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

[Helge Dyvik]

På 25. feb. 2008 kl. 14.47 skrev Tania Strahan:

> 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).

There is nothing wrong at all with having an adjective in this 
construction: "han gamle mannen" 'that old man' is quite 
straightforward.

>
>
>> 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.

I notice that you and your informant seem to be using Nynorsk (rather 
than Bokmål), and in Nynorsk the restrictions against 'single 
definiteness' as in 'den store mann' are stronger than in Bokmål. 
However, there is an element of prescription here, since you will find 
examples in actual texts both varieties of Norwegian in cases of 
non-specific reference.

>>
>> 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? :)

Well, it has occurred to me, too, that the spoken language may 
sometimes be linguistically interesting. No, my point is that our web 
LFG grammar is a grammar of Bokmål, which is a written standard; it is 
not a dialect grammar. However that may be, it seems relevant to the 
discussion that there is a difference of register here.

>
>> 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.

I agree that it is debatable, but I am still unconvinced, in spite of 
all my respected colleagues. But in the end it inevitably boils down to 
a question of definitions, of course. As far as I can see, the 
construction carries no presupposition of the referent's presence in 
the immediate physical or textual environment (which I would suggest as 
a criterion of demonstratives) - although it is of course compatible 
with such presence, but so is plain definiteness. The special thing 
about a phrase like 'han mannen' is that it is markedly specific (see 
below).

>
>> 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)

Indeed yes, in some dialects this is true. (And 'Sjå/se den hest!' is 
impossible in all kinds of Norwegian.) We should perhaps decide which 
language we are discussing. 'den mann som sier sånt' is entirely 
unobnoxious in written Bokmål, even in not-so-formal style. In more 
formal style you even find the construction with specific reference 
with abstract nouns and nouns from outside the everyday sphere:

(1) Den fremste representant for dette syn er presidenten selv
       'the foremost representative-indef for this view-indef is the 
president himself/herself'

This particular, formal, usage probably has its historical origins in 
Danish, while this is less obvious in the case of the non-specific use 
(of which you will find examples in Nynorsk texts, too). It may be 
instructive to look at language history here. In Old Norwegian you find 
clear indications that constructions similar to modern 'double 
definites' (with "sá hinn") were unambiguously specific, while 'single 
definites' (with just the demonstrative "sá") could be interpreted 
either way. In modern Norwegian the markedness pattern has changed: 
'double definites' can be used with non-specific reference as well (as 
attested by your informant), while 'single definites' (in the varieties 
where they occur) tend to be the marked option, expressing 
non-specificity (stylistic inheritance from Danish obscuring the 
picture somewhat). In addition, new ways of expressing specificity 
unambiguously have developed in many dialects, 'han mannen' being one 
example, and constructions with "den der" = 'that there' being another. 
So, in short, I wonder whether the demonstrative 'feel' of 'han mannen' 
isn't simply a consequence of marked specificity. But I remain 
comparatively open to further data and arguments.

Best regards,
Helge

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Helge J. Jakhelln Dyvik
Institutt for lingvistiske, litterære og estetiske studier
Faggruppe for lingvistiske fag
Universitetet i Bergen 
Sydnesplassen 7  	  	Tel.: +47 55582261
5007 Bergen              	E-post: helge.dyvik at lle.uib.no
--------------------------------------------------------------------