Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 75:2 (2022) ► pp.160–193

Incipient articles in Old East Scandinavian varieties

ORCID logo | The University of Edinburgh
ORCID logo | The University of Edinburgh
This is a study of the semantics of definiteness marking and of its applicability to the Old East Scandinavian linguistic scenario. Contrary to the Modern Continental Scandinavian languages, Old East Scandinavian varieties did not possess fully-fledged definite articles, although all three demonstrative systems (hinn, -inn, sá/þænn, and sjá/þænni) show some evidence of being used as markers of definiteness. A semantic analysis of these forms in extracts from the Scanian Law and Guta Lag reveals the differentiated intermediate stages along the cline of grammaticalisation these definiteness markers found themselves in during this linguistic period. This confirms, in turn, that despite not being employed as definite articles proper, hinn, -inn and sá/þænn show some degree of semantic bleaching.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Old Scandinavian tripartite demonstrative system
    • 2.1Introduction
    • 2.2The incipient article hinn and enclitic -inn
    • 2.3The simple distal demonstrative sá/þænn
    • 2.4The compound proximal demonstrative sjá/þænni
  • 3.Demonstratives versus definite articles
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2Stage I: Situationally evoked deixis
    • 3.3Stage II: Direct anaphoric reference
    • 3.4Stage III: Indirect anaphoric reference
    • 3.5Stage IV: Unique reference
    • 3.6Stage V: Generic reference
    • 3.7Diagnostics
    • 3.8Revisiting hinn and enclitic -inn
  • 4.Incipient articles in Äldre Västgötalagen
    • 4.1Introduction
    • 4.2The text
    • 4.3Enclitic -inn in Äldre Västgötalagen
    • 4.4The distal demonstrative sá/þænn in Äldre Västgötalagen
    • 4.5Conclusion
  • 5.Incipient articles in the Scanian Law and the Guta Lag
    • 5.1Introduction
    • 5.2The incipient article hinn
    • 5.3Enclitic -inn
    • 5.4The distal demonstrative sá/þænn
    • 5.5The compound proximal demonstrative sjá/þænni
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00067.san
References (68)
References
Andersen, H. 2006. Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica 23(2). 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, V. 2010. Differences in the use of deictic expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics 48(4). 1309–1342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, K. & J. Payne. 2016. Adjectival definiteness marking and noun-phrase internal functions. University of Manchester, HEADLEX, 25 July 2016.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K. 2002. The Ancient Nordic linguistic system from a typological point of view: Phonology, graphemics, morphology, syntax, and word order. In O. Bandle, K. Braunmüller, E. H. Jahr, A. Karker, H. Naumann, & U. Teleman (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 11, 649–656. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breban, T. 2012. Functional shifts and the development of English determiners. In A. Meurman–Solin, M. J. López–Couso & B. Los (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 271–300. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlquist, J. 2002. The history of Old Nordic manuscripts III: Old Swedish. In O. Bandle, K. Braunmüller, E. H. Jahr, A. Karker, H. Naumann, & U. Teleman (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 11, 808–816. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. 1990. L’anaphore associative: Problèmes de délimitation, Verbum 131. 119–48.Google Scholar
Crisma, P. 2011. The emergence of the definite article in English: A contact–induced change? In P. Sleeman & H. Perridon (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation, and change, 175–192. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The ‘indefinite article’ from cardinal to operator to expletive. In Ch. Gianollo, A. Jäger, & D. Penka (eds.), Language change at the syntax–semantics interface, 125–151. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crisma, P. & S. Pintzuk. 2016. An from Old to Middle English. In S. Vikner, H. Jørgensen & E. van Gelderen (eds.), Let us have articles betwixt Us: Papers in historical and comparative linguistics in honour of Johanna L. Wood, 161–183. Aarhus: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2015. Grammaticalization in the north: Noun Phrase morphosyntax in Scandinavian vernaculars. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, B. 1916. Der Altisländische artikel: Germanische Syntax III1. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Delsing, L. 2002. The morphology of Old Nordic II: Old Swedish and Old Danish. In O. Bandle, K. Braunmüller, E. H. Jahr, A. Karker, H. Naumann, & U. Teleman (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 11, 925–939. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2017. Fornsvenska Textbanken. Lund: Lund University. [URL]
De Mulder, W. & A. Cartier. 2011. The grammaticalization of definite articles. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 522–535. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1989. Article–noun order. Chicago Linguistic Society 251. 83–97.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. 2004. The syntax of Old Norse: With a survey of the inflectional morphology and a complete bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and morphological change (Edinburgh Historical Linguistics 1). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraurud, K. 2000. Possessives with extensive use: A source of definite articles? In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession, 72–97. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frederiksen, B. O. 2002. The history of Old Nordic manuscripts IV: Old Danish. In O. Bandle, K. Braunmüller, E. H. Jahr, A. Karker, H. Naumann, & U. Teleman (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 11, 816–824. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grimm, J. 1898. Deutsche Grammatik IV. Berlin: F. Dümmler.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., N. Hedberg, & R. Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691. 