Cover not available
Part of
Language Variation - European Perspectives V: Selected papers from the Seventh International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 7), Trondheim, June 2013
Edited by Eivind Torgersen, Stian Hårstad, Brit Mæhlum and Unn Røyneland
[Studies in Language Variation 17] 2015
► pp. 69–86

Word order variation and foregrounding of complement clauses

Exploring the meaning of sentence adverbials as signals of word order

Through mixed models analyses of complement clauses in a corpus of spoken Danish we examine the role of sentence adverbials in relation to a word order distinction in Scandinavian signalled by the relative position of sentence adverbials and finite verb (V>Adv vs. Adv>V). The type of sentence adverbial was the third-most important factor in explaining the word order variation: Sentence adverbials categorized as ‘dialogic’ are significantly associated with V>Adv word order. We argue that the results are readily interpretable in the light of the semantico-pragmatic hypothesis that V>Adv signals foregrounded information, and exploit the random intercepts assigned to the individual adverbials for further exploring the functions of sentence adverbials that behave unexpectedly based on the predictions of the model.
Keywords: foregrounding, random intercepts, sentence adverbials, word order
Published online: 9 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.17.06kar
References (34)
References
Aelbrecht, Lobke, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye. 2012. Main Clause Phenomena. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder. 2007. “Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure.” Studies in Language 31(3): 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Tanya K., and Lars Heltoft. 2010. “Mood in Danish.” In Mood in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Björn Rothstein & Rolf Thieroff, 85–102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Tanya Karoli. 2007. Hyperparadigmer – en undersøgelse af paradigmatiske samspil i danske modussystemer, Roskilde Universitetscenter.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels. 1996. “Discourse particles in Danish.” In Content, Expression and Structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar, ed. by Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft & Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen, 283–314. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1946. Elementær Dansk Grammatik. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. “Variation in Discourse: ‘And Stuff like That’.” Language in Society 9(1): 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drager, Katie, and Jennifer Hay. 2012. “Exploiting random intercepts: Two case studies in sociophonetics.” Language Variation and Change 24(1): 59–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas B. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, Frans. 2009. “The data and design of the LANCHART study.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41: 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3, ed. by Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1997. “Adverbs in functional grammar.” In Toward a functional lexicology, ed. by Gerd Wotjak, 121–136. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2007. “Embedded root phenomena.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. II, ed. by Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk, 174–209. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, Antonella Sorace, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen. 2010. “V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: an investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish.” Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 13: 67–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. “On the applicability of root transformations.” Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel, and Tanya Karoli Christensen. 2013. “Promoting the demoted: The distribution and semantics of “main clause word order” in spoken Danish complement clauses.” Lingua 137: 38–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2007. “Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish.” Working papers in scandinavian syntax 80: 103–161.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky. 1971. “Fact.” In Semantics An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krylova, Elvira. 2005. “Epistemisk polyfoni i danske modalpartikler.” Sproglig polyfoni. Arbejdspapirer 4: 75–87.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That. General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Inge Lise. 1996. “'Der kan jo være nogen der kan itte tåle det' - Om hovedsætningsordstilling i bisætninger i danske dialekter.” In Studier i talesprogsvariation og sprogkontakt. Til Inger Ejskjær på halvfjerdsårsdagen den 20. maj 1996, ed. by Inger Ejskjær, Bent Jul Nielsen & Inge Lise Pedersen, 242–251. København: C. A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Derek Denis. 2010. “The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada.” Journal of English Linguistics 38(2): 335–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and R. Harald Baayen. 2012. “Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice.” Language Variation and Change 24(2): 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Therkelsen, Rita. 2004. “Polyfoni som sproglig begrebsramme og som redskab i tekstanalysen.” Sproglig polyfoni. Arbejdspapirer I: 79–109.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ““Object complements” and conversation towards a realistic account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. “The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15(3): 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voller, Inge. 2002. “Die Modalpartikeln auf Deutsch und Dänisch - eine kontrastive Analyse.” Hermes 28: 135–154.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Kristine Bentzen, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2009. “On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses.” Lingua 119: 1914–1938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar