Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 38:1 (2021) ► pp.111–150

The loss of inflection as grammar complication

Evidence from Mainland Scandinavian

ORCID logo | University of Surrey
| University of Oslo
The loss of inflectional categories is often thought of as a type of simplification. In this paper we present a survey of phenomena involving the reduction of adjective agreement in Scandinavian, using examples from Norwegian, and discuss their diachronic origins, including a new account of the development of indeclinability in adjectives such as kry ‘proud’. These examples each involve lexically restricted non-canonical inflection – syncretism, defectiveness, overdifferentiation and periphrasis – in particular paradigm cells or syntactic environments. They show that the loss of inflection does not necessarily simplify grammar, and in some cases, can increase grammatical complexity by adding lexical exceptions to general rules. This excludes simplification as the motivation, even if it is the eventual result. We argue from these historical developments that speakers are liable to analyse idiosyncratic patterns of inflection as lexically specified, even where more general (but perhaps more abstract) alternatives are possible. Thus speakers do not always operate with a maximally elegant, reductionist approach to inflection classes.
Keywords: inflectional classes, paradigm structure, grammar simplification, complexity, Norwegian, indeclinability, syncretism, adjective inflection, analogy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Scandinavian nominal inflection
    • 1.2The loss of inflection as simplification
  • 2.Lexically restricted loss of gender agreement
    • 2.1Adjectives ending in -(l)ig
    • 2.2Adjectives ending in -sk
  • 3.Lexically restricted loss of gender and number agreement
    • 3.1Syntactically distinct adjectives
    • 3.2Loanwords
    • 3.3Adjectives ending in unstressed -e and -a
    • 3.4Syncretism and defectiveness
  • 4.Overdifferentiation: The case of liten ‘small’
  • 5.Agreement loss, inflection classes, and complexity
  • 6.Adjective gradation
  • 7.The loss of inflection and relevance
  • 8.Syntactically conditioned loss of inflection
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19050.sim
References (94)
References
Aasen, Ivar. 1864. Norsk grammatik. Kristiania (=Oslo): Malling.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Robert Malouf. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89(3): 429–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Greg T. Stump & Gert Webelhuth. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology. In Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars (eds.), Non-transformational Theories of Grammar, 325–58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2003. A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. In Gina Garding & Mimu Tsujimura (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22, 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. In Curt Rice & Sylvia Blaho (eds.), Modeling ungrammaticality in optimality theory, 117–164. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2007. ‘He rung the bell’ and ‘she drunk ale’ – Non-standard past tense forms in traditional British dialects and on the internet’. In Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web, 271–285. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Are non-standard dialects more natural than the standard? A test case from English verb morphology. Journal of Linguistics 471: 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd rev. edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2006. Pronominal gender in spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18(2): 85–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Calibrating complexity: How complex is a gender system? Language Sciences 601: 53–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Canonical, complex, complicated?. In Francesca Di Garbo, Bernhard Wälchli & Bruno Olsson (Eds.) Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity, 15–52. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Ton Dijkstra, and Robert Schreuder. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual–route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1): 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, James M. McQueen, Ton Dijkstra & Robert Schreuder. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Harald R. Baayen & Robert Schreuder (eds.), Morphological structure in language processing, 355–390. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2016. Seri verb classes: Morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language, 92(4): 792–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, Dunstan & Greville G. Corbett. 2017. Morphological complexity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 2008. A new introduction to Old Norse. Part I: Grammar. 3rd edn. London: Viking Society for Northern Research, University College London.Google Scholar
Blanc, H. 1970. Dual and Pseudo-Dual in the Arabic Dialects. Language 46(1): 42–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1996. The syllable in phonological theory. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver, Helen Sims-Williams & Matthew Baerman. Forthcoming. Contact and linguistic typology. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell.
Booij, Geert. 1994. Against split morphology. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993, 27–49. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 1995. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Jaap van Marle & Geert Booij (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2009. Defining complexity: Historical reconstruction and Nyulnyulan subordination. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 11. Houston: Rice University. [URL]
Bull, Tove. 1990. Målet i Troms og Finnmark. In Ernst Håkon Jahr (ed.), Den store dialektboka, 157–178. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., & Carol. L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59(2), 251–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1986. Macroclasses and paradigm economy in German nouns. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 39(1–4): 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew D. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70(4): 737–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Article 65: Inflection classes. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, vol. 11, 630–638. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: The case of Elfdalian and Swedish. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 50–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Kürschner, Sebastian. 2018. The diachrony of inflectional classes in four Germanic languages. What happens after transparency is lost? In William B. McGregor & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The diachrony of classification systems, 283–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Damaris Nübling. 2006. The superstable marker as an indicator of categorial weakness? Folia Linguistica XL1: 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don Roger. 2015. A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language 28(1): 51–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The No Blur Principle meets Norwegian dialects. Studia Linguistica 61(3): 278–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Inflectional change, ‘sound laws’ and the autonomy of morphology. Diachronica 30(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Reinforcement in inflection classes: Two cues may be better than one. Word Structure 7(2): 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav & Phillipp Conzett. 2016. Kapittel 3: Morfologi. In Helge Sandøy (ed.), Norsk språkhistorie I: Mønster, 213–317. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav & Greville G. Corbett. 