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. 1976. The Scandinavian languages: An introduction to their history. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2009. Germanic languages. In B. Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages, 2nd edn, 51–58. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2009. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heltoft, L. 2001. Reanalysing structure: The Danish definite article, its predecessors, and development. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 33(1). 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, H. P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, F. 1901. Det Norsk-Islandske Skjaldesprog omtr. 800–1300. Copenhagen: Møllers.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. 1965 [1975]. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 51. Esquisses linguistiques, vol. 2, 38–54. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Lander, E. T. & L. Haegeman. 2014. Old Norse as an NP language: With observations on the Common Norse and Northwest Germanic runic inscriptions. Transactions of the Philological Society 112(3). 279–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millar, R. M. 2000. System collapse, system rebirth: The demonstrative pronouns of English 900–1350 and the birth of the definite article. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Neckel, G. 1924. Die Entwicklung von schwachtonigem Altnordischem u (o) vor m aus helleren Vokalen und der altnordische Substantivartikel: Festschrift für E. Mogk. Haale an der Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Nygaard, M. 1905. Norrøn syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Peel, C. (ed.). 2015. Guta Lag and Guta Saga: The law and history of the Gotlanders. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perridon, H. C. B. 1989. Reference, definiteness, and the noun phrase in Swedish. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
1997. Is the definite article in Jutlandic a borrowing from Low German? Multilingua 16(4). 351–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perridon, H. C. B. & P. Sleeman. 2011. The noun phrase in Germanic and Romance: Common developments and differences. In P. Sleeman & H. C. B. Perridon (eds.), The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation, and change, 1–21. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. 2018. An annotated edition and translation of The Older Law of Västergötland. The Heroic Age 181. [URL]
Pfaff, A. 2019. Reunited after 1000 years: The development of definite articles in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 421. 165–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, A. & G. Walkden. Forthcoming. Adjectival articles in early Germanic. In K. Bech & A. Pfaff (eds.), Diversity in the Old Germanic noun phrase. Open Germanic Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Philippi, J. 1997. The rise of the article in the Germanic languages. In A. van Kemenade & N. Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 62–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pollack, H. W. 1912. Zur Stellung des Attributes im Urgermanischen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des suffigierten Artikel im Altnordischen und der germanischen Kasuskomposita. Indogermanische Forschungen 301. 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ratkus, A. 2018. Weak adjectives need not be definite: The evidence of variation in Gothic. Indogermanische Forschungen 123(1). 27–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. A linguistic history of English, vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, D. & C. D. Sapp. 2004. The rise of the suffixal article in the Early North Germanic DP. In M. T. Martinez, A. Alcázar, and M. T. Hernández (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-third Western Conference on Linguistic, vol. 161, 290–301. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
Skrzypek, D. 2009a. Äldre and Yngre Västgötalagen–– Some linguistic evidence. Folia Scandinavica 101. 205–218.Google Scholar
2009b. The formation of the definite article in the Nordic languages. Lingua Posnaniensis 511. 65–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Between a demonstrative and an article: The status of in in Old Swedish. Folia Scandinavica 111. 145–162.Google Scholar
2012. Grammaticalization of (in)definiteness in Old Swedish. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
2020. Indirect anaphora in a diachronic perspective: The case of Danish and Swedish. In K. Balogh, A. Latrouite & R. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Nominal anchoring: Specificity, definiteness, and article systems across languages, 171–193. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Skrzypek, D., A. Piotrowska, & R. Jaworski. 2021. The diachrony of definiteness in North Germanic. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. 2018. Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroh-Wollin, U. 2009. On the development of definiteness markers in Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 831. 1–25.Google Scholar
2020. Hinn and hinn: Early Icelandic as the clue to the history and etymology of two Old Scandinavian words. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 431. 205–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrett, M. 2002. Morphological developments from Ancient Nordic to Old Nordic. In O. Bandle, K. Braunmüller, E. H. Jahr, A. Karker, H. Naumann, & U. Teleman (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages, vol. 11, 719–729. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tamm, D. & H. Vogt. (eds.). 2016. The Danish medieval laws: The laws of Scania, Zealand, and Jutland. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1980. Meaning-change in the development of grammatical markers. Language Sciences 2(1). 44–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vrieland, S. D. 2011. Old Gutnish historical phonology and the Old Norse context. Master’s Thesis, University of Leiden.
Wagener, T. 2017. The history of Nordic relative clauses. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. 1910. Grammar of the Gothic language. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar