Word order variation in heritage languages
Subject shift and object shift in Norwegian
This study investigates two word order phenomena in Norwegian heritage language spoken in the US, subject shift (SS) and object shift (OS). SS and OS occur in syntactic environments where (pronominal) subjects and objects may either precede or follow negation. This paper explores to what extent these two phenomena in Heritage Norwegian are affected by the factors frequency and structural similarity/difference. As subjects are frequently shifted, while objects are not, SS is expected to be robust and OS vulnerable. There is generally no structural overlap between English and Norwegian in these cases; thus, cross-linguistic similarity or difference should not play a role, except in one context: questions with auxiliaries or be, in which the two languages allow both orders (is he not/isn’t he
), but have opposite preferences. The results show that OS is somewhat vulnerable, but SS is also affected, in that both proficient and less proficient speakers seem to overuse the word order preferred in English. We thus speculate that all heritage speakers may be affected by cross-linguistic influence in situations with complete structural overlap.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 2.1The structures
- 2.2Structural similarity/difference – Norwegian vs. English
- 2.3SS and OS in L1 acquisition
- 2.4Previous research on heritage Norwegian
- 3.Research questions and predictions
- 4.Participants
- 5.Results
- 5.1Subject shift in heritage Norwegian
- 5.2Object shift in heritage Norwegian
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Summary and conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (63)
References
Anderssen, M. & Bentzen, K. 2012. Norwegian object shift as IP-internal topicalization. Nordlyd 39.1: The Grammar of Objects, 1–23.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderssen, M. & Westergaard, M. 2010. Frequency and economy in the acquisition of variable word order. Lingua 120: 2569–2588. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderssen, M., Lundquist, B. & Westergaard, M. 2018. Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in bilingual acquisition and attrition: Possessives and double definiteness in Norwegian heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(4): 748–764. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K. & Rodina, Y. 2012. Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of Norwegian object shift. Language Acquisition 19(1): 39–72. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K., Rodina, Y. & Westergaard, M. 2010. The acquisition of apparent optionality: The word order of subject and object shift constructions in Norwegian. In Variation in the Input: Studies in the Acquisition of Word Order, M. Anderssen, K. Bentzen & M. Westergaard (eds), 241–270. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderssen, M., Rodina, Y., Mykhaylyk, R. & Fikkert, P. 2014. The acquisition of the dative alternation in Norwegian. Language Acquisition 21: 72–102. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderssen, M. 2006. The Acquisition of Compositional Definiteness in Norwegian. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Andréasson, M. 2008. Not all objects are born alike – accessibility as a key to pronominal object shift in Swedish and Danish. In Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, M. Butt & T. Halloway King (eds), 26–45. Stanford CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Andréasson, M. 2010. Object shift or object placement in general. In Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, M. Butt & T. Halloway King (eds), 26–42. Stanford CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentzen, K. 2009. Subject positions and their interaction with verb movement. Studia Linguistica 63(3): 1–31. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentzen, K. 2014. Object shift. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) 1: 332–343.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentzen, K., Anderssen, M. & Waldmann, Ch. 2013. Object shift in Mainland Scandinavian: A corpus study of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 115–151. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, L. Rizzi (ed.), 115–165. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, N. 2005. Sound patterns of syntax: Object shift. Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2): 47–94.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J. & Veltkamp, E. 2004. Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15(6): 409–414. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haugen, E. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America. A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmberg, A. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53(1): 1–39. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jayaseelan, K. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55(1): 39–75. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johannessen, J. B. 2015. The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS). In Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, NODALIDA 2015, B. Megyesi (ed.), 297–300. Linköping: University Electronic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johannessen, J. B. & Laake, S. 2017. Norwegian in the American Midwest: A common dialect? Journal of Language Contact 10: 5–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johannessen, J. B. & Lake, S. 2012. Østnorsk som fellesdialect i Midtvesten. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 30(2): 365–380.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Josefsson, G. 2010. Object shift and optionality: An intricate interplay between syntax, prosody and information structure. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 86: 1–24.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Kemenade, A. & Los, B. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In The Handbook of the History of English, A. van Kemenade & B. Los (eds), 224–248. Malden MA: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Köpke, B. & Schmid, M. 2004. Language attrition: The next phase. In First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues [Studies in Bilingualism 28], M. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (eds), 1–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kupisch, T. 2013. A new term for a better distinction? A view from the higher end of the proficiency scale. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3–4): 203–214.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kupisch, T. 2014. Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German-Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1): 222–233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kupisch, T. & Rothman, J. 2018. Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5): 564–582. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lødrup, H. 2011. Norwegian possessive pronouns: Phrases, words or suffixes? In Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, M. Butt & T. Holloway King (eds), 383–403. Stanford CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lohndal, T. & Westergaard, M. 2016. Grammatical gender in American Norwegian heritage language: Stability or attrition? Frontiers in Psychology 7.344. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lovoll, O. S. 1999. The Promise of America: A History of the Norwegian-American People, revised edn. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martin, C. D., Dering, B., Thomas, E. M. & Thierry, G. 2009. Brain potentials reveal semantic priming in both the ‘active’ and the ‘non-attended’ language of early bilinguals. NeuroImage 47(1): 326–333. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mikkelsen, L. 2011. On prosody and focus in object shift. Syntax 14(3): 230–264. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S. 2002. Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5: 39–68. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S. 2014. Incomplete L1 acquisition. In The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (eds), 353–371. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. 2001. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 1–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nilsen, Ø. 1997. Adverbs and A-shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 59: 1–31.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
NoTa – Norsk Talespråkskorpus, Oslodelen [Corpus of Spoken Norwegian, the Oslo part], Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, University of Oslo.
Polinsky, M. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14: 191–262.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radford, A. 1992. The acquisition of the morphosyntax of finite verbs in English. In The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition, J. Meisel (ed.), 23–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roeper, T. 1999. Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3): 169–186. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roeper, T. 2007. What frequency can do and what it can’t. In Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept, I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina (eds), 23–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z. & Polinsky, M. 2015. Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1545. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simonsen, H. G. 1990. Barns fonologi: system og variasjon hos tre norske og et samoisk barn. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Snyder, W. 2007. Child Language: The Parametric Approach. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Svenonius, P. 2002. Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. In Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, P. Svenonius (ed.), 201–242. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Venås, K. 1971. Om posisjonen til neksusadverbialet ikkje
. Maal og Minne 3–4: 124–173.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vikner, S. 2006. Object shift. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol 3, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vogel, R. 2006. Weak function word shift. Linguistics 44(5): 1059–1097. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Westergaard, M. 2009a. Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 49–79. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Westergaard, M. 2011. Subject positions and information structure: The effect of frequency on acquisition and change. Studia Linguistica 3: 299–332. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Westergaard, M. & Bentzen, K. 2007. The (non-) effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept, I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina (eds), 271–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Westergaard, M. & Lohndal, T. 2019. Verb second word order in Norwegian heritage language: Syntax and pragmatics. In Variable Properties in Language: Their Nature and Acquisition, D. Lightfoot & J. Havenhill (eds). 91–102 Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. [URL]. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
van Lieburg, Rianne, Robert Hartsuiker & Sarah Bernolet
2023.
The production preferences and priming effects of Dutch passives in Arabic/Berber–Dutch and Turkish–Dutch heritage speakers.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 26:4
► pp. 695 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.