2012. Definiteness, gender, and hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian Dialects. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 24(4): 287–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Falk, Hjalmar & Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax i historisk fremstilling. Kristiania (=Oslo): H. Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg & Horst Simon. 2011. What are exceptions? And what can be done about them? In Jürg Fleischer & Horst Simon (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (TiL, SaM 216), 3–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. 31 volumes Copenhagen: Det danske sprog- og litteraturselskab (/Syddansk universitetsforlag).Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. Article 68: Periphrasis. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology: A handbook on inflection and word formation, vol. 11. 654–664. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugen, Odd Einar. 2002. Grunnbok i norrønt språk. Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(6): 1041–1070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Philip & Hans-Olav Enger. 2018. Norwegian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Audring, Jenny. 2019. Relational morphology in the parallel architecture. In Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 390–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2014. Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Language Sciences 431: 62–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2011. A localistic approach to universals and variation. In Peter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 404–425. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert & Arne Torp. 2016. Fonologi. In Norsk språkhistorie I: Mønster, 101–213. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Kulbrandstad, Lars Anders & Torodd Kinn. 2016. Språkets mønstre, 4th edn. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian. 2016. Die Interaktion von Genus und Deklinationsklasse in oberdeutschen Dialekten. In Andreas Bittner & Constanze Spieß (eds.) Formen und Funktionen. Morphosemantik und grammatische Konstruktion, 35–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Losiewicz, Beth L. 1992. The effect of frequency on linguistic morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Löwenadler, John. 2010. Restrictions on productivity: Defectiveness in Swedish adjective paradigms. Morphology 20(1): 71–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, Tom & Philip Holmes. 2010. Danish: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2018. The Romance verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchese, Lynnel. 1988. Noun classes and agreement systems in Kru: A historical approach. In Michael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural languages: Approaches, theory, descriptions, 323–341. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Milin, Petar, Victor Kuperman, Aleksandar Kostic & R. Harald Baayen. 2009. Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 214–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Agnete. 2002. Språkkontakt mellom norsk og tysk i hansatidens Bergen. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse, Skrifter og avhandlinger nr. 2). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1970 [1923]. Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre)… Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2008. Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik LXXV1, 282–329.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Marius. 1905. Norrøn syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Refsum, Helge. 1954. Romeriksmål. Oslo: Fellestrykk.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 1999. «Allting ryms i varje frö»: Om suffixet -(i)sk. Språk och Stil 91: 35–70.Google Scholar
Ridge, Eleanor. 2019. Variation in Vatlongos verbal morphosyntax: Speaker communities in Southeast Ambrym and Mele Maat. PhD dissertation, SOAS.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2013. A counterexample to homophony avoidance. Diachronica 301: 579–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill. 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandøy, Helge. 1988. Samsvarbøying av adjektiv og perfektum partisipp i norske dialektar. In Andreas Bjørkum & Arve Borg (eds.), Nordiske studiar: Innlegg frå den tredje nordiske dialektologkonferansen, 85–118. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Schulte, Michael. 2005. Article 122: Phonological developments from Old Nordic to Early Modern Nordic I: West Scandinavian. In Oskar Bandle et al. (eds.), The Nordic languages, vol. 21, 1081–1097. HSK 22. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sims, Andrea D. 2015. Inflectional defectiveness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skautrup, Peter. 1968. Det danske sprogs historie, Første bind: Fra guldhornene til Jydske lov. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 2011. Romance linguistics and historical linguistics: Reflections on synchrony and diachrony. In Martin Maiden, J. C. Smith & Adam Ledgeway, (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spilling, Eivor Finset. 2012. Gradbøying i norsk: en korpusbasert undersøkelse av talespråk. MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Spilling, Eivor Finset & Tor Arne Haugen. 2013. Gradbøying i norsk: en bruksbasert tilnærming. Maal og Minne 2013/2: 1–40.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1947. An introduction to linguistic science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus. 1979. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition 7(4): 263–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, George. 1983. A comparison of the morphological adaptation of loanwords ending in a vowel in contemporary Czech, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 25(1): 180–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torp, Arne. 1998. Nordiske språk i nordisk og germansk perspektiv. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2012. Gender reduction in Bergen Norwegian: A North-Sea perspective. In Lennart Elmevik and Ernst Håkon Jahr (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the late Middle Ages, 57–75. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Unbegaun, B. O. 1947. Les substantifs indéclinables en russe. Revue des études slaves, 23(1/4): 130–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vindenes, Urd & Hans-Olav Enger. 2020. Det umulige er mulig. Forthcoming. In Janne B. Johannessen (ed.), Leksikografi og korpus. Special issue of Oslo Studies in Language. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1992a [1969]. Svensk språkhistoria I: Ljudlära och ordböjningslära. Åttonde upplagan. Nytryck i nordiska språk 4. Edsbruk: Akademitryck.Google Scholar
. 1992b. Svensk språkhistoria II: Ordbildningslära. Femte upplagan. Nytryck I nordiska språk 5. Edsbruk: Akademitryck.Google Scholar
Wetås, Åse. 2008. Kasusbortfallet i mellomnorsk [PhD dissertation, Univ. of Oslo]. Oslo: Unipub.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Lindsay-Smith, Emily, Matthew Baerman, Sacha Beniamine, Helen Sims-Williams & Erich R. Round
2024. Analogy in Inflection. Annual Review of Linguistics 10:1 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Enger, Hans-Olav
2023. Meta-morphomic patterns in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 46:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nikolaev, Alexandre & Neil Bermel
2022. Explaining uncertainty and defectivity of inflectional paradigms. Cognitive Linguistics 33:3 ► pp. 585 ff. DOI logo
SIMS-WILLIAMS, HELEN
2022. Token frequency as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 58:3 ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
Sims-Williams, Helen & Matthew Baerman
2021. A typological perspective on the loss of inflection* . In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. 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.