sign in sign up
<<
Home , Declension, Eitr, Faroese grammar, Faroese language, Faroese literature

The Distribution of Markers and the Growth of Syntactic Structure from to Modern Faroese.

A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities

2014

Pauline Harries

School of Arts, Languages and Cultures

List of Contents

1. Introduction 10 1.1 Aims and scope of the thesis 10 1.2 Background to Faroese 11 1.3 Introduction to the Insular Scandinavian 12 1.3.1 Ancestry and development 12 1.3.2 Faroese as an Insular Scandinavian language 14 1.3.3 The Phrase in Faroese 18 1.4 Introduction to LFG 20 2. Definiteness Marking in Old Norse 23 2.1 Introduction 23 2.2 Previous literature on Old Norse 24 2.2.1 Descriptive literature 24 2.2.2 Theoretical literature 28 2.2.3 Origins of hinn 32 2.3 Presentation of Data 33 2.3.1 Zero definite marking 33 2.3.2 The hinn paradigm 37 2.3.2.1 The bound definite 37 2.3.2.2 The free definite marker 39 2.3.2.3 The other hinn 43 2.3.3 Demonstratives 44 2.3.3.1 Relative Clauses 48 2.3.4 Adjectival marking of definiteness 49 2.3.4.1 Definite in Indo-European 50 2.3.4.2 Definite adjectives in Old Norse 53 2.3.4.3 The meaning of weak versus strong 56 2.3.5 Summary of Findings 57 2.4 Summary and discussion of Old Norse NP 58 2.4.1 Overview of previous literature 59 2.4.2 Distribution and NP structure 60 2.5 Summary of Chapter 66 3. Old Norse Noun Phrases and the Growth of Structure 68 3.1 Introduction 68 3.2 Previous Literature 69 3.2.1 The development of grammticalized discourse slots 69 3.2.2 Literature on Order in Old Norse 70 3.3 Presentation of data: word order variation and nominal 73 3.3.1 Adjectives and Word Order 74 3.3.2 Pronominal and Adnominal possessors 79 3.3.3 Demonstratives and Word Order 83 3.3.3.1 Pronominal demonstratives 84 3.3.3.2 Adnominal demonstratives 86 3.3.4 Relative Clauses 88

2

3.3.5 Summary of data 90 3.4 Analysis: Nominal Focus in Old Norse 91 3.4.1 Introduction 91 3.4.2 Word order and Focus 91 3.4.3 Nominal focus and i-structure 94 3.4.3.1 Previous accounts of i-structure 95 3.4.3.2 Presentational and Contrastive Focus 100 3.4.4 Nominal focus and -structure 102 3.4.5 The development of hinn (the other) 105 3.4.6 The development of adjectives 106 3.4.7 The grammaticalization of non-contrastive hinn 107 3.5 Summary 108 4. Faroese Noun Phrases and the Growth of Structure 109 4.1 Introduction 109 4.2 Historical Faroese: Literature and Sources 110 4.3 Presentation of data: Faroese definiteness in diachrony 112 4.3.1 Medieval Faroese: Seyðabrævið and Húsavíkarbrøvini 113 4.3.2 The Revival Period: Faroese 1770-1890 119 4.3.2.1 Evangelium Sankta Matteusar 119 4.3.2.2 The Ballads 125 4.3.3 1890s to Modern Faroese 127 4.3.3.1 Definiteness: Føringatíðindi to Modern Faroese 128 4.3.3.2 Indefiniteness: Føringatíðindi to Modern Faroese 134 4.3.3.3 Demonstratives: Føringatíðindi to Modern Faroese 136 4.3.3.4 Adjectives: Føringatíðindi to Modern Faroese 138 4.3.4 Summary of Diacronic survey of Definiteness 141 4.4 Possessor-Possessee Ordering 142 4.4.1 Introduction 142 4.4.2 Previous Literature 142 4.4.3 Presentation of Data: 1890s to Present 146 4.4.3.1 Evidence from Føringatíðindi 147 4.4.3.2 Evidence from Modern Faroese 150 4.4.3.3 Factors Motivating Variation 155 4.5 Changes to Nominal Structure Old Norse>Modern Faroese 157 4.6 Analysis: the growth of DP structure 159 4.7 Summary 163 5. Double Definiteness in Modern Faroese 165 5.1 Introduction 165 5.2 Review of previous literature on Faroese double definiteness 166 5.2.1 Descriptive literature on Faroese double definiteness 167 5.2.2 Theoretical Literature on Faroese double definiteness 168 5.3 Presentation of data: double and single definiteness in Faroese 171 5.3.1 Introduction 171 5.3.2 The syntactic definiteness marker 172 5.3.3 The bound definiteness marker 182

3

5.3.4 Indefiniteness marking 183 5.3.5 Relative Cluases 185 5.3.6 Summary of findings 186 5.4 Analysis: feature distribution 187 6. Old Norse to Faroese: Synthesis to Analysis 194 6.1 Introduction 194 6.2 Case in Faroese 196 6.2.1 The decline of the genitive in Modern Faroese 198 6.2.2 The use of the genitive in Modern Faroese 199 6.3 Presentation of data: from synthesis to analysis 206 6.3.1 Prepositional Perphrasis 206 6.3.2 Partitives 209 6.3.3 Word to phrase marking: Faroese sa- 210 6.3.3.1 Previous Literature 211 6.3.3.2 Sa-possessive and Danish/English -possessive 212 6.3.3.3 The Origins of sa-possessive 217 6.4 Synthetic to analytic: evidence from clause structure 227 6.5 Summary of the findings 229 7. Conclusions 231

Word count 72, 662

4

List of Source Texts Old Norse and Faroese Old Norse (Abbreviations)

BN: Brennu-Njáls . [Islenzk fornrit XII]. Edited with introduction and notes by Einar Ól. Sveinsson. 1956. Reykjavík: HiðÍslenzka Fornritafélag. Reference are to Page.Line.

ER: Eiríks saga rauða in Eyrbyggja saga. [Islenzk fornrit IV]. Edited with introductionand notes by Einar Ól. Sveinsson and Matthias Þórðarsson. Year. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag. Reference are to Page: Line. Gunn: Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu. Edited by P.. Foote and with translation by . Quirk. 1957. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. References are to Reference are to Page.Line.

GS Grænlanda saga [Islenzk fornrit IV]. Eyrbyggja Saga. Edited with introduction. HiðÍslenzka Fornritafélag LX: Laxdæla saga in Laxdæla saga. [Islenzk fornrit ]. Edited with introduction and notes by Einar Ól. Sveinsson. Year. Reykjavík: HiðÍslenzka Fornritafélag. Reference are to Page.Line in this edition. VG: Víga-Glúms saga in Eyfirðinga sögur. [Islenzk fornrit IX]. Edited with introduction and notes by Jónas Kristjánsson. 1956. Reykjavík: HiðÍslenzka Fornritafélag. Reference are to Page.Line Old Faroese (Abbreviations)

HUS Húsavíkarbrøvini. Jakob Jakobson (1907) Diplomatarium Færense. Føroskt Fodnabrævasavn. Miðaldar brøvupp til trúbótarskeiðid. Víð søguligum. Emil Thompsen. Tórshavn.

ESM Evangelium Sankta Mateussar. Christian Matras (1973) Prentða týðing Shrøters 1823. Vol 1 Ljósmyndað útgáva av prentaðu bókini. Émil Thompsen: Tórhavn.

SEYÐ Seyðabrævið Jóhan Hendrik W. Poulsen og Ulf Zachariasen; enskar týðingar: Michael Barnes & David R. Margolin; Tórshavn: Føroya fróðskaparfelag, 1971.

BÍB Bíblian á netinum www.biblian.fo FØR Føringatíðindi 1890’s newspapers BAL Faroese Ballads

5

Modern Faroese (Abbreviations)

Novels BØÐ Bøðilin Pär Lagerkvist MORG Í morgin er aftur ein dagur Odvørr Johansen SEB Sebastians hús Odvørr Johansen MET Metusalem Jógvan Isaksen NORÐ Norðlýsi Hjalmar Petursen (translator) SKUG Skuggaportrið Lene Kaaberbøl AB Í Abbasahúsi Guðrún Helgadóttir HP HP og Vitramannasteinurin Gunnar Hoydal(translator) SUM Summarhúsíð Odvørr Johansen BRAH Brahmeadellarnir Jóanes Nielsen

DIM Dimmalætting (newspaper) KF Kringvarp Føroya (newspaper) FTS Faroese Corpus

6

Abstract Written broadly within a Lexical Functional Framework, this thesis provides a descriptive and theoretical account of definiteness in Insular Scandinavian from a synchronic and diachronic perspective. Providing evidence from Ancient Germanic to Old Norse to Modern Faroese, it is argued that the weak feature on the has an important part to play in the historical narrative of definiteness marking in Faroese, alongside more traditional elements like the bound and free definite articles and demonstratives. Each of the features is read within the context of its nominal and it is observed that there are recurrent pathways of change which each time result in the growth of syntactic structure and the redistribution of features. One of my principal findings for the Old Norse period was that the noun phrase had developed a FOC slot to the left edge of phrase. It is this focus domain which helps to explain the distribution of definiteness markers and which provides an account for the grammaticalization of the free and bound marker hinn. It is also this focus domain which eventually leads to the development of dedicated definite slots in the prenominal space and eventually to functional DP projection in Modern Faroese. This thesis provides new and detailed descriptive data on the definite noun phrase in Modern Faroese, a lesser studied Insular Scandinavian language. Since Faroese is widely reported to have ‘lost’ the in recent times, the above changes are read against a background of morphosyntactic change. A key finding of the thesis for the Modern language is that Faroese is becoming increasingly reliant on analytic marking, despite the fact that is is still a highly inflected language. It is this reliance on syntax which has rendered the genitive redundant, not, as has been suggested, the ‘loss’ of case which has led to the development of periphrastic alternatives.

7

Declaration I declare that no portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

8

Copyright Statement

1. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.

2. Copies of the thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with the licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must from part of any such copies made.

3. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

4. Further Information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/policies/intellectual- propty.pdf), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s policy on presentation of Theses.

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Aims and Scope of the thesis The principal aim of this thesis is to explore definiteness marking in diachrony from an Insular Scandinavian perspective, with special reference to the , and to understand developments linked to definiteness within the context of the changing structure of the noun phrase. While there have been many scholarly works dedicated to the study of definiteness marking from a Continental Scandinavian perspective, Faroese, in particular, and Icelandic, to an extent, have received considerably less attention. One primary aim of this thesis is to address this asymmetry. The thesis also aims to provide an empirically motivated account of the facts for definite marking within the context of the structure of the Old Norse noun phrase. One key difference is that I aim to include the weak adjective, alongside elements which would more traditionally be deemed definite, such as the bound and free definite markers. To my knowledge, no other survey has taken such as approach. For the purposes of a diachronic analysis, it is important to assess the extent to which noun phrase structure is comparable across the different periods of Scandinavian. Many of the theoretical expositions in the previous literature seem to operate by the underlying assumption that they are and that the Old Norse noun phrase should unquestionably be analysed as a DP, if the modern counterpart is analysed as such. However, from an atheoretical perspective, given that a language is in a constant state of change, the null hypothesis must surely be that nominal structure will also have changed over the course of its history: that is, the structure of the noun phrase in Old Norse is not the same as, and the features found therein are not directly equivalent to, those found in the modern Scandinavian languages. Failing to acknowledge this point will result in a misreading of the earlier grammar and the fundamental way that it operates. This thesis will provide an empicially motivated analysis written broadly within an LFG formalism, to enable me to capture changes to feature distribution as well as structure. With this in mind, the focus in the next two chapters will be on establishing the facts for Old Norse and approximating a syntactic structure for the noun phrase for ancestral Insular Scandinavian. I will then turn my attention to Modern Faroese.

10

The thesis will be structured as follows. This chapter will provide background information and an introductiory overview to the Faroese language and to Old Norse. In section 1.4, I will offer a brief expositon of the framework in which I will formulate my account of the data. In Chapter 2, I present the results of an empirical survey on the distribution of definiteness markers and the frequency of use in Old Norse. This will include a detailed historical survey of the development and distribution of the weak adjective marker. With these facts in mind, I then move on to discuss the structure of the noun phrase in Old Norse. It is argued in chapter 3, the second of the Old Norse chapters, that Old Norse has grown syntactic structure in developing a FOC slot at the left edge of the nominal phrase. This chapter will attempt to synthecise the information gathered in chapters 2 and 3 to provide an approximation of the structure of the Old Norse noun phrase. In Chapter 4, my attention shifts to Old Faroese, in order to observe key changes to the structure of the phrase in diachrony. From the data presented, it is possible to see how the FOC domain gradually evolves into a pragmatically neutral, but syntactically significant, slot for specifiers and modifiers of the noun. This in turn leads to the rigidification of word order within the noun phrase and eventually to a functional DP projection. In chapter 5, I return to the issue of feature distribution within the definite noun phrase and provide a comprehensive descriptive overview of the status and syntactic behaviour of each of the definite markers, including the weak adjective. Finally in chapter 6, I will discuss my findings within the context of Modern Faroese, a language which is moving towards a position where it is privileging syntax over . Evidence of this shift towards analysis is presented both at the nominal and clausal level.

1.2 Background Information about Faroese Faroese is a North Germanic Language deriving from Western Old Norse which is the result of migrations from the west coast of Norway to the around 800AD. In the eleventh century, the islands became part of the kingdom of Norway, and then part of the united royal kingdoms of Norway and in 1380 (Petersen and Adams, 2009: vi), until the Faroe islands fell under Danish rule. From the period onwards, Danish became the language of the church, school and administration, with

11

Faroese continuing as the informal spoken vernacular. Danish continued as the prestige variety of the Faroe Islands until the 19th century, when Hammershaimb, in response to the Danish government’s treatment of Faroese as a low status dialect found the impetus to fight for Faroese to be recognised as the National Language of the Faorese people. After public debate, official recognition of its language status followed and in 1845 this resulted in a change in Danish government policy to allow Faroese as the language of the church and school in the Faroe Islands (Thráinsson et al. 2004:382, citing Matras 1941:211-213). However, Faroese did not come to be the language of instruction in Faroese schools until 1938 (Thráinsson et al. 2004:3892). The Faroe Islands gained Home Rule in 1948, but are still a Danish territory officially.

1.3 Introduction to Insular Scandinavian This section provides an introduction to the Faroese language and aims to set it within its linguistic and sociolinguistic context. A survey of the most salient linguistic features of the language will also be provided, with the aim of establishing Faroese as an Insular, rather than a Continental, Scandinavian language.

