Question about pronouns in English, Norwegian and Danish [longish post]

[Tania Strahan]

Hi Helge,

> I am not sure that I entirely agree with your description of Norwegian. 
> A preposed definite article is usually only assumed to occur in front 
> of an attributive adjective (where it is also obligatory if the phrase 
> is definite and there is no other determiner or possessive):
> 
> (a) den store mannen
>  'the great man'
> 
> (a) is actually ambiguous between an article reading and a 
> demonstrative reading ('that great man'); stress would distinguish. 

Sorry for getting the 'den mann' gloss muddled as DEF instead of DEM,
that's totally out in my dialect, so I don't quite 'get' it! I'm trying to
ignore question of adjectives, since the 'han mannen' type phrases don't
normally seem to have an adjective with them (going for minimal pairs here).


> Notice that the definite suffix is quite normal along with the preposed 
> article (in contrast to what you say below under 1); omitting it would 
> be more stylistically marked, although not impossible:
> 
> (b) den store mann
> 
> (b) could be used to refer non-specifically, e.g. "Den store mann som 
> sier slikt, er egentlig ganske liten." ('The great man who says such a 
> thing, is actually quite small.') 


My informant corrects examples like (b) to add the suffix! But I do get what
you mean.


> As for your example 1:
> 
> (c) den mann
> 
> it could only be given the demonstrative reading (with stress), and not 
> the article reading. Again, non-specific reference would be typical of 
> this phrase ("Den mann som sier slikt..."). Your example 2, with 
> definite suffix, would be the normal case with a demonstrative:

> (d) den mannen
> 
> As for your 3, with a pronoun:
> 
> (e) Han mannen er snill
> 
> it is indeed possible in spoken language, although stylistically 
> unexpected, at least, in the written language. (This is the reason why 
> we don't analyze it in our on-line Norwegian LFG grammar on
> http://decentius.aksis.uib.no/logon/xle.xml .) 

ooh, the spoken language 'doesn't count'?! Or is it rather that the spoken
language can be so variable in all the different dialects? :)

> You are quite right that 
> it expresses specific reference, but I am not convinced that the 
> pronoun should be regarded as a demonstrative. 

Lots of people agree with this: Janne Bondi Johannessen, Marit Julien,
Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, Chris Lyons and I'm sure there are others too. 

> It is not stressed, 

true...

> and it does not have the deictic semantics of a demonstrative. 

I disagree very strongly here. It is used to point out odd people in the
immediate environment, or to reintroduce a discourse referent, or to single
out a referent from a group - all of which I think are more central traits
of demonstratives than stress.

> Besides, as 
> I mentioned above, the fact that the definite suffix is required on the 
> noun is no sure sign of a demonstrative since (1) demonstratives do not 
> *require* the definite suffix, and 

... in some dialects they do (from my informant):

*Sjå den hest! --> Sjå den hesten! 'Look at that horse'
*Den mann som seier sånt... --> Den mannen som seier sånt må vera gal.
(alternativet er: Ein mann som seier sånt må være gal) 

*på hi sia --> på hi sio 'on the other side' (-a is fem indef ending, -o is
fem def suffix)
*på hin ende --> på hin enden 'on the other end'


> (2) the preposed definite article 
> also cooccurs with the definite suffix ((a) above).

Yes, okay, I didn't structure my argument very well! I think, in
Sunnhordlandsk, *all* definite determiners, which includes definite articles
and demonstratives (since there's not always a clear distinction between
them in all Norwegian dialects, I think it's a little spurious to say
there's a difference) require the definite suffix, which therefore functions
pretty much just as an agreement marker most of the time.

> It is not quite clear to me how you would capture the difference 
> between Danish and Norwegain definiteness marking " in the a-structure 
> for third person pronouns". It seems to me that the basic 
> generalization is that while Danish definite determiners require 
> indefinite form of the noun, Norwegian definite determiners put no 
> restrictions in terms of definiteness on the noun. 

... but with dialectal variation, as mentioned above.

> This of course needs 
> to be elaborated to account for the finer semantic distinctions etc., 
> and it is no explanation. 

precisely!

> But I do not immediately see how you would 
> relate this to the a-structure?

yes, okay. I think I was envisioning that the requirements for the kind of
complements would go there, so you could specify 'han needs a definite N
complement, or a PP adjunct', 'den can have a definite or indefinite noun
complement', and so on. But that is not what a-structure is for, apparently.
I'm not sure where this actually gets specified then??

> As for modified pronouns, e.g.
> 
> (f) Han med grønt hår forsvant
>  *'He with green hair disappeared'
> (g) Han der borte forsvant
>  *'He over there disappeared'
> 
> I would suggest analyzing them with the pronouns heading a phrase that 
> is modified. Unlike "han mannen", these constructions are less 
> stylistically marked and therefore unproblematic in the written 
> language. (As you point out, our web grammar at 
> http://decentius.aksis.uib.no/logon/xle.xml didn't analyze them, but I 
> have now corrected that.)

okay, thanks. So that's another 'non-problem' for LFG then? That's nice :)

> As for the spoken-language phrase "han 
> mannen", however, you may be able to argue for a determiner (but hardly 
> demonstrative) analysis of 'han', which also occurs with proper names 
> in many dialects.

Well, I actually want to steer clear of the preproprial article here, which
is something quite different. I think. At least, the semantics of it are
different, in that the preproprial article is obligatory, while the pronoun
determiner is, I think, just another demonstrative. With funny/varying
definiteness requirements on the noun...

cheers,
Tania