkable paper to the Kiøbenhavnske Selskab af Lœrdoms of Videnskabers Elskere, published next year in the proceedings of that Society. Based on information obtained from the Egedes, Wöldike presented a grammar of Greenlandic in summary form and compared Greenlandic to about two dozen other languages on some sixty phonological, morphological, and syntactic criteria. As it turned out, Greenlandic was rather similar to Hungarian, sharing with it a great many features (especially such as Hungarian did not share with European languages such as Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish, English, German, Irish, Welsh, Breton, Latin, Italian, French, Ancient Greek, and Slavonic) and showing preciously few differences. American languages, represented by Tupi, Carib, Huron, Natick, and Algonkin, were found to differ considerably from Greenlandic; and Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish did not much better. Lapp and Finnish came out as close structural relatives of Hungarian – which amounted to the first published demonstration of the Finno-Ugric hypothesis, antedating Saj-novics’s of 1770 and Gyarmathi’s of 1799. For Wöldike the large-scale agreements especially between Greenlandic and Hungarian were no inexplicable chance coincidences. The explanation he suggested was not typological, drawing on necessary correlations of the structural features shared, but historical. Rather than positing a common Ursprache, as was and continued to be the fashion, however, he invoked diffusion within a Sprachbund, localized, somewhat vaguely, in Tartary, from where the Greenlanders and Hungarians (and Lapps and Finns too) had supposedly migrated to their present habitats.

The main aim of the article is to analyse which types of syntactic information should be included in bilingual dictionaries where Lithuanian is the target language. The article discusses specific features of bidirectional dictionaries and differences between the syntactic information given in bilingual and monolingual dictionaries. Also discussed are principles for selecting syntactic information on Lithuanian as a target language, general syntactic features which are relevant in lexicography, ways of presenting government and valency and the importance of contrastive analysis for bilingual lexicography. Although syntactic information on lemmas and their equivalents is not a new subject in lexicographic theory and practice, syntactic information on Lithuanian as a target language has not yet been investigated, as no dictionaries for foreign users of Lithuanian have been compiled and published. The investigation is mostly based on experience and empirical data from the “Norwegian-Lithuanian dictionary”.The analysis leads to the conclusion that the most important information to provide about Lithuanian equivalents in bilingual dictionaries is verb government and valency. The most valuable information for the users of bilingual dictionaries illustrates the syntactic differences between the source and the target language, and this information can be identified by applying a contrastive method. The relevant syntactic information can be given next to the equivalents or in the examples. Case marking, obligatory use with prepositions as well as subordination of infinitive constructions can be shown next to the equivalents. As a minimum, the syntactic information on Lithuanian verbs should state if the verb takes another object case than the accusative. It is necessary to provide equivalents with the obligatory components of valency, while facultative components might be shown in the examples. Syntactic information should be provided for phrases as well as for single-word equivalents. In the examples one can show the variety of the syntactic features of the Lithuanian equivalents and highlight the differences between the syntactic features of the Norwegian lemmas and their Lithuanian equivalents. Examples can also be used to show specific syntactic constructions which do not exist in Lithuanian and provide information on congruous syntactic features of both languages.It is hardly possible to present the syntactic features of both languages equally detailed in bilingual bidirectional dictionaries. As lemma lists and examples are usually compiled on the basis of the source language, it usually turns out that the target language is provided with less information, and it is complicated to analyse and highlight the grammar of all the equivalents of the source language.

This study explores U-shaped behaviour in the acquisition of irregular verb morphology across three groups of Norwegian L2 learners of English. This phenomenon is especially interesting due to its significance for the organization and division between the mental lexicon and grammar. We hypothesized that if U-shaped behaviour was observable, then we would find significant differences in participants’ performance accuracy levels in conjunction with overregularization errors. We report results on the acquisition of irregular verb morphology, in addition to mean reaction times on different types of responses (accurate responses and overregularized ones). The final analysis includes data from participants from the 8 th grade (N=17), 9 th grade (N=19), and 10 th grade (N=15). We report results of the acquisition of irregular verbs, in addition to reaction latencies. Participants responded to an elicitation task to test performance on 40 items. The results are consistent with the later stages of U-shaped learning. We found an increase in overall accuracy co-occurring with a decrease in overregularization errors. We propose that the existence of U-shaped behaviour in the L2 is indicative of a general underlying input-driven learning pattern, and that this process is an integral part of acquiring knowledge upon exposure to irregularities in a productive paradigm.

Background Translation of previously developed questionnaires has often been the choice when addressing research to groups whose language is not English. In the translation of health-related questionnaires, it is highly important to assure congruency between the words and their true meaning in the language to which the questionnaire is translated. Aim To describe the semantic problems encountered in translating a standardized questionnaire from English (the Identity and Experiences Scale) to Norwegian according to the World Health Organizations translation protocol. Design A mixed-method study was used with the formation of four focus groups and a postal survey. Data sources Eighteen respondents from a nursing college in Oslo, an aged community in northeast Norway, and a community organization of retired persons in southeast Norway were focus group participants. In sum, 141 persons participated in the postal survey. Findings A number of semantical challenges in relation to interpretation and understanding of the meaning and use of words in the Identity and Experiences Scale were found. Discussion Words bearing emotional weight and connected to complex operational concepts were found to be problematic. Various American-English colloquial expressions also caused semantical challenges. Other problems were related to sentence structure and grammar form. Conclusion Translation, adaptation, and validation of questionnaires or scales for practice and research are very time-consuming and require careful planning and the adoption of rigorous methodological approaches to derive a reliable and valid measure of the concept of interest in the target population. Implications for nursing Translation quality is a methodological issue that nurses need to take seriously. It is highly recommended that nurses follow and document steps in a procedure of forward translation, qualitative reviews of translated items with regard to clarity, common language and conceptual adequacy, back translation, testing on lay panels, and committee review, or a probable variation of this procedure.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG /> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves /> <w:TrackFormatting /> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF /> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark /> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning /> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents /> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps /> <w:UseFELayout /> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" /> <m:brkBin m:val="before" /> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallFrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispDef /> <m:lMargin m:val="0" /> <m:rMargin m:val="0" /> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" /> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" /> <m:intLim m:val="subSup" /> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" /> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="276"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="footer" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" /> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} --> <!--[endif] --> <!--StartFragment--><span style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;ＭＳ 明朝&quot;; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Rice (2006) presents a unified analysis of Norwegian word stress that applies equally to native words and to loanwords. In this analysis, stress is oriented to the right edge of the word, which suggests that the loanwords were responsible for changing what was originally a left-oriented grammar of stress. In this paper I consider a similar reorientation that took place in the history of English, also under the influence of Romance loanwords. Closer examination shows that the two cases appear to be different. Many loanwords of the sort that caused a change in Norwegian entered Middle English without causing any significant change in English stress. It was only in the Early Modern English period that the loanwords were able to impose a right-oriented stress pattern on English. Rice (2006) observes that the loanwords were able to change the Norwegian stress pattern without overtly contradicting the native words; that is, the loanwords could make a change only in aspects of the grammar where the native words were ambiguous. I argue that this principle also accounts for the English case.</span><!--EndFragment-->

This paper investigates spontaneous production from 50 speakers of Norwegian heritage language in the Corpus of American Nordic Speech and studies the interplay between four linguistic properties: possessives and double definiteness, verb second word order, grammatical gender, and the amount of language mixing. It is shown that speakers cluster in the sense that some speakers produce more Norwegian-like structures across properties, whereas others produce more English-like structures across the same properties. Implications for the study of heritage grammars are also addressed.

Abstract In this article we give a brief summary of how Norwegian and Polish sentences are classified in the widely acknowledged grammar books. Therefore, we review the definitions of sentences in both languages, and compare the various classifications applied in Norwegian and Polish. Additionally, much focus is given to classification of sub clauses, which happen to be differently characterized in the respective languages. We would claim that there is a significant bias regarding features that determine classification of sub clauses in Norwegian and Polish. While in Norwegian a lot of emphasis is put on structural features, focusing on how particular units are organized within a sentence, the Polish classifications seem more semantic-oriented. As far as grammatical terms are concerned, Norwegian is featured by far more notions that might yield intransparency for a Polish learner or grammarian. On the other hand, the Norwegian classifications seem far more transparent. Due to a lack of 1-1 relation between terms used in Norwegian and Polish, we cater for this need by providing terms applicable for both languages. We believe that this may come into useful for all who try to systematize their knowledge about sentences in both languages.

Abstract The notion of complexity is evasive and often left to intuition, yet it is often invoked when studying heritage language grammars. In this article, we propose a first pass at decomposing the notion of complexity into smaller components in a formal grammatical model. In particular, we argue that a distributed model of the lexicon (i.e., one that assumes that principles that generate both words and phrases are one and the same) allows us to identify three components: syntactic features, the hierarchical organization of features, and the mapping between syntactic features and their exponents. Based on grammatical gender in different language pairs, in particular the heritage language American Norwegian (AmNo), we illustrate how this distributed model can account for developments in heritage language grammars whereby the grammatical gender system is considered to have become less complex. More generally, the article demonstrates that a distributed architecture is better suited empirically and theoretically as a heuristic to understand complexity effects in heritage grammars and beyond.

This article is a comparative exploration of counterfactual conditionals introduced by the conjunction ‘if’ in French and Norwegian, a topic which has not been studied before. My analyses are based on examples from monolingual and multilingual corpora, complemented by two questionnaires, in French and Norwegian, respectively. Both languages have two main patterns corresponding to (A) [‘if’ + imperfect + conditional simple] and (B) [‘if’ + pluperfect + conditional perfect], but their use is somewhat different in the two languages. Regarding counterfactual present, both have two patterns at their disposal. In French, however, pattern (A) seems preferred whereas Norwegian displays a clear preference for pattern (B). When confronted with examples of counterfactual future, both groups of informants initially hesitated, but ultimately considered pattern (B) as an acceptable solution in many cases. Not only the tenses but also the type of verb, eventual temporal adjuncts and the context are important for the interpretations. Neither French nor Norwegian grammars present the issue satisfactorily and therefore need to be revised.

The Scandinavian languages are very closely related but also vary syntactically in interesting ways, making this family useful in the study of typology variation. In this paper the issue of non-local reflexives, or ‘long-distance reflexives’ (LDR) is investigated. New LDR data from the Scandinavian languages is presented to show that the Binding Conditions cannot account for the variation in LDR in these languages, since the range of domains that LDR may or may not occur in in each variety varies non-hierarchically. For instance, LDR in Icelandic may be bound out of a finite complement clause but not out of a relative clause, while the reverse is true in most Norwegian dialects. Faroese allows LDR out of both clause types, but many dialects do not allow a second person pronoun to co-occur in a sentence containing LDR, which does not generally affect Icelandic or Norwegian LDR. An extension of Dalrymple's (1993) typology of anaphora, which is set within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar, can account for this data, using a combination of inside-out and outside-in functional uncertainty equations, on- and off-path constraints and positive and negative constraints, all of which refer to elements (potentially) found in functional-structure.

ABSTRACTThis paper discusses different approaches to language acquisition in relation to children's acquisition of word order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian. While generative models assert that children set major word order parameters and thus acquire a rule of subject–auxiliary inversion or generalized verb second (V2) at an early stage, some constructivist work argues that English-speaking children are simply reproducing frequent wh-word+auxiliary combinations in the input. The paper questions both approaches, re-evaluates some previous work, and provides some further data, concluding that the acquisition of wh-questions must be the result of a rule-based process. Based on variation in adult grammars, a cue-based model to language acquisition is presented, according to which children are sensitive to minor cues in the input, called micro-cues. V2 is not considered to be one major parameter, but several smaller-scale cues, which are responsible for children's lack of syntactic (over-)generalization in the acquisition process.