1.3.1 Ancestry and Development Faroese is a Scandinavian language from the Northern branch of Germanic which is spoken in the Faroe Islands, an archipelago which lies in the North Atlantic midway between Norway and , or the northern tip of Scotland and Iceland, depending on one’s point of reference. Faroese is a minor language spoken by just short of 50, 000 speakers in the Faroe Islands (Thráinsson et al. 2004:13; Harbert, 2007:19) with an estimated 10,000 Faroese speakers living outside the Faroe Islands, primarily in Denmark. Faroese is a descendent of Western Old Norse, and developed as a dialect of Norwegian-based Old Norse. This ancestry along with more recent developments which have affected Norwegian, Swedish and Danish, but not Icelandic and Faroese, have meant that North Germanic has branched into two distinct varieties: Insular and Continental. Faroese is of the Insular branch and is thus most closely related to Icelandic. Unlike

12

Icelandic, however, Faroese has been less well protected from change, due to the use of Danish as the prestige variety. To elaborate further on the significance of the Continental-Insular subdivision, I will briefly survey the historical developments which led to its inception. Norde (1997:11) citing Torp (1982:103) describes the evolution of Scandinavian in reference to three significant periods: The Viking Era (c. 700-1100); The Middle Ages (c. 1100-1300); and The Modern Period. During the first era, the common ancestor language of all the Scandinavian languages, Proto-Scandinavian, branches into two distinct dialects: Eastern Old Norse, which in time develops into Swedish and Danish, and Western Old Norse, which develops into Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese. Then during the Middle Ages, there is a further within Eastern Scandinavian along a North-South divide. Innovations in the south, noted by Norde (2007:12) as, “a number of phonological changes that hardly spread to other parts of ”, resulted in the evolution of Old Danish as a separate dialect from . In the west, Norwegian, by this period, has settlers in both Iceland and the Faroe Islands, as well as in and Orkney1, home the now obsolete Norn dialects. During the Middle Ages, allegiances between the various dialect speakers underwent a shift. Norde notes that the ties between Norway and Iceland are weakened. By the early 14th century, too, Faroese ceases to remain under Norwegian government (Petersen & Adams 2009). Danish becomes the official language of Norway. A closer allegiance is formed between Norway, and Denmark. This shift in allegiance results in a history of shared innovations and developments between the Continental dialects, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish, which were not shared by Icelandic, Faroese and Norn, resulting in a further branching between the Continental and the Insular Scandinavian language varieties. Many claims have been made about the high degree of between the speakers of the various Continental languages, although, the Danish sound system is often cited as a barrier to this, both anecdotally and in the relevant literature (Haberland 1994:316). This is in to the relationship between the Insular and Continental languages, which are not generally considered to be mutually intelligible.

1 There were also settlements in from around.. 13

In terms of the History of the Faroe Islands themselves, they have been inhabited by Norse speaking settlers since around 800AD2. The Faroe Islands, however, have had a separate history and been the different foreign influences than has Icelandic. The primary difference here is in the fact that the Faroe Islands have been a province of the Danish crown since 1380. Danish was imposed as the official language of the Faroe Islands from around the reformation to the mid- twentieth century (1948), when Faroese was reinstated as the official national language.3 The national language movement had been a force since the 1890s, however, when various publications began to appear in the language. A great deal of effort is made to maintain and strengthen the status and profile of Faroese as the official language, which somtimes manifests itself as a conservative and puristic attitude towards change. Many attempts are made to replace Danishisms with Faroese neologisms and also to limit the number of foreign entering the language. It is instead preferred that Faroese use its own language resources, often by means of reviving obsolete words to refer to modern concepts. One such example here is the use of the obsolete word fløga, which was traditionally used to refer to round flattened bails of hay, but which has been reinstated as the word to denote the term disc (CDs, DVDs computers discs). Some of these attempts to use their own language resources, such as the one cited here, have been highly successful; other attempts have been less successful. And a special committee, Málnevndin (the language committee), has been set up to safeguard these conservational principles.

1.3.2. Faroese as an Insular Scandinavian Language Faroese is argued to be closer to Icelandic than any other of the Nordic languages, with respect to its morphology and syntax (Thráinsson 2007:1), but has a more mixed lexicon (Thráinson et. al, 2004:36; Barnes and Weyhe, 1994: 190). With respect to the formal written language, Faroese, like Icelandic, retains a four-case inflectional system, with three gender distinctions and separate marking for singular and . The full details of

2 The islands were inhabited first by Irish monks in the 7th and 8th centuries. 3 As the official language, Faroese is now used as the language of education, of administration, of religious and cultural expression, as well as in all written and visual media. 14

the base paradigms for both the Faroese and Icelandic are replicated below. Table 1 details the inflectional system for Faroese and Table 2 displays the Icelandic paradims.

TABLE 1. Strong : Faroese (Thráinsson et al., 2004: 77-94) Sg. Mas. Fem. Neu. Nom. fugl-ur oyggj barn Acc. fugl oyggj barn Dat. fugl-i oyggj barn-i TABLE 2. Strong Paradigms: Icelandic Gen. fugl-s oyggj-ar barn-s (Einarsson 1945:32-46) Pl. Sg. Mas. Fem. Neu. Nom. fugl-ar oyggj-ar børn Nom. hest-ur kinn borð Acc. fugl-ar oyggj-ar børn Acc. hest kinn borð Dat. fugl-um oyggj-um børn-um Dat. hest-i kinn borð-i Gen. fugl-a oyggj-a barn-a Gen. hest-s kinn-ar borð-s Pl. Nom. hest-ar kinn-ar borð Acc. hest-a kinn-ar borð Dat. hest-um kinn-um borð-um Gen. hest-a kinn-a borð-a

The above are representative paradigms from the class of strong in both Faroese and Icelandic respectively. In both languages there are 4 strong masculine paradigms, 4 strong feminine paradigms, and one strong neuter, with a subdivision between 1a and 1b neuter in Faroese. As can be seen, there are formally very few differences or inflectional distinctions in the strong paradigm between the two languages. For masculine , there is no ending in the accusative singular. For the neuter there is no ending for the masculine and accusative, plural and singular. In the singular, the dative ends in an ‘i’ and the genitive ends in an‘s’ in both the masculine and neuter paradigms. In the feminine, there is no ending in the nominative, accusative or dative singular. And in the plural the masculine and feminine differ only in the form of the accusative. The dative and genitive have the same form for all cases in the plural. The only observable difference between Icelandic and Faroese is that the form of the plural masculine accusative forms -in Faroese the nominative and accusative plural forms- have been levelled so that both are represented by the suffix ‘ar’, while in Icelandic a distinction in form is maintained between the nominative ‘ar’ and the accusative ‘a’.

15

The system itself has, in fact, changed very little from the inflectional system of Old Norse. We begin by comparing the strong masculine and neuter paradigms in Old Norse in table 3 to their Modern-day Faroese and Icelandic counterparts in tables 1 and 2. TABLE 3. Strong Masculine and Neuter Paradigm Old Norse (Faarlund 2004:24-34) SG Mas. Neu. Nom. hest-r land Acc. hest land Dat. hest-i land-i Gen. hest-s land-s Pl. Nom. hest-ar nd Acc. hest-a l nd Dat. hest-um lọnd -um As the paradigm from Old Norse demonstrates, there have ọ Gen. hest-a land-a been very few changes in the inflectional system of ọ Icelandic and Faroese since the Old Norse period, the nominative singular masculine form, which here ends in an ‘r’ being the obvious exception. TABLE 4. Weak declension: Faroese (Thráinsson et al., 2004: 77-94) Sing Mas. Fem. Neu.. Nom. grann-i tung-a eyg-a Acc. grann-a tung-u eyg-a Dat. grann-a tung-u eyg-a Gen. grann-a tung-u eyg-a Pl. Nom. grann-ar tung-ur eyg-u(r) Acc. grann-ar tung-ur eyg-u(r) Dat. grann-um tung-um eyg-um Gen. grann-a tung-a eyg-na

TABLE 5. Weak Paradigms: Icelandic (from Einarsson 1945:32-46) Sg Mas. Fem. Neu. Nom. tím-i tung-a aug-a Acc. tím-a tung-u aug-a Dat. tím-a tung-u aug-a Gen. tím-a tung-u aug-a Pl. Nom. tím-ar tung-ur aug-u Acc. tím-a tung-ur aug-u Dat. tím-um tung-um aug-um Gen. tím-a tungn-a augn-a

16

The weak system of declension is almost identical for Faroese and Icelandic and remains virtually unchanged from the system in Old Norse. Compare the Norse data at table 7 to the information presented in table 5 for Faroese and table 6 for Icelandic. Table 7. Weak Paradigms: Old Norse (Faarlund 2004:28) Sing Mas Fem NEU. Nom. tím-i sag-a hjart-a Acc. tím-a s g-u hjart-a Dat. tím-a s g -u hjart-a Gen. tím-a sọg -u hjart-a PL. ọ Nom. tím-ar sọg-ur hj rt-u Acc. tím-a s g -ur hj rt -u Dat. tím-um sọg -um hjọrt -um Gen. tím-a sagọ -na hjartọ -na ọ ọ A of the inflectional systems of Faroese, Icelandic and Old Norse has confirmed the point that the Insular Scandinavian languages are conservative languages in that they have changed remarkably little in terms of their inflectional case systems from Old Norse until the Present Day. This sets the Insular Scandinavian languages apart from the Mainland Scandinavian systems where there remain but vestiges of a once fuller inflectional system. The comparison also serves to confirm to a certain extent the point made by Thráinsson (2007:1) that, formally at least, Faroese is very similar to Icelandic in terms of its morphological system. With the exception of some minor differences, it can be seen that the Faroese system is very similar to the Icelandic system. This differs markedly from the Continental Scandinavian system which has a greatly reduced inflectional system. In Continental Scandinavian, all case endings have been lost and genders have been reduced to a common and a neuter form. In both the nominal and strong adjectival systems, there are common and neuter singular forms, then common plural forms. There are also distinct definite and indefinite forms, but again the system is greatly reduced from the Old Norse system. The system of discussed above is the formal system of grammar which remains largely intact; this is only truly appropriate as a description of formal written Faroese, however. It is true that all nominal paradigms are still understood and each word still has

17

a fully inflected form which is recognisable and still employed in formal contexts. In the spoken language and in the Faroese vernacular, however, there is strong evidence that some parts of the inflectional system are in decline one of the core developments in spoken Faroese is that the genitive is no longer used as a productive case. In this section, I make mention of the fact inorder to provide a complete picture. The full details of the decline in genitive usage, though, will be discussed in chapter 7.

1.3.3 The Noun Phrase in Faroese Since the focus of this present study will be the noun phrase, it is important to establish some basic descriptive facts about inflectional marking and syntactic ordering within the noun phrase. Inflectionally, we have already established that distinctions are made with regard to gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), number (singular and plural), and case (nominative, accusative, genitive and dative), though, as is often the case in a synthetic system, many of the are fused forms which encode more than one piece of grammatical information. The marking of inflection for number, gender and case is marked on all demonstratives and pronominal forms and adjectives, with adjectives, like nouns, having both strong and a weak paradigms. This equates to marking between all words in the phrase, as demonstrated at (1) and (2).

(1) Tað gamla bókið mítt The.NEU.SG.NOM old.NEU.SG.NOM-WK book.NEU.SG.NOM.DEF my.NEU.SG.NOM ‘The old book of mine’

(2) Ín teimum gomlu bókinum mínum In the.NEU.PL.DAT old.NEU.PL.DAT-WK book.NEU.PL.DAT.DEF my.NEU.PL.DAT ‘In the old book of mine’

Definiteness is also marked as a bound suffix on the noun, as shown at (3). The definite ending itself agrees in number, gender and case with the form of the noun to which it is attached. The form is thus essentially double marked for all features, with the exception of course of definiteness.

18

(3) Dagar-nir Day.NOM.MAS.PL-DEF.NOM.MAS.PL ‘The days’

In standard analyses in this thesis, however, these additional features will not be overtly referenced, unless significant to the analysis. The bound marker of definiteness is not the only possibility for the marking of definiteness. It is also possible to have a syntactic marker of definiteness in particular syntactic contexts. In the Continental varieties, the presence of a syntactic marker of definiteness is contingent on the presence of premodification, as in the example at (4) taken from Danish. In the case of the (5), (which is from Norwegian). The syntactic definiteness marker ‘den’ has been used to introduce a restrictive relative clause. The particular contexts in which the syntactic markers are used are to some extent language specific, though amongst the Continental varieties there are far fewer differences. (4) Det store hus The big house ‘The big house’ (Julien, 2007:65) (5) Den jenta som kom først The girl came first ‘The girl who came first’ (Julien, 2007:78)

There is very little descriptive work done on the exact contexts which require a syntactic marker of definiteness in Faroese, and when it does or does not co-occur with the bound definiteness marker. So, while, it is clear that both forms exist in Present Day Faroese, more work needs to be done in terms of defining the exact the syntactic or semantic factors which constrain usage.

19

The definite endings for Faroese are represented at table 8 below. TABLE 8. The suffixed definite paradigms-Faroese Sing MAS. FEM. NEU. Nom. fugl-ur-in oyggj-in barn-ið Acc. fugl-in oyggj-ina barn-ið Dat. fugl-i-num oyggj-ini barn-i-num Gen. fugl-s-ins oyggj-ar-innar barn-s-ins Pl.. Nom. fugl-ar-nir oyggj-ar-nar børn-ini Acc. fugl-ar-nar oyggj-ar-nar børn-ini Dat. fugl-u-num oyggj-u-num børn-um Gen. fugl-a-nna oyggj-a-nna barn-nna Sing MAS. FEM. NEU. Nom. hest-ur-inn kinn-in borð-ið Acc. Hest-inn Kinn-ina Borð-ið Dat. hest-i-num Kinn-inni borð-inu Gen. hest-s-ins kinn-ar-innar borð-s-ins Pl. Nom. hest-ar-nir kinn-ar-nar borð-in Acc. hest-a-na kinn-ar-nar borð-in Dat. hest-u-num kinn-u-num borð-u-num Gen. hest-a-nna kinn-a-nna borð-a-nna

1.4 Introduction to the Theoretical Framework The overarching aim of this study is to better understand mechanisims of change and to be able to formulate an analysis which neatly accounts for all the empical facts. Lexical Functional Grammar is an ideal framework within which to couch these ideas, due to its parallel constraint based architecture and the expressive power of the lexicon. It should be noted that it is not the aim of this thesis to provide a full LFG anlysis of nominal structure; rather the aim is to present simplified LFG style c-structure and f-structure represetations and to couch my findings broadly within an LFG-style frame of reference. Lexical Functional grammar was first developed in the 1970s by Joan Bresnan and Ronald Kaplan. It is also nonderivational or nontransformational in approach since constructions such as the passives are stated in the lexicon and not through transformations as in other theories. It is a lexicalist framework, with a parallel constraint based architecture. This means that not all syntactic phenomena are encoded in structure. As a Lexicalist theory, LFG respects

20

the Lexical Integrity Principle. As a consequence words are base constituents out of which the syntactic structures are build. Word formation takes place in the lexicon and whole words fill the terminal nodes in c-structure. Thus unlike other generative approaches which are more syntacto-centric, neither word formation, nor morphological processes are built via syntactic movement and merging with a functional projection. Lexical items are listed with phonological, semantic, morphological and syntactic information, including any exceptional information. Grammatical relations are reflected at F-structure. Each c-structure node corresponds to a particular piece of f-structure.This level is constrained by c- structure. It is at the level of f-structure that we can identify the cross-linguistically invariant principles of syntax. At the level of c-structure, LFG phrases follows a basic x-bar schemata and complies with the basic endocentric c-structure configuration. Each maximal phrase consists of a bar level unit which has a SPEC as its sister and the head word as its daughter. The head word is in a sisterhood relation with its . As a general rule the phrases are headed by functional categories which take a lexical category as complement; however, LFG recognises fewer functional categories than is currently accepted in minimalist generative accounts. Here, since word formation takes place via movement, and surface word order differences between languages captured via syntactic operations, there is a greater necessity to have all syntactic information encoded in structure. This leads to a great number of functional heads in the ‘extended projection’ of the phrase. Since some of the syntactic information in LFG is captured at f-structure, or a-structure, capturing this information in the form of c-structure configurations is not a requirement. Consequently, LFG postulates f-structure nodes only if there is evidence of functional material: a DP projection to house the determiner, or the IP to house the finite , the CP to house the complementizer. In LFG there are two types of heads: functional heads and structural heads. The functional head provides the feature (semantic feature). The structural head contributes the categorial feature or category specification of the whole phrase. There are two structures assigned to every well-formed sentence in a language. There is a c-structure or constituent structure representation, which follows a standard version

21 of x-bar syntax. These express surface constituency relations and are language specific. They are also phonologically interpreted. There is also an f-structure which captures basic syntactic relations and seeks to capture cross-linguistic generalisations.

22

Chapter 2 Definite Marking in Old Norse

2.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will provide a descriptive and theoretical account of the distribution of definite markers in Old Norse. The aim is to establish the primary means by which definiteness was indicated. The data presented will demonstrate that there was no unified representing definiteness and no dedicated slot in c- structure, hence no DP projection. Instead numerous strategies co-existed for signalling that a referent was identifiable to the hearer. The chapter will explore the distribution and discourse-semantic contribution made by each of the proposed contributors to definiteness in the noun phrase and will address key theoretical questions linked to the grammticalisation of definiteness over time. This thesis is, of course, not the first to investigate definiteness marking in Old Norse; definite marking and the development of such markers, has been covered in some detail by Faarlund, 2007; van Gelderen, 2007; Leiss, 2007; Abraham and Leiss, 2007; Börjars and Harries, 2008; and Stroh-Wollin, 2009, who also incorporates data from ancient Runic inscriptions. The attested patterns of distribution have also received some attention in a number of of Old Norse (Nygaard, 1905; Faarlund, 2004; Barnes, 2004). In spite of the comprehensive interest expressed by the previous research on the topic, detailed descriptions of the various definiteness markers, their distribution, contribution to meaning, and the factors which motivate variation are relatively few. This chapter is first and foremost an attempt to address this gap in knowledge. A second consideration is that the previous accounts of the phenomena in question almost without exception interpret their findings within a broadly minimalist framework, which means that the expositions all adopt similar theoretical assumptions and use the same theoretical apparatus. My aim is to provide a throrough descriptive account and then to explain my findings within LFG, a framework which allows for the development and growth of c-structure and a detailed accounts of feature distribution. One further issue with all the previous accounts is that they fail to acknowledge the other ‘definite’ marker: viz, the weak adjective. This is presumably because it is not usually one of the syntactic elements we would expect to see occupying a D- node in c-structure. In the following section, however, it will be demonstrated that

23

an understanding of the earlier adjectival system of definite marking plays a key role in the development of ‘the definite article’ in the earliest Germanic and thus forms a part of the history of definite marking in Scandinavian. There are a number of specific issues which this chapter will address. I will first present my findings on the distribution of the various definiteness markers in Old Norse, say something about the frequency of each pattern, and consider how these markers are related to each other. I will also engage with the issue of development and hypothesize a potential pathway of grammaticalisation. I aim to discuss the data for definite marking within the context of the structure of the nominal phrase in Old Norse and provide analysis based on structure and feature distribution. Therefore the full analysis will be presented across the current chapter (2), which deals centrally with featue distribution and chapter (3) which looks in more detail at structure alongside feature distribution. The present chapter will be structured as follows. In section 2.2, I will provide an overview of previous literature on the topic and explore what is known of the historical development of definiteness marking in Old Norse from secondary sources. In section 2.3, the findings of my empirical study of definiteness marking in Old Norse will be presented and discussed in relation to the frequency, distribution and discourse-semantic contribution of four individual definiteness markers. Then in section 2.4, an analysis of the data will be formulated within LFG.

2.2 Previous Literature on Old Norse In this section, the aim is to provide an overview of the most significant points made in the previous descriptive and theoretical literature on the topic and to provide the core facts of distribution, as presented in general grammars and journals on the topic. I will begin with the latter.

2.2.1 Previous Descriptive Literature For the Old Norse period, the following patterns (6-9) capture the core facts of distribution with respect to definiteness. For ease of reference, I will call the suffixed form the inn paradigm and the free form the hinn paradigm, since this best aligns with

24

distribution. It should be noted that all forms of the independent hinn paradigm could also be represented without the word-intial : i.. inn, ins, inum as opposed to hinn, hins, hinum. The variation is linked to dialectal form and the date of the text in question. For the sake of clarity, I will maintain the distinction introduced above: that is, the inn paradigm will represent the bound definite marker, and the hinn paradigm will refer to the independent form. I will follow the convention throughout the thesis of naming a whole paradigm after the first person, singular, masculine, nominative form.

(6) Maðr-inn Man-DEF ‘The man’

(7) Hinn gamli maður DEF old.WK man ‘The old man’

(8) Hinn maður The other man ‘The other man’

(9) *Hinn maður DEF man ‘The man’

The key pattern to notice here is that a definite noun phrase with no adjectival modification will take the bound definite article inn. A noun which has adjectival modification on the other hand will be preceded by an independent definiteness article hinn. The independent definiteness marker cannot itself signal that an unmodified noun is definite, as demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of (9); this can only be done by means of the bound form. However, an unmodified noun can occur with the independent marker hinn to convey the meaning of ‘the other’. Hinn was originally a demonstrative with the meaning that/those, but it could also be used to mean the other (Barnes 2004:64). Most of the facts discussed are equivalent to the patterns which remain in the modern Scandinavian languages, except that, within all of the Scandinavian varieties, except Icelandic, the independent marker of definiteness is no longer represented by the hinn paradigm, but by the den paradigm, or in the case of Faroese, the tann paradigm,

25

which had its origin in the demonstrative sá paradigm (that) in Old Norse, before it became grammaticalised as a definite article. The introduction of this new demonstrative den was at the expense of the independent hinn paradigm, which Stroh-Wollin (2009:4) states, has been practically lost in modern Scandinavian. This is said to be true of all varieties except Icelandic, which no longer requires a syntactic marker of definiteness, except in very formal written prose. No mention is made, however, of the situation in modern Faroese, which has retained hinn paradigm as an independent marker of definiteness alongside the more commonly attested tann paradigm, which developed from the demonstrative. It should also be noted that the demonstrative hinn paradigm meaning ‘the other’ has been retained in Faroese (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 124), in Icelandic and in Norwegian (Haugan’s dictionary 1974: 179). I will return to the use of both these forms in my discussion of definite marking in Faroese in chapters 4 and 5. A system of double marking, known as ‘double definiteness’, is also attested in some varieties of modern Scandinavian, in which both the bound and the syntactic marker co- occur within the same noun phrase, as demonstrated by the example from Swedish at (10), which is taken from Börjars (1998:58).

(10) Den vita mus-en The white mouse-DEF ‘The white mouse’

More details of the facts as they relate to modern Scandinavian will be presented in subsequent chapters. For the present chapter the focus will be on the Old Norse period. In addition to the data at 6-10, there are a number of other configurations which are attested in Old Norse, see (11-14). These are represented by the examples below cited from Barnes (2004:84-87).

(11) Þau hin stóru skip Those the big ships ‘Those big ships’

26

(12) Þess er mærin sú hin mikilláta hafði mælt That which girl.DEF that the proud had said ‘That which that proud girl had said’

(13) Óláfr inn helgi Olafur the holy ‘Ólafur the Holy’

(14) Sá maðr That man ‘That man’

The data presented above, provide evidence of further patterns of definiteness marking for the Old Norse period. At (11-12) we can observe that the independent marker hinn could co-occur with the demonstratives Þau (those) and sú (that). We can also observe that the sequence dem+def+adj or def+adj could either precede or follow the noun (11- 12) A further possibility is that of the co-occurrence of three overt definite markers, as exemplified at (12), since the noun itself mær/girl has a bound definite marker mærin in addition to the demonstrative sú and the definite marker hinn. At (14) we can observe that the demonstrative can occur with an unmodified noun even though a definite marker could not. While the data here represent attested examples, they are not accompanied by any discussion of the frequency or conditions of usage of each of these forms. Nygaard (1905) does add further detail about the conditions of use. Nygaard (1905:30) associates the use of the bound marker particularly with singular objects which are already known to the hearer, thus anaphoric. He also states that definite adjectives will occur with the free article whenever the noun is definite. This includes the case of demonstratives, possessive and genitives (Nygaard 1905:51). He also states that while the definite marker hinn usually co-occurs with demonstratives, it is common to find the demonstrative occurring the adjective ‘sami’ without a definite article in the classical language. The data also require further scrutiny in terms of their geographical and historical distribution, since the term Old Norse is a broad term and can encompass the language varieties from across the whole of Scandinavia, and across a number of centuries. The focus of my study will be on Old Western Norse, and more pertinently Old Icelandic, since

27

the focus of this thesis will be Insular Scandinavian, though where appropriate, I will compare my findings to those established for the other Scandinavian varieties, including Runic Old Norse. While my data sources are all Old Icelandic, and the focus of this study is itself Insular Scandinavian, I will retain the term Old Norse for the remainder of this thesis, in line with current literature on the topic. From this brief exposition, it is clear that definiteness marking in Old Norse was a complex system, of which the hinn form, which has received the most attention in the literature, makes up only a part. This chapter presents the findings of a detailed empirical study of each of the definiteness markers introduced above from Old Norse sources. The aim is to establish key facts about frequency, distribution and function of each of the markers, and use these data to inform understanding of nominal structure from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective.

2.2.2 Previous Theoretical Literature Definiteness marking and the grammaticalisation of such markers in Old Norse has been the focus of some discussion in the last few years by several scholars: Faarlund, 2007; Abraham & Leiss, 2007; Lohndal, 2007; van Gelderen, 2007; Börjars and Harries, 2008; Stroh-Wollin, 2009. The above citations relate to articles which address the data from a theoretical perspective, but there are also sources which are more descriptive in approach. Leiss (2007), on the other hand, discuss the link between definiteness marking, clause level word order and information structure. In the Leiss paper (2007), it is argued that the definite article and the perfect aspect are “in competition for one and the same discourse function”: that of narrative foregrounding. They thus consider that the “emergence of the definite article substitutes for the demise of aspect” (2007:34). The link to discourse structure is seen to explain the underspecification of bound definiteness markers in Old Norse: Nouns would naturally only be required to be marked for definiteness, if they occur in the ‘rhematic’ (indefinite) domain of the clause, but warrant a definite interpretation is the constraint proposed here. Nouns would naturally receive a definite interpretation, if they were positioned in the ‘thematic’ domain. Despite grammatical underspecification of definiteness and the proposed link of definiteness to

28

aspect and information structure, Leiss still seems to conclude that there was a DP projection in Norse. While I concur with Leiss that there seemed to be a greater interaction between grammar and information structuring, I would disagree on a number of other points made. Firstly, underspecification does not seem to be limited to thematic domain of the clause; there are other ways in which the definiteness markers underspecify in Old Norse. I also take issue with the idea that there can be a DP projection, before a stage when there are explicit grammatical encodings of definiteness in the grammar. It suggests, there are pre-existent syntactic slots which are waiting for the feature in question to develop. A DP analysis would also suggest comparability across different languages and languages varieties, where no comparability exists. Much has been written in the historical about whether the preposed or the suffixed definite article was prior. Many (Falk&Torp, 1900; Nygaard, 1905; Wessén, 1956; Faarlund, 2007, 2009), It is often implied in the literature that inn is a weakened form of hinn, and this is explicitly argued in works, such as Neckel (1924: 407-412). Neckel (1924) argues that definite forms in runic materials dated prior to 1000AD are rare, occurring only sporadically. The form and position of the definite suggests that the original constituent order is noun-dem. Syrett (2002: 722-723) presents the views of scholars, such Brøndum-Nielsen (1928), in arguing that the inn form is prior. Following this approach the inn is a reflex of the IE demonstrative *eno, and the hinn is a later form with an h representing reinforced deictic force. Braunmüller (1982: 222-38) suggests that this was a uniform pattern across the in which “an article-like develops from older type demonstrative form which was originally postposited after the noun. Birkman (1995:238) as cited in Syrett (2002:723) notes that the infrequency of hinn in ancient runic inscriptions can be accounted for, if indeed hinn is taken to be a weakened deictic demonstrative, since the reduced deictic force would make the form unsuitable for use in formulaic texts. Grimm (1822: 40) as cited by Dahl (2010:44) associates the suffixed article with postnominal epithets. Dahl argues that a more likely source is the unstressed postposed demonstrative hinn. This view is supported by examples like the following from a runic inscription

29 dating from 600CE. Hali hino (stone this) Dahl 2010:44). Larm (1936) also cited by Dahl (2010) argues that it is the postposed definiteness marker which was prior. However, taking a rather more theoretical approach, Faarlund (2007) and Lohndal (2007) argue that from Old Norse to the postposed definiteness marker changed from a to an inflectional by moving down from the D head and into a lower functional projection. Abraham & Leiss (2007) on the grounds that this would result in an instance of ‘downwards grammaticalisation’, which does not fit with the recognised merge and move processes associated with synchronic derivation, where movement is expected to originate from low inside the DP (from the lexical domain) and move to the higher functional positions within the DP. In sum, Abraham and Leiss (2007) and Van Gelderen (2007) maintain that all instances of grammaticalisation are frozen upwards movement as per the standard pathway of grammaticalisations argued for by Roberts and Roussou (2003). Börjars & Harries (2008) argue contra Faarlund that there is insufficient evidence of a clitic category in Old Norse of an affixal category in modern Norwegian. Stroh-Wollin (2009) argues that the suffixed and the preadjectival articles underwent separate grammaticalisation processes. Both accounts assume a pathway in which the demonstrative hinn + weak adjective originate as a postpositional phrase. It is then argued that the demonstrative hinn, which belonged with the weak adjective, cliticizes onto the noun and becomes reanalysed as an affix. There are a number of problems with this account, however. Firstly, many of the attested examples of a postposed adjective phrase are headed by a preceding ‘proper noun’. If the majority of cases of postposition involved proper nouns, it would be difficult to argue this as the pathway towards a generalised definite nominal suffix. Even though examples like the following (15) have been attested, which feature a definite marked proper noun, it must be remembered that such examples form the minority case.

(15) Erikinum Hælghæ Erik-DEF.DAT holy ‘Erik the Holy’

30

Further doubt is cast on this pathway of reanalysis, because of the apparent absence of example like the following, involving a common noun, which would surely be a natural extension of such a change.

(16) Maðrinn góði for maðr hinn góði Man-DEF good man DEF good

This does not offer a convincing pathway for the development of the definite article to become generalised as the definite marker for all common nouns, as in a period where definite marked nouns are already being used quite productively, the form from which this suffixal ending has apparently been reanalysed- the adjectival marker hinn-are also commonly attested. These facts would be difficult to reconcile with the process of grammaticalisation proposed by Grimm and Delbrück. Surely once the definite marker has been reanalysed as a definite suffix, it becomes the province of word formation rules, hence of morphology. The definite marker would not then be available as an independent element in the syntax. A final objection, as noted by Dahl, is due to the relative infrequency of the postposed adjective phrase and its restricted stylistic usage. On this point, I also concur with Dahl that this casts doubt on this pathway as a plausible origin of the bound definiteness marker. Instead, as stated above Dahl (2010:44) looks to the unstressed postposed demonstrative hinn as the likeliest source. The distribution of the definiteness marker hinn has received more attention in the literature than any other of the definite markers. The interest centres on its unusual syntactic distribution in modern, as well as ancient, Scandinavian, with many of the previous works trying to account for synchronic distribution from an explanatory perspective, and within a broadly minimalist tradition. Key facts to account for are linked to (a) the status of each of the definite markers, and () the unusual distributional facts. Many of the previous analyses are contingent on accepting the fact that the bound and independent hinn markers are both reflexes of the same grammatical feature. Whether this is the case or not would be unproblematic within the Lexical Functional Grammar framework which I adopt in this thesis, since features do not necessarily need to be

31

associated with particular structural positions. As it turns out, my research casts doubt on the basic assumption itself that the bound and the independent hinn are exponents of the same grammatical feature. One of my original objectives in beginning to research Old Norse was to see if a diachronic approach would help me better explain the synchronic facts for definiteness markers in Modern Faroese. In order to discuss the diachronic facts, I must, therefore, first establish the synchronic facts for the Old Norse period.

2.2.3 The Origins of hinn The origins and development of the definiteness marker hinn are in many ways unremarkable, because it seems to follow the expected trajectory towards grammaticalisation from a demonstrative to a definiteness marker. Beginning as a full demonstrative, it gradually lost the ability to show deictic relations. In addition to this, the fact that the independent hinn develops the ability to criticize onto the noun is evidence of the type of phonological weakening, which accompanies semantic loss in instances of grammaticalisation. By the Old Norse period, a definite marked noun, such as hestrinn could mean a previously mentioned/known horse, but could not mean ‘that/this horse’. In this sense the element signals unique reference, the totality of the set, unlike demonstratives which are definite, but not necessarily unique. The more unusual aspects of the grammaticalisation process are linked to the facts of distribution, since the hinn would typically occur postnominally, by this period usually in the form of a bound element. Hinn could occur prenominally if it preceded a weak adjective, or if used as the demonstrative hinn, meaning the other. Stroh-Wollin claims that the default position for the definiteness marker hinn was originally postnominal, as was the case with all nominal modifiers, since the dominant order in the noun phrase in the oldest extant Runic data is noun first (2009:6). Stroh-Wollin (2009) report that the earliest instances of postnomninal hinn are linked to the use of adjectives in their function as postnominal epithets. It is thus argued that the use of hinn as a definite marker has its origins in this construction. There are a number of factors which militate against such a hypothesis. The first is that the epithets generally accompany proper nouns, not common nouns; it is, therefore, difficult to see how, according to this account, hinn comes to be

32 generalised as a definite marker for common nouns. The second factor is that there would seem to have been a small number of examples of a postnominal independent hinn with a common noun in the Old Runic data too. Thus it is likely that postnominal hinn could occur both with or without an adjective in Runic Old Norse. With regard to the demonstrative hinn, meaning the other, there are no sources which suggest that this element had any part in the process of the grammaticalisation of the definiteness marker at all. And there is, in fact, no consensus view (2009:6) as to whether this form is related etymologically to the definite marker at all.

2.3. Presentation of Findings: Definite Marking in Old Norse In order to establish more information about the distribution of the various definiteness markers in Old Norse, I gathered data from 6 Old Norse to create a sample corpus of circa 211,935 words. This enabled me to decipher which of the attested patterns were indicative of both the period and the variety in question. The aim of this section is to present the results of this empirical research and to enable me to draw conclusions about the distribution of the various definiteness markers and the discourse-semantic contribution that each makes to the interpretation of the phrase. Each of the definite markers will be discussed separately before generalisations are made about the noun phrase as a whole.

2.3.1 Zero Marking One of the most notable features of Old Norse is that it does not have a fully articulated article system. There is, for instance, no indefinite article in Old Norse. Instead an unmarked noun is the usual means to indicate that a noun phrase has an indefinite interpretation, as in (17).

(17) Ok gekk kona fyrir útibúrsdyrrin And goes woman in front of outhousedoor-DEF ‘A woman went in front of door of the outbuilding’ (ER, 203:25)

33

An unmarked noun can convey the sense of either indefinite specific or indefinite non- specific, depending on the context. While there is no evidence that a noun was required to be overtly marked for indefiniteness or that there was a syntactic category indefinite article, the indefinite marker einn (from the einn paradigm meaning one) could be used to specify the idea of ‘a particular’ or ‘one specific’ Examples of these are given at (18- 19)

(18) Þat var eitt kveld at þeir koma…. It was one evening that they came ‘They came one specific evening’ (LX, 29:18)

(19) Hvíldu þeir Ósvífr í einni Rested they Ósvífr in a single grave ‘They (Osvif and Gest)rested in a singlegrǫf grave’ (LX, 196:25)

Thus far, we have established that an unmarked noun would carry an indefinite interpretation; however the system is complicated further by the fact that an unmarked noun can, in certain contexts, carry a definite interpretation, and it is this fact which has led some scholars to argue that definiteness is underspecified in Old Norse. Leiss (2007) argues that Old Norse is hypodetermining, a system which requires overt exponance of definiteness only as the marked option. Such a system operates in conjunction with the information structure of the clause and the interpretation afforded by clausal position (page refs). A key claim made by Leiss is that definite markers in Old Norse are to be found in contexts which are associated with syntactic indefiniteness: the rheme/new part of the information unit/clause. They are not required, if they fall within the definite domain of the sentence. In my data set, there are indeed a number of instances in which a noun with a definite interpretation is unmarked for definiteness. The most common environment for this to happen is in subject position. In my data set, there were 28 examples of unmarked nouns with a definite interpretation, occurring in the subject position. Since the subject position is naturally associated with ‘given’ information, the

34

findings add some support to Leiss’s hypothesis. A few examples are given at (20-24) below.

(20) Draumr er mikill merkligr Dream is great and remarkable ‘The dream is great and remarkable’ (VG, 30:17)

(21) Hestr var allvænligr Horse was most beautiful ‘The horse was most beautiful’ (Gunn, 27:10)

(22) Sauðamaðr fór ok sagði Gunnari Shepherd went and said Gunnar-DAT ‘The shepherd went and said to Gunnar’ (BN, 171:4)

(23) Bruðlaup skal vera að laugum Wedding shall be on Saturday ‘The wedding shall be on Saturday’ (VG, 38:13)

(24) Húsfreyja mælti þá til Austmannsins Wife said then to Eastmen-DEF ‘The wife then said to the Norwegians’ (BN, 154: 23) The data on unmarked subject noun phrases is interesting because it reveals that the definite domain of the clause also permitted associative types of definiteness (Lyons, 1999:158), also known as inferable in Prince (1981: 236-237)to go unmarked in subject position. Associative definiteness is linked to anaphoric reference, but while a truly activated referent has a discourse identity already, associative definites are first mention referents which are inferred from a previous discourse referent. The examples at (23-24) exemplify this type of definiteness. A look at constructions which equate with English presentational there clauses gives further evidence that word order was a key factor in determining information structure interpretation. An unmarked noun in initial position (25) is interpreted as given subject,

35

while an unmarked noun after the verb (26-27) would result in a presentational ‘there’ type analysis. (25) Austmaðr kom á tal við Gunnar Eastman came to talk with Gunnar ‘The Norwegian came to talk with Gunnar’ (BN, 75:3)

(26) Atli hét maðr; hann var son Arnviðar Atli is called man; he was son Arnvið.GEN ‘There was a man called Atli; he was Arnvið’s son’ (BN, 16:16)

(27) rðr hét maðr er kallaðr var gigja. Mord is man that called was fiddle.WK ‘Tǫhere was a man called Mord the Fiddle’ (BN, 5:1) There were also a good many instances in which the unmarked noun in question was not a subject. Occasionally this involved a direct object noun phrase, but more often these examples took the form of prepositional phrase, as shown at (28-31).

(28) þakkaði konungi gjafnar Hoskuld thanked king-DAT gifts-PL.DEF Hǫskuldr‘Hoskuld thanked the king for the presents’ (LX, 31:21) This is not the only environment in which a noun with a definite interpretation lacks an overt definite marker. It is also common for nouns with a definite interpretation to carry no overt marker of definiteness if they are contained within a prepositional phrase, or if the phrase is specific, but has no anaphoric mention.

(29) Gekk þú á fjáll með hú mínum Go you to mountain with servant my ‘Go to the mountain with my servantskǫrlum’ (BN, 48:14) (30) Hláupr ór skógi Leapt out of forest ‘Leapt out of the forest’. (ER, 228:17)

36

(31) Mikit fé var í haug lagt með henni Much wealth/money was in grave laid with her ‘Much wealth was laid in the grave with her’ (LX, 13:13)

These examples demonstrate that non-explicit marking of definiteness was clearly more widespread than is the case for the modern Scandinavian. The results suggest a number of interesting conclusions. Firstly, there is a stronger tendency to have an unmarked subject than an object argument. This could suggest information structure was indeed one of the strategies used to indicate definiteness, perhaps as remnants of a hypodetermining system, as suggested by Leiss. Whether the system began with hypodertermination or not, the system had clearly become more elaborate by the Old Norse period. It is clear that by the Old Norse period, this is no longer the sole option when it comes to definiteness marking. The exact nature of the semantic or pragmatic information being encoded by each of definiteness markers will be elaborated as we progress through the data. In this section the focus has been on zero marking and the contexts in which zero marking was attested. The following sections will focus more centrally on the overt means of marking definiteness.

2.3.2 The hinn Paradigm While it is clear that a definite marker was not always required, there is a definite marker in Old Norse which many would consider a definite article, albeit one which has a distribution which is difficult to explain. In this section, I hope to throw more light on the distributional patterns of both the bound and the independent marker hinn in Old Norse and assess how each contributes towards interpretation. 2.3.2.1 The bound definiteness marker As would be expected for any definite marker, the bound marker hinn is used in contexts in which the noun phrase can be interpreted as definite, as the following extract of text at (32) demonstrates (BN 192:3-6).

37

(32) Þeir urpu haug eptir Gunnar They threw-up gravemound after Gunnar ‘They put together a burial mound for Gunnar’ (BN, 192:3)

Ok létu hann sitja uppí í hauginum And let he sit upright in gravemound-DEF ‘And they sat him upright in the burial mound’ (BN, 192:6)

Here the first instance of ‘burial mound’ is new so, as expected, it is unmarked for definiteness. On second mention, though gravemound is marked definite. Since this is a coordinated clause, we would be more likely to replace the second mention of the gravemound with ‘it’ in . Notice how this example contrasts with the data at (29-31) which exemplify contexts in which the /place indicated is specific, but has not been mentioned in the previous discourse. This suggests that bound hinn is used to mark ‘active’ status, rather than specificity or more general identifiability. The key thing to note though is that it is used to encode particular types of definiteness and not others. The most obvious pattern is that the nouns which represent activated discourse referents will take a bound definite marker and those which are not already activated will not. This contrast is demonstrated below (33), by means of a stretch of text taken from

(33) Þeir leituðu Gríms ok fundu bein hans í miðjum skálanum; They searched Grím-GEN and found bones his in middle hall ‘They searched for Grím and his bones in the middle of the hall’

þeir fundu ok Þórð leysinga gengt honum undir hliðvegginn, They found also Thród freedman.WK opposite him under side wall-DEF ‘They also found Thord the Freedman opposite him and under the wall’

Í vefjarstu funni fundu þeir Sæunni kerlingu ok þryá men aðra. In weaving room found they Sæunn woman and three men other ‘In the weaving room they found that the Sæunn woman’

Alls fundu þeir þar bein af ellefu m nnum. Altogether found they there bones of eleven men. ‘They found there the bones of eleven men there’ ǫ

38

Síðan fluttu þeir lík þau til kirkju. Then moved they bodies these to church. ‘Then they moved these bodies to the church’ (BN, 344: 4-9) In this dialogue, ‘hliðvegginn’ and ‘skálanum’ are definite. This is because, the ‘hall’ (the place where they are) is already established in the discourse. Due to its activated status, this permits ‘hliðvegg’ (side wall) to be definite as it has an associative link to hall. The nounkirkju is not marked for definiteness, even though the interpretation is a specific church. Another interesting example is the phrase ‘bein af ellefu m nnum’ (bones of

eleven men), which refers to a specific set of bones, and would require ǫthe definite article in English. This noun is postmodified and as such would usually be classed as uniquely identifiable by virtue of the information contained within the phrase itself. Further examples which follow this same pattern are given at (34).

(34) Þeir h fðu beizl með sér ok tóku hross í túni ok riðu í braut They had bridles with them and took horses in yard and rode away ‘They hadǫ bridles with them and took the horses in the yard and rode away’ (BN, 115:16)

In this example, the phrase hross í túni is horses in the yard (horses which were in the yard). These are a specific set of horses, whose reference is delimited by the postmodifiying phrase, in the same way as the phrase ‘bones of eleven men’ from the example above. This would usually result in the cognitive status uniquely identifiable and the use of the definite article. At (35), however, it is missing.

(35) þeir tœki bónda af næsta bœ, er Þorkell hét, They seized farmer-INDEF from next farm that Thorkell is called ‘They seized the farmer from the next farmstead that was called Thorkel’ (BN, 185:11) Another factor to note is that the antecedent of relative clauses is introduced by the distal demonstrative sá, not the bound or free definite marker hinn. The employment of the demonstrative hinn in this context is used to signal a referent which is uniquely identifiable by virtue of the modifying clause. If the bound hinn is a definite article, then

39

it encodes a far more limited definition of definiteness than its Danish, English and French counterpart.

2.3.2.2 The Free Hinn With respect to the free definite marker hinn, my research data confirm the basic facts of distribution as exemplified in section 1: that the independent marker hinn is employed in the case of a modified noun. However, hinn can also be used with the adjective in the absence of a noun, in particular contexts. This fact, along with a number of other interesting patterns will be discussed in some detail. In addition to this, since the aim was to establish the frequency with which particular sequences or constructions were used, I conducted a sample survey from a small corpus of Old Norse. From a sample of 211,935 words of Old Norse text, taken from 6 sagas, the following generalisations can be made. In total, there were 2,524 instances of definite marked nouns: by this, I mean nouns which had the definite marker hinn, whether bound or free, whether occurring with a demonstrative or alone. The elements not included in this tally were noun phrases with a definite interpretation, but no overt marking, and definite noun phrases involving a possessive adjective. In total, there were 2,935 occurrences of definite marked nouns. Of these, 2,524 involved the bound definite marker and 451 involved the independent hinn and a modified noun: that is noun phrases containing hinn, an adjective and a noun in some configuration. Of the 451 tokens involving a modified noun, 75 also involved a demonstrative marker, a pattern I will return to the following section. The remainder of the 396 tokens were modified nouns without a demonstrative. The figure 396 is the total number of token noun phrases involving a hinn, adjective and noun. 368 or the 396 take the form of a premodified noun and 28 are postnominal. A considerable number of these examples (322) involved a set of adjectives which could be deemed inherently definite. These include superlative forms, ordinal numbers, and the adjectives ‘same’, ‘next’, ‘most’ (mightiest). Representative examples of this most common usage are given below at (36-40).

40

(36) Hann var inn fyrsta vetr í… He was the first winter in… ‘The first winter, he was in…’ (ER, 200:5) (37) Ok var in bezta veizla And was the best feast ‘And (it) was the best feast’ (ER, 205:3)

(38) Ok fekk ina mesti sœmd And got the greatest respect ‘He gained the greatest respect’ (BN, 146:1)

(39) Þessi er inn mesti ránsmaðr ok víkingr This is the greatest robber and Viking ‘This is the greaest robber and viking’ (Gunn, 34:20)

(40) Maðr stóð upp af inum œðra bekk mikill og vasklegr Man stood up from the other bench big and stalwart ‘A big man, a stalwart, stood up from the other bench’ (Gunn, 47:24) Interestingly, the subset of adjectives in question are one of the few syntactic environments in which a syntactic definiteness marker is not required with a premodified adjective in the modern Scandinavian languages (see Dahl 2003 and 2010:127). Superlatives only have a weak paradigm, as one would expect if they are inherently definite. Once again this suggests that a fundamental shift over time in the way definiteness marking works in the Scandinavian languages. The high concentration of definite markers with this subset of adjectives in the Old Norse data challenges the point made by Leiss (2007) that overt definite markers are avoided in ‘syntactic areas of definiteness’. In this case the independent syntactic marker hinn is associated with environments which are inherently definite, not indefinite. While this data set represent the most commonly attested pattern, there were 74 examples of hinn with descriptive adjectives. The following three at (41-43) are representative.

41

(41) Ofkell reið inum bleikálótta hesti Ofkell rode the dun horse ‘Ofkell rode the dun horse’ (BN, 134:2)

(42) Inn nýi átrúnaðr muni vera miklu betri. The new belief should be much better ‘The new belief ought to be much better’ (BN, 255:12)

(43) Létu þeir ina skozku menn á land Put they the Scottish men on land ‘They put the Scottish men on the land’ (ER, 223:12)

Double definiteness marking in Old Norse referred predominantly to the co-occurrence of the demonstrative and hinn. Double definiteness involving the co-occurrence of the independent and the bound hinn, as is the dominant pattern in many modern Scandinavian dialects, is less frequently attested. The following five examples (44-49) were the only examples in my corpus.

(44) Ok kom á ina vinstri hliðina And came on the left side-DEF ‘And on the left side came…’ (BN, 338:13) (45) Til inna feitu hestanna ok riða þeim To the.GEN fat.GEN horse.GEN.DEF and ride them ‘To the fat horse and ride them’ (BN, 62: 23) (46) Inni vinstri hendinni The left hand-DEF ‘In the left hand’ (Gunn, 65:24) (47) It þriðja sumarit The third summer-DEF ‘The third summer’ (GR, 242: 14)

42

(48) Inu syðra landinu The south.COMP land-DEF ‘In the more southern lands’ (LX, 5: 17)

The pattern of single definiteness involving adjective+nounDEF, without an independent hinn before the adjective was instantiated only once in the corpus.

(49) Þriðja myrgininn Third morning-DEF ‘The third morning’ (LX, 184:2)

I conclude from this that adjective+nounDEF was not a productive pattern of the period. The adjective in question for this example is the ordinal ‘third’. It is common for ordinals to occur without an independent hinn in other contexts too.

(50) Þriðja skip áttu brœðr tveir. Third ship belonged brothers two ‘The third ship belonged to two brothers’ (LX, 116:12)

However, numerals can either occur with or without the syntactic definite hinn. Appositional titles can also occur with or without hinn, even within the same stretch of text, as in (51).

(51) þá gipti hann Þórunni hyrnu Helga inum magra Then married he Thorunn horned Helgi the lean ‘Then he married Thorun the horned to Helgi the Lean’ (LX, 5:10) The independent hinn is used either for nominalised adjectives or in conjunction with weak adjectives in a modificational role. This means that free hinn cannot be limited to the role of anaphoric reference, since definite adjectives have an identifiying function, hence they often establish a discourse referent rather than refer back anaphorically to an existing discourse referent. The examples which include superlatives and adjectives,

43

such as ‘next’, or first represent a different type of definiteness than is represented by the bound definiteness marker.

2.3.2.3 Hinn for ‘the other’ In her survey of definiteness, Stroh-Wollin (2009) decides not to pay much attention to the independent demonstrative hinn. This is because considers there to be no relation between the bound definite marker and independent hinn on the one hand and the demonstrative hinn meaning ‘the other’. She cites a number of previous studies which have explored the etymology of this form, but she reports that the results are inconclusive. I have no contribution to make to etymological argument. With respect to the pathway of grammaticalisation, there is rather more to say. Pace Stroh-Wollin (2009), I argue that the demonstrative and bound definite marker are originally from the same demonstrative form. This point is difficult to evidence outside of a discussion of the structure and development of the noun phrase. In the following chapter (3), I will return to this form and talk more to its pathway of grammaticalisation. I argue that the demonstrative hinn (the other) is central to understanding the structure of the noun phrase and the development of definiteness marking in Old Norse. Since this discussion would be better held within the context of the following chapter, suffice it to say that the demonstrative hinn, if, in fact, that is how it should be analysed at this stage of the language, could be used pronominally or adnominally as could all demonstratives.

2.3.3 Demonstratives The most common demonstrative paradigms in Old Norse were the sá paradigm and the þessi paradigm, which are representative of distal and proximal relations respectively. In addition to definiteness marking by means of information structure and by means of the definiteness marker hinn, the demonstrative could also signal definiteness, or more accurately information relating to the cognitive status of discourse referents. According to the hierarchy of cognitive statuses posited by Gundel at al. (1993), it is the form of the demonstrative or definite marker which signals the activation state and identifiability in natural language. Gundel et al. have developed a hierarchy of terms for referring

44

expression in discourse. It is suggested that there are six cognitive statuses which indicate varying degrees of identifiability and activation in discourse. The hierarchy of terms in replicated below.

Uniquely Type In-focus> Activated> Familiar> Identifiable> Referential> Identifiable

Once the discourse referent is uniquely identifiable, we would expect it to be marked for definiteness. Demonstratives indicate familiarity but can represent either activated or non-activated status. The two cognitive statuses which are directly relevant to the data under discussion are activated versus and in-focus. A referring expression is said to be activated if the addressee can be assumed to have a pre-existing mental representation of this referent in current short term memory. The representation may have been retrieved from long term memory or it may be that the referent is activated by virtue of its salience in the current discourse or situational context. There may, however, be any number of referents which are active in the short term memory at any given point in the discourse context. It is the one which is in-focus though which has met the necessary conditions for the use of a pronominal form. When comparing the Old Norse system to the English system discussed in this chapter, the categories are largely equal. Pronominal demonstratives are in-focus, and admoninal this satisfies the minimum requirement for the status activated; that which can also signal activated in some contexts satisfies the minimum requirement for the cognitive status ‘familiar’. Old Norse differs mostly in the use of hinn, as discussed above. Hinn can signal that a referent is activated, but cannot signal uniquely identifiable. It will be demonstrated in the following sections that the choice of pronominal form and the position of adnominal forms in old Norse is intimately tied up with the ‘in-focus’ versus ‘activated’ status of discourse referents in Old Norse. There are a number of interesting facts with respect to the distribution of demonstratives which offer insight into the system of definite marking in Old Norse. I will begin by discussing the co-occurrence of demonstratives with the definite marker hinn within the same noun phrase. A primary aim of the corpus style approach adopted in this thesis is

45

to provide the facts on frequency and distribution of the numerous configurations of of the noun with repsect to the various modifiers and determiners of the noun. From a total data set of definite marked modified nouns, taken from my corpus of data from six Old Icelandic sagas, there were 83 tokens involving a demonstrative and hinn in combination. The co-occurrence of a demonstrative and hinn is far less frequent than a modified noun marked simply with the independent definiteness marker. The constructions in which a demonstrative and definite marker co-occur within the same noun phrase patterned as shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9. DATA FROM OLD NORSE CORPUS Distribution of Demonstratives Number Demonstrative-hinn-adjective-noun (prenominal modification) 45 Noun-demonstrative-hinn-adjective (postnominal modification) 17

Dem-noun-Inn-adj (split) 13 Demonstrative-Noun+DEF suffix (double definite) 2 Hinn-adjective-noun+DEFsuffix (prenominal double definite) 1 Adjective noun+DEFsuffix (single definite as suffix) 1 Noun+DEF-dem-hinn-adj (postnominal triple definite) 4 Dem-hinn-adj- noun+DEF (prenominal triple definite) 0

The results signal that the co-occurrence of demonstratives with definite article hinn if an adjective is present. The key question is why is this the case? It has been argued by Dyvik (1979) that the demonstrative co-occurs with the independent hinn in order to indicate unambiguously that the referent had specific reference, since demonstratives alone do not do this (1979:63-64). There are a number of difficulties with this proposal. Firstly, the requirement only holds if a noun is premodified. If the hinn really was required to mark the noun as unambiguously specific, then why is DEM+hinn+ noun a common pattern? Secondly, if hinn was marking the noun as having specific reference, why is it replicated on all present modifiers? Finally, there are instances in Old Norse,

46

where the strong adjective occurs with a demonstrative. In such cases the preposed hinn is not present, yet it is always present if the adjective is weak. These factors all corroborate my initial hypothesis: that the preposed hinn is an adjectival marker of specificity. Examples, such as the following, which have a demonstrative and a strong adjective, do not have the definite marker hinn present. I would conclude from this that the definite marker hinn is closely connected to the presence of the adjective itself. This is further illustrated in the difference between (52-3) to (54). (52) þeir sá þann helgan mann They saw that holy.STR man ‘They saw that holy man’ (Faarlund, 2005:86) (53) Sá gamall hestr That old.STR horse ‘That old horse’ (Börjars and Payne, citing Delsing 1994) (54) Hverr sé sá inn mikli maðr Who is.SBJ this the tall man ‘Who would this tall man be?’ (BN, 59:18)

From these data, it is clear that the hinn is linked to the presence of the weak form of an adjective. This is a point which will be developed further in the following section 2.3.4. The hinn also co-occurs with a possessive adjective, but in this instance too, this is only in the case of a modified noun. That both the demonstrative and the possessive adjective require the presence of hinn only with adjectives, leads me to the conclusion that there is a close relationship between the adjective and the syntactic marker hinn. The few examples of triple definiteness which were attested involved a definite-marked noun followed by demonstrative, hinn and adjective. These could be pre- or postnominal modifiers, as exemplified at (55-57).

(55) Hverr sé sá inn mikli maðr Who is.SBJ this the tall man ‘Who would this tall man be?’ (BN, 59:18)

47

(56) Klæðin, þau hin goðu … Clothes-DEF those the good ‘Those good clothes/ the clothes, the good ones (Gunn, 52:15-16)

(57) Er vér forum á þenna inn mikla Before we go to -DEF this the big ‘Before we go to the fjord,fjǫrðinn this big one’ (GRþ, 277:3) The following example involves the co-occurrence of the demonstrative with a definite marked noun. This was the only example found in the corpus. Interestingly it involves a noun phrase which are antecedents to a relative clause.

(58) þótti mér sá ornin, er fyrir var Thought 1SG.DAT that eagle.DEF that first was ‘Methought that eagle that was first come…’ (Gunn, 17:18)

2.3.3.1 Relative clauses In the case of relative clauses, the sá demonstrative is the usual definiteness marker for the antecedent to a relative clause (59-60); hinn is not used to mark antedent nouns as definite. If the antecedent takes the form of a modified noun, then the demonstrative and the hinn would co-occur, as in (60).

(59) Menn myndi leita lands þess er Leifr hafði fundit But must search for land.GEN that.GEN that Leif had found ‘But must search for lands that Leif had found’ (ER, 212:16)

(60) Hver vær sú in fagra kona er þa gekk fyrir dyrrin Who is that the beautiful woman that there walks in front of door-DEF ‘Who is that beautiful woman who walks there in front of the door?’ (ER, 203:27) The demonstrative can also occur with a simple unmodified noun.

48

(61) Hversu lízk þér mey þessa How like you girl this ‘How do you like this girl?’ (BN, 7:4) (62) Sá atburðr varð at farandkonur kómu til… This circumstance was that beggarwoman came to… ‘It so happened that a beggarwoman came to…’ (BN, 112:1) (63) Þetta haust it sama This autumn the same ‘This the same autumn’ (BN, 161:18) The demonstrative could either precede or follow the noun whether the antecedent to a relative clause or within a simple demonstrative phrase. However, the factors which appear to motivate surface ordering have not been explored to any great degree in the previous literature. This topic, therefore, warrants separate treatment and discussion within the full context of the structure of the nominal phrase. This issue will form central theme of the following chapter.

2.3.4 Adjectival Marking of Definiteness In this section, I argue that the independent marker hinn should be analysed as an adjectival marker of definiteness, not a nominal definiteness marker. In most accounts of definiteness in Old Norse, the adjective is not usually considered as an exponent of definiteness at all, so the contribution made by this feature to the interpretation of the phrase has received little attention in the literature, other than to state that the weak adjectives occur in definite noun phrases. However, to ignore adjectives is, I believe, is to miss a vital part of the narrative of the developing definiteness markers in Old Norse. Old Norse, like many Germanic languages, has two forms of adjective: a weak adjective and a strong adjective, weak being associated with definiteness and strong with indefiniteness. In the next few sections, I will provide a historical survey of the origins of both adjectival forms and demonstrate that the simple definite/indefinite bifurcation is inaccurate for this period of the language. A survey will be presented of weak and strong adjectives category from other languages and then present data from Old Norse itself.

49

2.3.4.1 Definite Adjectives in Indo-European Languages It is not unusual cross-linguistically to find adjectives which are marked for definiteness. Often, as for languages, such as Greek, Romanian and Albanian, this will take the form of double marking inside the noun phrase (marking on the adjective and the noun). In such languages, the double marking is also contingent on word order, so that the order adjective>noun requires definiteness marking on both the adjective and the noun; whereas a postnominal adjective is single marked (Alexiadou and Wilder, 1998; Giurgea, 2013) In Old Church Slavonic, however, there is only single marking and this marking is on the adjective. As in the Oldest Germanic, Old Church Slavonic had a distinction between definite (weak) and indefinite (strong) adjectives, which were termed long and short adjectives respectively (Lunt, 2001:64-65). The long adjective itself was sufficient requirement for marking the noun as definite. See the examples at (64-65) below.

(64) Sl pa ena Blind-INDEF woman ‘Aě blind woman’ž

(65) Sl paja ena Blind.DEF woman ‘Těhe blindž woman’

The adjectival marking has been retained as a relic feature in languages such as Lithuanian and other Slavic varieties, such as Serbian and Croatian, which are formally categorised as languages without a definite article (Dryer, 2005). Since many other Indo- European have or had this weak/strong declension which had an association of definiteness/indefiniteness, it could be that the strategy of definiteness marking on the modifier was originally sufficient means of marking definiteness in these other languages too. Perhaps, Languages like Albanian, Greek, Romanian and Old Norse are exemplars of how this original system adapted in the advent of definite articles on the noun. In the case of Old Gothic too, there was a point in history when the adjectival form alone could signal a specific versus a non-specific interpretation. I will summarize an account of this development by Curme (1910) as demonstration.

50

The summary which follows is influenced most heavily by Curme (1910), but has profited also from Harbert (2007), and the resources therein, and Sleeman et al. (2014: 1-29). Together a detailed account of the changes which the adjectival system underwent between Proto-Indo European and Early Germanic can be ascertained. Sleeman et al. (2014:4) and Curme 2010 both argue that the weak declension originated as a nominalizing suffix in Proto-Indo-European. The ending indicated ‘individual rather than stage level properties: i.e. permanent, distinctive, qualities. The development into definiteness markers is dated to late Proto-Germanic 200-500CE. Curme (1910) similarly argues that the development of weak adjectives itself is not a Germanic innovation, but has its origins in PIE. The strong ending was originally neutral with respect to definiteness, rather than indefinite Sleeman et al. (2014: 4). In prehistoric Germanic, Curme argues, the weak adjective begins to be employed to mark the nominalising adjectives.

(66) Blinda.WK= the blind one

A similar differentiation is noted for in the following contrast:

(67) Catus.STR =Sly (adjective) Cato.WK= sly one (substantive)

Originally the strong paradigm was used with an attributive adjective and the weak paradigm is a nominalised ‘er’ form, which was often used postnominally for epithets, and which only later develops its attributive function. In other branches of Germanic, including Gothic and , this system regains symmetry by the strong adjectival paradigm also developing a nominalised function. In such circumstances, there were, therefore, definite (weak) attributive and nominalised adjectives, and indefinite (strong) attributive and nominalised adjectives. The earliest attestations in the literature are for the weak adjective, not the governing noun, to be interpretable as definite/ as having strong individualising force, without the use of a definite article. That is, it was the weak form of the adjective itself which communicated the idea of definiteness and the strong form which communicated the idea

51

of indefiniteness. Similar accounts can also be found by Behaghel (1923, I: 197), as cited by Harbert (2007:131-132), who argues for early Germanic that strong inflection from the outset was in itself a signal of indefiniteness, since it pre-dates the use of an indefinite article. A parallel pathway has also been proposed for weak adjectival inflection. In Old English too the weak inflection itself often signalled definiteness; this is based on the frequent use of noun phrases which appeared with weak adjectival inflection but no definite article. Thus in Old English, the adjective in the following examples can be interpreted as definite whether the demonstrative is present or not.

(68) Þær se goda sæt There the good.WK sat ‘There the good one sat’

(69) Hrefn blaca Raven black.WK ‘The black raven’

Later on, however, the use of an emphatic demonstrative/definite article is commonly found preceding the weak adjective. Similar alternations are also found in Gothic, as shown at (70-71).

(70) Hairdeis sa goda Shepherd the good.WK ‘The good shepherd’

(71) Blinda Blind. WK ‘The blind one’

Curme (1910:446) emphasizes the fact that the system had developed more complexity than this. Gothic offers evidence that the strong form had been able to communicate both indefinite and, in some cases, also definite reference. “Strong forms are still often used in Gothic with reference to a definite individual, when it is desired to call attention to the idea of the quality contained in the individual, rather than to direct

52

attention to the conception of a definite individual” (Curme, 1910:447). Thus the strong adjective was still retained for nominalised adjectives as long as the idea in the adjective was prominent, but the new weak form was used when the idea of a definite individual was more pronounced. From this account, I suggest that Norse too developed the specific/ non-specific distinction on adjectives, which could themselves signal that a noun phrase has specific or non-specific reference. Due to the positioning of modifiers after the noun, I argue that the function of hinn, at some stage in the history, becomes opaque in function and that an uncertainty develops as to whether the hinn is marking the noun postnominally or the adjective prenominally.

[[hestr hinn] svarti] [hestr [hinn svarti]]

2.3.4.2 Definite Adjectives in Old Norse Now that it has been established that specific versus non-specific adjectives have a precedent in other languages, including ancient Germanic varieties, I will highlight a number of empirical facts from my Old Norse data which have led me to the conclusion that the syntactic hinn could also be analysed as an adjectival marker of specificity. The first point which is worthy of mention is that the definite marker (h)inn must obligatorily be present on premodified nouns, even if there is a demonstrative, as shown at (72-73).

(72) Þessi inn undarligi hlutr This the wonderful thing ‘This wonderful thing’ (ER, 216:7) (73) Hver vær sú in fagra kona er gekk fyrir dyrrin Who is this the beautiful woman who goes in front of door-DEF ‘Who is that beautiful woman who walk in front of the door?’ (ER, 203:27)

53

This would indicate either that each element, demonstrative and definiteness marker, make a different discourse-semantic contribution to the phrase, or that the hinn is simply required due to the presence of the adjective. The hinn can also co-occur with a possessive but generally on if the noun itself is modified. There is, of course, parallel argument here linked to syntax. If both the demonstrative/possessive and the definite marker co-occur in the same noun phrase - i.e. these elements are not mutually exclusive- then they cannot be competing for the same syntactic slot, perhaps suggesting that there is no unified category of determiners. A second set of data (74-75) which point to hinn being an adjectival marker are those in which there would seem to be a hinn marker for each adjective present.

(74) At segja þér umskaða þann inn mikla ok inn illa er hér er orðinn To tell you.DAT evil deed that the big and the bad that here is carried out ‘To tell you (about) the great and bad deed that has been carried out’ (BN, 126:24)

(75) Spurði Skarpheðinn hvaðan fé þat it mikla ok it góða kœmi Asked Skarpheðinn whence money that the big and the good came ‘Skarpheðinn asked whence that great and good sum of money came’ (BN, 110:27)

The hinn is also the marker for a nominalised adjective as in (76). There is variation on this point of the grammar.

(76) Ok grafa upp ina dauði And dig up the dead ‘And dig up the dead’ (BN, 161:1) In the most conservative forms of Norse, it is possible to find nominalised adjectives without a definiteness marker. In the oldest Old Norse, there is evidence, however, that the adjective itself could signal a definite –indefinite interpretation, though these are easier to find in poetry than in prose by the 13th century. An example is given below (77) taken from the poem Hávamál.

54

(77) Blindr er betri, en brendr Blind.STR is better than burnt.STR ‘A blind (man) is better than a burnt (man)’ (Hávamál verse 71). Our original example is a quote was from an introductory Old Norse course, but is clearly based on Matthew 15:8. (78-79) provide the same verse in Old Norse and Icelandic respectively.

(78) Ef blindr leiðr blindan falla báðir í gryfju. If blind.STR.NOM leads blind.STR.ACC fall both in pit ‘If a blind one/man leads a blind one/man, both will fall into the pit’ (Old Norse) (79) Ef blinder leiðir blindan, þá falla þeir báðir í gröfina If blind.STR.NOM leads blind.STR.ACC then fall they both in pit ‘If a blind one/man leads a blind one/man, both will fall into the pit’ (Icelandic) It is far more common to find the definite form, which by our period required the free definiteness marker hinn. Hinn is also used with the subset of definite marked adjectives outside of the noun phrase, as in (80-82). Here ‘next’ is demonstrating its prepositional qualities.

(80) It naesta Gunnari utar frá sat Njáll The next Gunnar-DAT out from sat Njall ‘Next to Gunnar on the outside/away from sat Njall’ (BN, 88:21) (81) Hann bjó í Laxdárdal it næsta Þórði He lived in Laxadal the next Þórði ‘He lived in Laxadale next to Thord’ (LX, 21:12) (82) Ok var henna veitt it stórmannligsta And was she entertained the grandmanly.SPRL ‘And she was entertained in the grandest manner’ (LX, 9:9) In the examples at (80-82), the adjective has a preposition type function meaning nearest to and in the case of (82) the superlative phrase functions as an adverbial. All the examples discussed cast doubt on the idea that the independent marker hinn in Old Icelandic is a marker of the noun, and instead suggest that it is, in fact, a marker of the

55

adjective. The definite marker is commonly found to co-occur with a possessive or demonstratives. In such cases, the noun would seem always to have adjectival modification, as exemplified by (83-84).

(83) Inn þriðji sonur Njáls The third son Njál.GEN ‘Njal’s third son’ (BN, 70:18) (84) In góðu klæði þin The good clothes your ‘your good clothes’ (BN, 59:9) A final piece of evidence in support for the hypothesis that the hinn is an adjectival marker comes from the fact that there will tend to be a hinn for every adjective introduced.

The evidence presented in this section argues in favour of an analysis in which the hinn which occurs with modified nouns is in fact an adjectival marker of definiteness.

2.3.4.3 The Meaning of Weak and Strong In Old Norse, the weak adjective is generally associated with definite interpretation of the noun phrase, and the strong form is used for indefinite interpretations and predicate nominals. As expected the weak form generally occurs with a definite marker and the indefinite from does not, which would support an analysis as an agreement marker. While this dichotomy works as a general rule, it does not take account of examples like the following (85-86), which I reintroduce from section 2.3.3 on demonstratives for convenience.

(85) þeir sá þann helgan mann They saw that holy.STR man ‘They saw that holy man’ (Faarlund 2005:86) (86) Sá gamall hestr That old.STR horse ‘That old horse’ (Börjars and Payne, citing Delsing 1994) 56

These examples provide evidence that there is not a direct association between weak and definiteness on the one hand and strong and indefiniteness on the other. In both examples listed above, it would seem as if the adjective is not acting as a restrictive modifier; rather the adjective-noun combination are similar to proper nouns. Further support of this point is offered from Old Swedish. According to Simke (2012) cited in Stroh-Wollin and Simke (2014:97) strong adjective forms in semantically definite noun phrases are frequently attested in Old Swedish, but they gradually decrease during their time period under investigation (1300-1450). In terms of semantic interpretation, it would seem then that the strong form of the adjective is neutral with respect to definiteness, as suggested by Sleeman et al. (2014: 4).

2.3.5 Summary of Findings The data we find in Old Norse has striking parallels to some of the Baltic and . Lithuanian (Armoskaite and Gillon, 2013) is said to have no overt definite marker and its DP status is contentious. Despite this, Lithuanian employs a mix of strategies to indicate definite/indefinite reading which are almost identical to those found in Old Norse, with the exception, of course, that Old Norse has also developed an explicit definite marker on the noun. In Old Norse, as with languages which lack a definite article, the use of context, demonstrative form and the given/ new parts of the clause can all indicate definiteness. In Old Norse, as in the , there are a special set of adjectives, which indicate specific/non-specific and restrictive or non-restrictive reading. It has been argued in this chapter that the bound definite marker hinn is a definite article which can be used to indicate the active status of referents anaphorically. Hinn is not yet a generalised definiteness marker, and tends not to be used for ‘uniquely identifiable’ referents. In this section, the issue of the co-occurrence demonstratives with hinn and the replication of hinn on all adjectival modifiers of the phrase was also discussed. The most unusual patterns of distribution for this period seem to be (a) adj.WK + noun and triple

definite structures, such as the following: (b) noun-DEF DEM DEF adj.WK. In response to the key questions linked to the distribution of the definiteness markers, I would say that (a) these element in Old Norse were not reflexes of the same feature, and

57

(b) that they are the result of separate, but intersecting, pathways of grammaticalisation. One is a nominal marker which comes from the postposed demonstrative hinn which had lost deictic force; the other is the result of an ambiguous surface order which led to the reanalysis of the postnominal definite marker as an adjectival marker of specificity. This may account for the few examples of data which are triple definite that are attested in the data.

2.4 Discussion and Findings for Old Norse NP In this section, I will discuss my findings within the context of previous literature. 2.4.1 Overview of Previous Literature The majority of the work on the Noun Phrase for this period is descriptive (Nygaard 1905, Gordon 1957, Vallfells and Cathey 1981, Barnes 1999). There are, however, a small number of works which do make reference to syntactic structure (Faarlund, 1994, 2004; Van Gelderen, Haugan). With respect to the Nominal Phrase, the most notable work here has been carried out by Faarlund (1994, 2001, and 2004). In his most recent work, Faarlund (2004:83) presents the basic structure of the nominal phrase without the extended projections linked to the left periphery as shown in figure 1: FIG. 1 NP

(Genitive) ’

AP N’

N PP CP NPgen

For Faarlund, who works broadly within a minimalist framework, the variant surface word order patterns are generally captured by movement of the noun from its base- generated position to a higher position within the tree. This ensures the correct ordering of constituents. POSS/ADJ-NOUN versus NOUN-POSS/ADJ, for instance. Faarlund states

58

that the base position of the adjective is to the left of the noun, but that it is more common for adjectives to follow the noun in surface order. With regard to the extended projection of the phrase, the NP is the complement of a RP (referential phrase), and this in turn is the complement of the demonstrative. A full DP is a Demonstrative Phrase and is argued to have the following structure (Faarlund, 2004:83).

FIG.2 DP D’ D RP Þau R’ R NP in N’ AP N storu skip

A DP is a demonstrative phrase headed either by a demonstrative or a pronoun. The head D takes an RP as its complement. An RP is a reference phrase which houses the syntactic definiteness marker hinn. As has been commonly argued for present day Scandinavian varieties (Delsing, 1993; Julien, 2005). It is argued that the enclitic noun comes about by movement of the noun from its base position to a position higher in the tree, which for Faarlund is the R-position. A similar pathway is posited to account for the fact of postnominal adjectives. Movement thus ensures that the definite element can be enclitic and also that the adjective can follow the noun. It is suggested that the presence of an adjective in definite DPs blocks this movement of the noun, thus accounting for the fact that the article appears in its full form. Faarlund further argues that the specifier position of the DP is a landing site to house fronted elements which can move from a base generated position further down the NP to a higher position before the demonstrative. Movement of the noun to the SPEC of DP would allow for the commonly attested pattern N +dem+hinn+adjective in postnominal position, but not the set of data which follows the pattern DEM+N+DEF+ADJ.

59

2.4.2 Feature Distribution and NP Structure Over the course of this chapter and the next, I will gradually elaborate on both noun phrase structure and also nominal feature distribution. In the case of the development from Norse to Modern Insular Scandinavian, morphosyntactic change can best be articulated with reference to lexical features. It was demonstrated in this chapter that definiteness could be signalled by a number of different means in Old Norse, and there was not always need for an explicit marker of definiteness at this stage of the language. A noun phrase in subject function would be interpreted as definite, due to its TOPIC position in information structure terms. In such cases, the noun itself would often be zero marked for definiteness. In this chapter, I have discussed the principal means by which definiteness was expressed in Old Norse and discussed the distribution of the various definite markers. The most commonly attested encoding mechanisms for designating that a nominal is pragmatically or semantically definite can be summarized as follows: (a) by means of the definite marker on the noun, (b) by means of demonstrative, which expressed information about cognitive status, (c) by means of clause position which marked for topicality, or (d) by means of a specific marked adjective. I have suggested that the bound and free exponents of hinn are not reflexes of the same grammatical feature, as has been assumed in many previous analyses, but represent different features. The bound hinn was a definite marker with a more restricted range of discourse- semantic functions than the definite article we have in languages, such as English. The free hinn on the other hand was an adjectival marker of specificity and formed part of the adjective phrase. Based on the data presented, the following points will be included in my analysis of the structure of the noun phrase in Old Norse: The noun phrase in Old Norse is NP not DP, as has bee argued by Lander and Haegeman (2014). Further evidence will be presented in support of this position in chapter 3, but, even from the data surveyed so far, we can draw a number of conclusions. Since demonstrative and definite markers could co-occur and were not restricted to a particular syntactic position, then there is no compelling evidence to posit a syntactic

60

position which is a dedicated D slot in Old Norse, nor is there evidence of a unified category determiner. Further to this, there is no evidence for suggesting that the noun phrase is headed by a DP projection, since the noun phrase need not be headed by any other element. A bare noun can operate as a fully referring noun phrase in Old Norse. Therefore if a DP analysis were posited, the functional phrase would lack its head. Given the facts of distribution for the various definite markers in Old Norse and the evidence of a lack of strict structural position, we must reject the DP structure posited at figure 3 (A) which would have to permit an empty head D node, and pitch instead for an NP analysis with a largely non-configurational structure, as in figure 3 (b). Once we have more evidence of the facts for word order, this analysis will be elaborated further. Evidence of non-configurationality comes from two key factors: the noun phrase would seem to have had a rather free word order, and Old Norse allowed for discontinuous constituents, as demonstrated at (87). (87) Maðr stóð upp af inum œðra bekk mikill og vasklegr Man stood up from the other bench big and stalwart ‘A big man, a stalwart, stood up from the other bench’ (Gunn, 47:24)

FIG. 3 DP (a) NP (b)

D NP DEM N DEF N’

D N maðr

− I find no compelling evidence to posit a DP structure for this stage of the language. A semantic/pragmatic interpretation of definiteness could be instantiated by a number of different means: demonstratives/definite markers, sentence position, specificity on adjective. That definiteness represented a unified grammatical category is also uncertain, since different aspects of definiteness were represented by different encoding strategies.

