Article published in:
Studies in Övdalian Morphology and Syntax: New research on a lesser-known Scandinavian language
Edited by Kristine Bentzen, Henrik Rosenkvist and Janne Bondi Johannessen †
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 221] 2015
► pp. 107–135

The syntax and meaning of subject doubling in Övdalian

| University of Gothenburg

This chapter contains a presentation and an analysis of Övdalian subject doubling. After discussing elicitation techniques and methods, I present the actual data. Next, I turn to the syntactic restrictions of the construction, demonstrating that a V2-context (i.e., a root context), an initial subject and a certain type of adverbial expressing speaker attitude are obligatory for this construction. Also subject doubling in other languages is introduced and discussed, with a focus on doubling in Dutch dialects. It is argued that the meaning of the Övdalian subject doubling construction is to express polarity focus. In the final section of the paper, the hypothesis that the subject doubler is not a pronoun, but rather a realisation of φ-agreement in a functional polarity head (Σ), is launched.

Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 3.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 22 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.221.05ros
References
Andersson, Pell Birgitta
2008 Elin, Elvira og yönse. Ulum Dalska 34: 5.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef
2008 Microvariation in syntactic doubling. An introduction. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds), 1–31. Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf & Lekakou, Marika
2007 Syntactic doubling and the nature of chains. Talk at GLOW XXX, Tromsø.
Carrilho, Ernestina
2005 Expletive ele in European Portuguese Dialects. PhD dissertation, University of Lisbon.
Carstens, Vicki
2003 Rethinking complementizer agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 393–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra
2000 The double subject construction in Romanian. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), 83–134. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Poletto, Cecilia
2005 On standardising syntactic elicitation techniques (part 1). Lingua 115(7): 939–957. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–113. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vernaud, Robert Friedin, Carlos P. Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–165. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Marjo van Koppen
2002a Subject doubling in Dutch dialects. Proceedings of Console IX: 54–67.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & van Koppen, Marjo
2002b Pronominal doubling and the structure of the left periphery. In Syntactic Microvariation, 280–304.http://​www​.meertens​.knaw​.nl​/books​/synmic​/index​.html
2006 Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialect: Big DP’s and coordinations. In Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects. http://​www​.meertens​.knaw​.nl​/projecten​/edisyn/
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane
2007 The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 167–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, Cassandre
2000 The discourse function of verum focus in Wh-questions. In Proceedings of NELS 30, Vol. 1, Masaki Hirotani (ed.), 165–179. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta, van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & van Koppen, Marjo
2010 Pronominal Doubling in Romance and Germanic. Talk at 4th European Dialect Syntax Meeting, Donostia/San Sebastian.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschko, Martina
2002 Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garbacz, Piotr
2010 Word Order in Övdalian. A Study in Variation and Change. Doctoral dissertation. Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes
2000 Towards a syntactic understanding of prosodically reduced pronouns. Theoretical Linguistics 26(3): 175–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabeth
2003 Med fokus på subjektet. In Grammar in Focus II, Lars-Olof Delsing, Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (eds), 95–105. Lund: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
2008 The V2-parameter revisited: Evidence from non-agreeing subjects. Talk at Revisiting Parameters: Holmberg and Platzack (1995) reloaded. NORMS Workshop, Lund.
Fischer, Susann
2000 Obligatory clitic climbing: Data from Old Catalan. In Linguistics in Potsdam 9, Hans-Martin Gärtner (ed.), 63–76. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susann & Alexiadou, Artemis
2001 Stylistic fronting: Germanic vs. Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68: 117–145.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & van de Velde, Daniele
2006 Pleonastic tet in the Lapscheure dialect. In Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects. http://​www​.meertens​.knaw​.nl​/projecten​/edisyn/
Haegeman, Liliane
2008 West Flemish tet and the cartography of subject positions. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds), 277–300. Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hallberg, Göran
2005 Dialects and regional linguistic varieties in the 20th century, In: Sweden and Finland. The Nordic Languages 2: 1691–1706.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison
2005 Idiolectal variation and syntactic theory. In Syntax and Variation. Reconciling the Biological and the Social [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 265], Leonie Cornips & Karen P. Corrigan (eds), 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman
1988 VERUM-Fokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5: 1–7.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo
2006 Subject doubling in Finnish: The role of deficient pronouns. In Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects. http://​www​.meertens​.knaw​.nl​/projecten​/edisyn/
Julien, Marit
2007 Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80: 103–161.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
2002 Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely: 133–166. Malden MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laka, Itziar
1990 Negation in Syntax. On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Larsson, Hjalmar
1986 Kunundsin kumb. Älvdalen.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
2007 Interpretive effects of head movement. Ms, University of Tübingen (lingBuzz/000178).
Levander, Lars
1909 Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Söner.Google Scholar
Papangeli, Dimitra
2000 Pronominal doubling in Greek: A head-complement relation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 473–499.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer
2010 Den fantastiska grammatiken. En minimalistisk beskrivning av svenskan. Stockholm: Norstedts förlag.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo & Uriagereka, Juan
2005 Clitic placement in Western Iberian. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds), 639–697. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin
1998 The principle of minimal compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 599–629. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010 Agreement and Head Movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik
1994 Tecken på syntaktisk utveckling i Älvdalsmålet under senare tid. BA dissertation, Lund University.
2006 Null subjects in Övdalian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 78: 141–171.Google Scholar
2007 Subject doubling in Oevdalian.Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80:77–102.Google Scholar
2010 Null referential subjects in Övdalian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33(3): 231–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
SAG = Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik 1999 Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T
1996 The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steensland, Lars
2010 Älvdalsk ordbok. Älvdalen: Ulum Dalska.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Bentzen, Kristine, Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn & Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg
2009 On the distribution and illucution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119(12): 1914–1938. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1995 Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris
2011 English emphatic do . Talk at GIST 4, Ghent, September 2011.
Vinet, Marie-Therese
2004 Tu as a (super)positive marker in Quebec French. In Going Romance 2002 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 256], Reineke Bok-Bennema, Bart Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe & Petra Sleeman (eds), 235–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar