Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 1:2 (2014) ► pp. 171–196

Scandinavian pancake constructions as a family of constructions

| Ivar Aasen Institute for Language and Literature, Volda University College (Norway)
| Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo (Norway)
This paper deals with a classical problem in Scandinavian grammar, so-called ‘pancake sentences’, nicknamed after examples like Pannekaker er godt ‘Pancakes are good’ where there seemingly is disagreement between the plural subject and the predicative adjective in the neuter singular. Our aim is twofold. From the theoretical point of view, we shall argue that there are advantages with a construction-based approach, and that such an approach is superior to previous analyses within various generative frameworks.The main reason for this is that the data require generalizations over combinations of subjects and predicative adjectives at a rather specific level. From a more empirical point of view, we shall argue that Scandinavian displays a range of different, but related pancake constructions. For the first time, corpus data are brought into the debate. We show that a construction type that has not received much attention previously is in fact the most frequent type, namely constructions where the subject is a deverbal noun.
Keywords: agreement, pancake sentences, Scandinavian, constructions, adjective valency
Published online: 03 April 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.2.01hau
References

References

Boas, H., & Sag, I.
(2012) Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Corbett, G.G.
(2006) Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö.
(2001) Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions. RASK –Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation, 14, 91–134.Google Scholar
Enger, H.-O.
(2004) Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 27(1), 5–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Scandinavian pancake sentences revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 36(3), 275–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enger, H.-O. & Corbett, G.G.
(2012) Definiteness, gender, and hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian dialects. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 24(4), 287–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, O.
(2010) Den såkallade med-frasen i kontrastiv belysning [The so-called with-phrase in contrastive light]. Språk och Stil, 20, 51–80.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J.T.
(1977) Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics, 13(2), 239–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, J.T., Lie, S., & Vannebo, K.I.
(1997) Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gisborne, A., & Patten, N.
(2011) Constructions and grammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 92–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L.
(2011) Grammatik over det danske sprog I: Indledning og oversigt [Grammar of the Danish language I: Introduction and overview]. København [Copenhagen]: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Haugen, T.A.
(2012) Polyvalent adjectives in Norwegian. Ph. D. thesis. University of Oslo.
(2013) Adjectival valency as valency constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 35–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, L.
(1986) The headedness of NPs in Norwegian. In P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and Projections (pp. 89–123). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G.
(2009) Peas and pancakes: On apparent disagreement and (null) light verbs in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 32(1), 35–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Language Sciences, 43, 62–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Källström, R.
(1993) Kongruens i svenskan [Agreement in Swedish]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M.
(2011) Morphomes and ‘stress-conditioned allomorphy’ in Romansh. In M. Maiden, J.C. Smith, M. Goldbach & M.-O. Hinzelin (Eds.), Morphological autonomy (pp. 36–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Semi-autonomous morphology? In S. Cruschina, M. Maiden & J.C. Smith (Eds.), The boundaries of pure morphology (pp. 24–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Søfteland, Å.
(2013) Utbrytingskonstruksjonen i norsk spontantale [The cleft construction in Norwegian spontaneous speech]. Ph. D. thesis. University of Oslo.
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & E. Andersson, E
(1999) Svenska Akademiens Grammatik 3: Fraser [The Swedish Academy grammar 3: Phrases]. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S.
(2013) The structure of Swedish pancakes. In P. Hofmeister & E. Norcliffe (Eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

CORBETT, GREVILLE G. & SEBASTIAN FEDDEN
2016. Canonical gender. Journal of Linguistics 52:3 ► pp. 495 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.