61

That is, specificity was marked on the adjective, the cognitive status of discourse referents was within the remit of the demonstrative, and topicality was encoded by sentence structure. For languages, such as this, It seems unlikely that the various strategies lead straightforwardly to [+DEF] at f-structure. Instead definiteness seemed to have been distributed across different linguistic levels. There may though be some alternative feature, which leads to a definite interpretation. For languages, such as Old Church Slavonic, which had no definite marker, but did have long adjectives which mark the noun as specific, recognition of the nominal definite status would be instantiated via a feature on the adjective for this particular language. FIG. 4 PRED ‘MAN’ SPEC + ADJ PRED ‘POOR’ FORM Weak

This would indicate that definiteness takes the form of a bottom-up rather than a top- down feature. That is, the adjective (in a lower f-structure) would contribute the feature [+ SPEC] interpretation to a higher f-structure. In LFG, this would be indicated by an inside-out designator. As adjectives from part of a set, I follow Börjars and Payne (2013) in annotating as follows. FIG. 5 Poor ADJ ( )=’poor’ ( FORM) =Weak (↑( PRED = + ↑ ADJ Є ↑) SPEC) For other languages, such as Finnish which rely heavily on word order to mark informational status, an (in)definite interpretation would be associated with c-structure position, and topic function at f-structure

FIG. 6 PRED ‘See’ TOP [PRED ‘man’ ] SUB [ ]

62

In conjunction with information structurally privileged positions, languages which rely on word order in this way make use of demonstratives to provide more fine-grained distinctions about the cognitive status of particular discourse referents. According to Gundel et al.’s hierarchy of cognitive statuses, there are particular discourse-semantic conditions which must minimally be present to license using each of the various demonstratives in language. The demonstrative, therefore, implies that something is activated, rather than simply familir or uniquely identifiable. This information could be provided by the lexical entries of each of the demonstratives themselves. Demonstratives then indicate information about cognitive status, pronominal and adnominal demonstratives signal that these referents are activated. Since cognitive status, is linked to assumed knowledge of the addressee, it is better captured within semantic structure within LFG. FIG. 7 this DEM ( DEIXIS) = PROX ( ) = ACT ↑ ↑ COG

Armoskaite and Gillon (2013) demonstrate that for a language, such as Lithuanian, which lacks an overt definite article category equating to the English definite article, uses all of these strategies to ensure that the noun itself is interpreted as pragmatically or semantically definite, where appropriate. It would seem then that suggests that each strategy encodes a slightly different aspect of definiteness. Old Norse used all of the above strategies too, but in addition to this, definite markers had begun to develop. The demonstrative hinn had lost its ability to signal deixis, so was to all intents and purposes a definite article, albeit one which had a more limited range of definite meanings. As has already been established, hinn was for anaphoric usage. Old Norse did, therefore, have a both the feature [±DEF] and the feature [±SPEC]. The pathway of grammaticalisation from demonstrative to definite article would seem to be

63

something along the lines of the following, with Old Norse being at the intermediate stage between the two categories.

FIG. 8 Stage 1 hinn DEM ( DEIXIS) = PROX ( COG) = ACT ↑ Stage 2 hinn DEM ( ↑COG) = ACT

Stage 3 hinn DEF (↑DEF) = +

↑

In Old Norse, the bound hinn had lost the ability to signal deixis, but it was not a generalized marker of definiteness. It marked a referent having anaphoric reference. Full movement to stage 3 happens when the bound marker becomes the generalized marker of definiteness. In the History of Insular Scandinavian, this happens at the stage that the noun becomes the locus of definiteness marking. However, there is ample evidence that this form was the unmarked form construction for definite premodified nouns across many parts of Scandinavia. It is claimed that the preposed definite articles is largely absent from Medieval Swedish sources (Larm 1936) mørko huset (dark house-DEF) and from the the conservative and peripheral dialects of Swedish (Dahl 2010:217).

I would suggest, that when languages develop a definite article which becomes the primary means of marking, this is the point at which the language has developed a unified and grammatically encoded definite article, for which there is one form, one position and one unified syntactic category. A language could thus evolve from one in which the encoding strategies are distributed across the grammar to one which has a more grammaticalized notion of definiteness. Truly grammaticalised definite articles, which become a requirement of the syntax, lose some of their semantico-pragmatic meaning distinctions, and the concept of definiteness becomes opaque and less easy to define. The grammaticalising process would lead to a rigidification of word order and the development of a dedicated D slot, as well as the development of a unified [+DEF] at f-

64 structure, as demonstrated below. The collapsing of features into one broader category strikes me as a featural equivalent of grammaticalisation or rigidification of word order at c-structure. In featural grammaticisation, a particular feature would be required to be present in the syntax. This requirement would broaden the context of use and precipitate the loss of meaning distinctions. Agreement markers may be a good example of such a change.

The final point regarding the noun phrase, which I have argued for in this chapter is that the syntactic definiteness marker hinn is a marker of specificity on the adjective. As is the case with other languages which have definite adjectives, the [+SPEC] feature refers to the noun via an inside-out designator. It is suggested that the marker of definiteness is a non-projecting lexical category, thus following Toivonen (2003), this element is captured in the tree (at figure 9) with a circumflex annotation ( ). The discussion and analysis of adjectives will be continued in chapter 3. Ŝ

FIG. 9 NP

N AP

maðr ( ) A ( PRED)=’man’ Ŝ ↑ hinn gamli (( ( = ‘old’ ( FORM)=WK ADJ Є ↑) SPEC) = + ((↑ PRED) ↑ ADJ Є ↑) SPEC) = + Old Norse would seem to have been a language in transition. It is clear that by the Old Norse period the definite marker had already developed from the demonstrative hinn paradigm; however, there were other, possibly more ancient, strategies which were coexistent with this system. Once grammaticalisation of the hinn did come about, the process of grammticalisation seems to have been region specific. At some point, Icelandic and perhaps Western old Norse more generally, regularises the system, so that the noun

65

becomes the locus of definite marking. The pattern at figure 10 becomes the default pattern in the spoken language and the version with the free hinn (hinn gamli maður) begins to be associated with literary, written or formal language. FIG. 10 Icelandic NP N PRED ‘man’ DEF +

(gamli) maðurinn

While Icelandic regularised the bound definite marker, it is the syntactic definiteness marker of definiteness which became the norm in Danish. I will return to this issue in Chapter 5, where provide a contrastive overview of definiteness marking in the Modern languages. In this section, I have begun to articulate an approximation of the structure of the noun phrase based on evidence from definiteness marking, presented in this chapter. I have also begun to explore the distribution of the various definiteness markers in Old Norse. In order to complete the analysis, it is vital to consider the word order facts for Old Norse and assess the impact that this has on the distribution of definiteness markers and the interpretation of the phrase. I will defer further comments and analysis of noun phrase structure until the analysis section at the end of the following chapter.

2.5 Summary In this chapter, I have provided an overview of the various mechanisms for indicating that a nominal had definite status in Old Norse. Old Norse had developed a definite marker which would occur postnominally and usually as an enclitic element on unmodified nouns at this stage of the language. The definite marker was mostly used to indicate anaphoric reference, which included activated and associative uses. The system may still have been hypodetermining in that subject/topic noun phrases did not require a definite marker. The definite marker did not seem to be used in contexts in which the noun was specific, but non-anaphoric referent; neither was it used to indicate that a referent was

66

uniquely identifiable due to the detail provided inside the nominal itself (such as relative clauses). In this context, the demonstrative sá paradigm was the preferred choice. A final point made in the chapter is that the independent hinn which was used in the case of premodified nouns was an adjectival marker associated with the feature [+SPEC], as such, it did not represent the same feature as the bound definite marker. Accordingly, the adjectival marker hinn would tend to co-occur with nominal specifiers, such as demonstratives and . As a first approximation, the patterns of distribution suggest an NP rather than a DP analysis of Old Norse. Old Norse was essentially a morphological language and as such an analysis which refers to feature distribution rather than configurational c-structure position provides a more insightful account of definiteness marking for this stage of the language. In the following chapter, the ordering of elements with respect to the noun will provide the context for a better understanding of the structure of the phrase.

67

3. Word Order and the Growth of Structure in Old Norse

3.1 Introduction We have now established that there was no unified category [DEF] in Old Norse and no DP projection. In this chapter, I will more fully articulate the structure of the noun phrase for this period of the language. The core contribution of this chapter to the central thesis is twofold. (1) I will demonstrate that the structure of the noun phrase was largely non- configurational, and (2) Data will be presented to evidence the development of a FOCUS slot as the leftmost element of the phrase, which housed new/contrastive information with respect to the noun: that is, either side of the noun the specifiers/modifiers could be represented as being more or less informative than the noun itself, by means of word order. This resulted in a system in which restrictive modifiers and demonstratives with particular identifying functions were placed before the noun, while descriptive and appositive modifiers and demonstratives in default interpretation came after the noun. This chapter will also contribute support to the NP hypothesis introduced in the previous chapter and will demonstrate that the feature [DEF] is inadequate in accounting for the data for this period of the language. The ordering of elements within the noun phrase in the modern Scandinavian languages, both insular and continental, is rather rigid. By contrast, in Old Norse, word order at both clause and phrase level was much more variable. A key question in the context of the present chapter is: what does this tell us about the structure of the Old Norse noun phrase? Data will be presented which indicate that there was considerable word order variation at the level of the noun phrase as well as at the level of the clause in Old Norse. It will also be argued that the positioning of the component elements of the noun phrase at this earlier point in history was driven by discourse-semantic, rather than purely syntactic, motivations. The chapter will be structured as follows. In section 3.2, I present an overview of the literature on noun phrase structure. Following this, in section 3.3, I present my core

68

empirical findings on the position of adjectives, demonstratives, possessives and genitive possessors with respect to the noun and demonstrate the extent to which the variation in surface ordering was motivated by discourse-semantic factors. In section 3.4, I explore what is meant by the concept ‘focus’ in the context of the clause and assess its applicability to a discussion of focus within the noun phrase. I will look at previous accounts in the LFG literature which deal with issues of word order variation and scrambling. I will elaborate further on the concept of nominal focus and provide an analysis in the form of the c- structure to f-structure, rather than c-structure to i-structure, mapping. In 3.5, I will summarise my core findings.

3.2 Previous Literature In this section, I will provide an overview to previous literature which relates to the link between word order, information structure and the development of functional categories. In section 3.2.1, I will look at previous literature which relates to the development of functional categories and to the idea of information structure within the noun phrase, then in section 3.2.2, I will summarize the work which relates to nominal word order in Old Norse.

3.2.1 The Development of Grammaticalised Discourse Slots The development of syntacticised discourse prominence slots is not an unusual development at clause level. There have been a number of accounts related to Germanic. In itself the idea that functional categories and syntactic structure emerge together over a period of time is not new. Kiparsky (1995) argues that in origin the Indo-European proto-language did not have complementisers and hence did not have a CP projection. Instead, it is suggested that the basic Indo-European clause is exocentric with two informational structurally privileged positions at the left edge and with no clausal embedding. This yields the structure in a structure which over time transmutes into the category C. The original structure is shown in FIG 2 and the CP structure is shown at Figure 11 and Figure 12. These are from Kiparsky (1995:153).

69

FIG. 11 S’’

TOP S’

XP FOCUS S

XP ..V..

FIG. 12 CP TOP CP

XP SPEC C’ C S

XP V ..v..

Considerably less has been written about information structure at the level of the noun phrase. Devine and Stephens (2006) who discuss the link between word order and pragmatics at both clause and phrase level is one exception to this. Their main thesis is that “Latin Word Order is grammatically free but pragmatically fixed, while English is pragmatically free, but grammatically fixed” (2006:23). For the noun phrase, it is argued that there is focus semantics in the NP. Here too, they claim that ‘pragmatics determines whether a modifier comes before or after the noun. They argue that it usually comes after and, if so it can be a focus or a tail. They discuss the variation in word order of adjectives and suggest a number of competing constraints, including the nature of the noun itself. Usually, there is no obvious focus’, but there are attested examples where an adjective can come before the noun if it is focused and receives a contrastive reading (Devine and

70

Stephens 2006:405-9). It is also noted that descriptive adjectives cannot be focused because they cannot evoke and exclude a contrastive set (Devine and Stephens 2006:545)

3.2.2 Literature on Word Order in Old Norse That Old Norse typically allows for more variation in the ordering of elements within the clause is well documented in the literature (Nygaard, 1894; Diderichsen, 1941; Chistoffersen, 1980; Barnes, 1999; Haugan, 2000; Faarlund, 2004). Particularly prevalent is the strategy of topicalisation or fronting, which necessitates the positing of a clause- initial topic slot, which enables the speaker to select the appropriate starting point to the message. The choice of topic is motivated by the speaker need to make certain parts of the message discoursally prominent. The topic slot can be filled by verb forms, negators, adverbial elements and core arguments, such as subjects and objects. It is most common, however, to find either the verb (v1) or the subject. It would seem that V1 clauses tend to be used if the speaker wants to emphasize the action, while the subject will sit before the noun if the emphasis is on the participants in the action. On his article Word order in Old Norse which focuses on the clause, Chistoffersen (1980) suggests that there is no absolute consensus as to the unmarked word order. Nygaard (1894:39) argues for SVO, while Heusler argues that the order VSO is predominant in the sagas. Diderichsen (1941:79) seems to concur arguing takes this as evidence that the subject is not yet grammaticalised. These overviews do not extend to a discussion of the noun phrase. Data from Old Indo-European dialects suggest head- modifier ordering was flexible and that it was determined by discourse and pragmatic factors Sleeman et al. (2014: 5), citing (Fortson 20120:154). Ordering of modifiers to noun. For the earliest stages of Germanic, discontinuous noun phrases suggest non-configurationality. It is argued that at its earliest reconstructable stages there is a preference for adjectives to follow the noun Sleeman et al. (2014: 5-6) and the sources therein. There has been rather less discussion on the issue of an unmarked order of syntactic elements within the NP, within the , but the following are exceptions. I will begin with the resources for the oldest sources. There are a small number of works which make reference to the runic Old Norse

71

period. Antonsen (1975:287-88) calls into question the claim made by Hooper (1975:60), which argued that adjectives and were found in both pre- and postnominal position in early Germanic, with the prenominal pre-nominal position being the neutral position. This had then developed onto a system in ancient Germanic in which weak adjectives were postposed and strong adjectives were prenominal, it is claimed. Pronominal possessives were also argued by Hooper to be originally prenominal. However, Antonsen claims that there is not a single example of adjectives before the noun in the corpus of Runic Norse inscriptions (1975:60). For possessives too, the neutral position within the oldest runic inscriptions is that the position was postnominal (1975:292). In her 2009 paper, Stroh-Wollin states that the oldest Norse period “had chiefly (though not solely) “noun-first” word order in noun phrases” and that this unmarked ordering only changed later. In relations to literary Old Norse, Nygaard (1905:33-34) makes reference to the ordering within the noun phrase, when he states that hinn and like other demonstratives would have been placed after the noun, a position from which the element should be unstressed (1905:33-34). This fact, he argues, has led to widely accepted hypothesis that the element attached to the noun, as a clitic, forming part of the prosodic word (1905:33- 34). Faarlund (1994) also mentions word order in relation to adjectival placement. Here it is suggested that the base order of the adjectival modifier is to the left of the noun (1994:68), despite the fact that it is “more common for adjectives to follow the noun on the surface (68)”. Where the adjective follows the noun, Faarlund invokes leftwards movement of the noun triggered by the presence of the R- or reference slot, whether or not this houses an overt definiteness marker. Further to this Faarlund does state that the adjective precedes the noun if it is emphasized or the adjective- noun forms a type of compound (1994:69). While it make sense for a compound element to precede the noun in adjective- noun compounds. The idea of emphasis seems to run counter to the notion of default/ unmarked position. While each of the observations in isolation may be of value, the account lacks a systematic treatment, leaving it unclear exactly what the constraints on adjectival placement are. In detailing the facts of the adjective alone, the

72

account also misses important generalisations which impact on our understanding of the structure and workings of the whole nominal phrase in Old Norse. A number of prominent works have concentrated on adjectival ordering within Old English. Pysz (2009: 45), citing Fischer (2000, 2001), makes the following generalised statements about the position of the adjective with respect to the noun in Old English. The first claim is that position is linked to the weak/strong inflection. That is: Prenominal adjectives inflect weak if preceded by a demonstrative or possessive pronoun/ genitive phrase, and weak adjectives are predominantly, but not exclusively, found prenominally. However, adjectives are also deemed to inflect strong if the adjective is the first element in the unit or is preceded by an indefinite element, or an adjective or quantity or number. (Pysz 2009:4-6). Postpositions are predominantly strong. (Pysz 2009: 46-49), citing (Fischer 2000 and 2001) identifies a number of factors which could have a bearing on placement. These are (a) the strong/weak inflections as detailed above, (b) link to theme and rheme ordering and (c) definiteness and indefiniteness. In the account offered by Pysz, it would seem as if there are competing factors in the placement of adjectival modifiers, with one of the motivations being discourse-semantic. In terms of other modifiers of the noun, it has been noted, again by Faarlund, that the demonstrative sa, which marks the antecedent noun of a relative clause, is most commonly found postnominally in Old Norse (Faarlund 2004). The position of the possessive determiner/adjective with respect to its noun has also received some attention (Delsing 1994). However, the emphasis in these sources is on the variation to be found among the modern Scandinavian dialects. From this overview of the literature, it is clear to see that neither the discourse-semantic motivation of word order within the noun phrase nor the idea of a nominal focus phrase has yet received much attention in the literature. In the next sections, I will provide a systematic account of word order possibilities and discuss these within the context of the semantics of nominal focus.

73

3.3 Presentation of Data: Word Order Variation in Old Norse The aim in this present section is to provide a full and systematic account of surface word order variation in Old Norse. I will sketch generalisations about marked and unmarked word order patterns within the noun phrase based on my own empirical research.

3.3.1 Adjectives and Word Order My point of departure will be a discussion of the positioning of traditional descriptive adjectives with respect to the noun. There are a number of observable patterns in the ordering of adjectives and noun. In many cases, descriptive adjectives sit after the noun they modify, as in (88-91).

(88) Maðr einn mikill gekk í búðina inn Man a certain tall went in booth-DEF into ‘A tall man went into the booth’ (LX, 102:14) (89) Var þar hestr grár Was there horse grey ‘There was a grey horse’ (Gunn, 27:14) (90) Varu þar strandir langar Were there beaches long ‘There were long beaches’ (ER, 223:2) (91) Ok hafði í hendi øxi mikla And had in hand axe big ‘And had in his hand a big axe’ (BN, 34:10) Adjectives which are definite very commonly precede the noun (92-95). (92) Þá létu þeir ina skozku men á land Then put they the Scottish men on land ‘Then they put the Scottish men onto land’ (ER, 273.11) (93) Inn siðasta vetr, er hann varí Nóregi The last winter, when he was Norway ‘The last winter, when he was in Norway’ (GR, 244: 9)

74

(94) Þér mun skipa táinn óæðra bekk You must take seat other bench ‘You must take a seat on the other bench’ (BN, 60:21) (95) Síðan fékk hon honum inn sœmilegasta sess Since got she him the honourable.SPRL seat ‘Since she got for him the most honourable seat’ (BN, 15:22) These initial data would suggest a straightforward correlation between definite and indefinite marking; however, the neat biurfication laid out above is complicated by further inspection of the data. There are many attested examples of weak adjectives following the noun, just as there are strong adjectives which precede the noun. Weak adjectives tend to follow the noun if (a) they are part of a title (96) or (b) the noun phrase represents a referent which is already active in the discourse context (96-99). In such cases, the adjective does not carry out an identifying function, but an anaphoric one. The cognitive status is evidence from the presence of the demonstrative.

(96) Ljót hinn svarta Ljót the black ‘Ljót the black (one)’ (BN, 36:14) (97) Þenna morgna inn sama stóðu þeir Sigmundr ok Skj dr This morning the same, stood they Sigmundr ok Skj dr ‘This same morning stood Sigmundr and Skj dr’ ǫ (BN, 115: 14) ǫ (98) Á þenna bæ hinn nýja ǫ At that building the new ‘At that new building’ (LX, 68:2) (99) At segja þér um skaða inn mikla ok inn illa To say you.DAT about evil deed the big and the bad ‘To tell you about the big and bad evil deed….’ (BN, 126:25) Old Norse permits only one adjective to precede the noun, as shown below, whereas both can follow. The idea of adjectives being flanked either side of the noun is a pattern which is also common in Old English. Perhaps this is due to the fact that only one adjective specifies the noun, while the other adds more descriptive information to the noun appositionally.

75

Indefinite adjectives can also be found to precede the noun. In these context, this is usually when the noun phrase is plural. In this context, despite its indefinite/non-specific status, the adjectives do set up a contrast between the current speakers/discourse topic and another set. The most prominent word here is poor or Greenlandic, since the word ‘men’ here means people. In both cases a nominalised adjective would have conveyed the same meaning the Greenlanders or the poor. In many languages generics are treated as definite according to Lyons (1999). These examples are to be found at (100-101).

(100) Bað hana varask giptask grœnlenzkum Bade her beware.MID marry.MID Greenlandic men ‘He bade her to beware of marrying Greenlandic men’mǫnnum (ER, 216:26)

(101) Hon legði fé þeira til kirkju ok fátœktum She gives over property their to church and poor men ‘She gives their property to the church and some to the poor’mǫnnum (ER, 216:27) In other contexts an indefinite non-specific adjective can occur pre-nominally, if the adjective provides a contrast between a presupposed set and a new set of referents. It would be the standard assumption that all Christians are good, thus ‘bad’ here sets up a pragmatic contrast, as in (102).

(102) Hann var illa kristinn He was bad Christian ‘He is a bad Christian’ (ER, 222:4)

Here the assumption is that we are all Christian, but he is a bad type of Christian. There are a number of other significant patterns with respect to noun-adjective ordering which relate to copular sentences. These data will be discussed below. Adjectives usually precede the noun if they are the subject complement in a copular structure. Predicate nominals are non-referential, but I do not think this is the reason for the preferred order; rather, it links to the fact that, in these cases the emphasis is on the attribute or the property predicated of the subject noun phrase, as in (103) and (104).

76

(103) Hann var mikill maðr He was great man ‘He was a great man’ (ER, 222:16) (104) uldr var vænn maðr Hoskuld was handsome man Hǫsk‘Hoskuld was a handsome man’ (LX, 14:13) If, however, the predicate noun phrase introduces a new descriptive label for the subject noun phrase, then the noun will precede the adjective, as shown below at (105-106).

(105) Hann var bóndi hinn kátasti He was farmer the merry.SUPRL ‘He was the merriest farmer’ (LX, 43:19) (106) Þorleikr H skuldsson hafði verið farmaðr mikill Thorleik Hoskuldsson had been seafaringman great ‘Thorleik Hoskuldssonǫ had been a great seafaring man’ (LX, 70:2)

If we abstract over the data for adjectives, the position of the adjective would seem to be linked to whether the adjective is restricting the reference of the noun in question or not. As I stated in chapter 2, the [weak/strong] marking on the adjective itself is a marker of specificity, as can be seen from its nominalised function, with the feature [strong] indicating a non-specific and the [weak] feature indicating specific set of referent. It is the combination of the feature [weak] with the effect of focus which results in a restrictive reading. Prenominal adjectives in Old Norse have an identificational function. They are restricting the reference of the noun and, therefore, give rise to a contrastive reading. Adjectives which follow the noun provide a characterisation without implying a contrast. In the case of phrases which are seen to be ‘definite’, such as the following (mm), the weak adjective is no longer identifying the noun, as it has already been established as a discourse referent and it is now being referred back to. The weak adjective then cannot straightforwardly encode the notion of (±RES), since, this adjective can only result in a restrictive/contrastive reading if it is focused. Pfaff (2014) in his article on adjectival modification in Icelandic discusses the distinction between restrictive and non-

77

restrictive/ appositional modification. He bases his discussion on the definition of restrictive modification posited by made by Alexiadou (2012:1) (107) a. Creates a proper subset denoted by the noun it modifies. b. Identifies that subset (indicates that at least one alternative non-empty subset is accessible. Some adjectives refer to the totality of the set (asset with one member/ uniquely identifiable. Examples, such as the following are presented by Pfaff. (108) French president. (109) Noam Chomsky gave a talk at the conference, the famous linguist…

Here the adjective famous does not single out a particular subset of linguists that helps us identify the DP referent; the referent is already known. To distinguish between the identifying function of adjectives and the anaphoric use, Pfaff (2014: 229) introduces the ‘auxiliary notions’ anaphoric and deictic properties, A property is deictic if it contributes to identifying a referent and anaphoric if it does not contribute to identifying a referent, but is presupposed to hold for the referent. By extension, a DP is deictic if its lexical/descriptive content restricts. A DP is anaphoric if it does not identify a referent but presupposes that the referent is already known and identified.

I will return to this point in the analysis section. A weak adjective itself can indicate that the noun is specific, but non-defining: i.e. that it has already been introduced and is in this case an anaphoric mention. This means that non-specific adjectives, in the plural, can also be focused as they can evoke a contrastive set. The focus phrase is not linked directly to the [strong/weak] marking on the adjective, but it interacts with it. These data suggest a close correlation between the fronting of the adjective and the notion of ‘contrastive interpretation’. A similar pattern is found with possessive adjectives, which will be the focus of the following section.

78

3.3.2 Pronominal and Adnominal Possessors For the Old Norse period, in the absence of a determiner category, I will refer to possessive determiners as possessive adjectives. These elements are adjectives by virtue of the fact their inflectional declensions. The default position for a possessive adjective is postnominal in Old Norse; however, there are certain conditions under which the possessive adjective can occur prenominally. From my sample of data, there were a total of 1,818 tokens of a noun modified by a possessive adjective. Of this total, 1,704 were positioned postnominally and 114 were prenominally. In this section, I will detail the conditions under which the possessive adjective precedes the noun. The first pattern to note is that a fronted possessive adjective triggers a contrastive interpretation. This pattern is exemplified at (110-111) and is consistent with the pattern found for descriptive adjectives discussed in the previous section.

(110) þá er þessi þín dóttir en eigi mín, hin fagra mær Then is this your daughter and not mine, the beautiful woman. ‘Then this beautiful woman is your daughter and not mine’ (Gunn, 20:27)

(111) þat er nú heldr þitt leika en mitt It is now considered your plaything than mine ‘She is considered more your plaything than mine’ (VG, 41:2) While the key function of a possessor is to signal a possessive relation between the entities denoted by the nouns, the possessors also clearly demonstrate anaphoric relations and make reference to a previously introduced and currently active discourse referent. Fronted possessive adjective on the other hand refer to a referent which is active, but not the one who is most topical in the discourse context. Before I discuss the data in more detail I will first provide an overview of default usage. If the possessive adjective refers to the current subject, then the reflexive possessive form sín will be used. In these case the reflexive possessive will follow the noun, exemplified at (112-114).

79

(112) Ketilsson kom skipi sínu vestr í Br Ketilsson brought ship his west into Br Bjǫrn‘ sailed his ship weat into Br eiðafjǫrð Bjǫrn (LXeiðafjǫrð, 5:16) Bjǫrn Ketilsson eiðafjǫrð’

(113) Ok er andlát Gellis spurðisk til Íslands. And when death Gellir.GEN spread to Iceland ‘And when (the news of) Gellir’s death spread to Iceland’ (LX, 229:18) (114) þá tók Þorkell son hans við ðurleifð sinni Then took Thorkell son his with inheritance his ‘Then Thorkell, his son, took over his fǫfather's inheritance’ (LX, 229:19-20)

ForKetilsson the first. In example, this case, it in is clearOld Norse that the, the ship reflexive being referredform sín towould belongs be used.to the In subject the secon Bjǫrnd example, the possessive hans follows the noun son, but this time the form used is the non- reflexive hans as this signals that the antecedent is not the subject, but another antecedent referent. In this case Thorkell’s father. In the third example, the reflexive sinni is again used as the possessive refers to Thorkell, the current subject. The use of reflexive and non-reflexive forms to make this distinction between plain anaphoric as opposed to reflexive usage remains the same for the modern Scandinavian languages. However, it was possible (and common) in Old Norse, as in Modern Icelandic, for a reflexive to have an object antecedent. This is attested by Faarlund (2005) for Old Norse and Maling (1986:53-63) for Modern Icelandic.

(114) Ólafr Konungr þakkaði henna vel orð sín. Olaf king thanked her.GEN well words his.REFL ‘King Olaf thanked her well for her words’ (Faarlund, 2005:1151)

This fact may account for the variation in ordering we see in the data. While the default position of any pronoun is postnominal, the following examples show the reflexive possessive sinn adjective preceding the noun.

80

(115) Hon ætlaði Ólafi allar eignir eftir sinn dag She intended Ólaf all belongings after her day. ‘She intended (to bestow) all belongings to Ólaf after her day’ (LX, 11:12) (116) þeir fóru til H skulds og sögðu honum sín vandræði They went to Hoskuld and told him their trouble. ‘They went to tellǫ Hoskuld about their trouble’ (LX, 20:14) (117) Hét Bolli Óttari sinni vináttu Promised Bolli Óttar.DAT his friendship ‘Bolli promised his friendship to Óttar’ (LX, 247:4) (118) Margir hétu aðrir Glúmi sínu liði Many promised other Glúm.DAT their support. ‘Many others promised Glum their support’ (VG, 92:20) In all the four cases above the possessive adjective precedes the noun. In all instances the reflexive form is used and the anaphoric referent is denoted by the subject noun phrase. However, in each case, there is a second referent which intervenes between the subject and its reflexive. In such cases, the reflexive form is fronted to signal that the nearest referent is not the element to which the reflexive refers. This is likely to be due to the potential ambiguity caused by the fact that both object and subjects could be the antecent of the reflexive. By fronting the reflexive form, a contrastive interpretation occurs, suggesting that the pronoun is not co-referential with the most salient antecedent referent (object), but another one. In order to explain patterns of usage, I will invoke the activation hierarchy introduced by Grundel. Here as has been suggested for other adjectival forms, focus is related to a contrastive interpretation. This pattern is not only found with reflexive possessives within one clause, but interclausally using the non-reflexive hans, when the referent clearly does not refer to the most active referent but to a previously mentioned referent.

The same pattern is seen below, in which the hans within the subordinate clause is fronted as it does not link anaphorically to the most recently introduced discourse referent, but to one previously introduced, in this case the hann of the main clause.

81

(119) Hann leysti hvers manns vandræði er á hans fund kom. He loosed each men.GEN distresses who to his meeting came ‘He eased the distresses of each man that came to his meeting’ (BN, 57:7)

(120) þér, Guðríðr, skal ek launa í hönd liðsinni þat, er oss hefir af þér to you, Guðríðr, shall I recompense assistance that that us have there

staðit, því at þín forlög eru mér nú allglöggsæ. stood because your destiny is to me now forseen ‘to thee, Gudrid, I will recompense for that aid of thine which has stood us in good stead, because thy destiny is now clear to me’. (ER, 208:22)

When the possessive pronoun does refer to the currently most in-focus referent, then hans follows the noun as exemplified below. (121) Hross hans voru þar Horses his were there ‘His horses were there’ (VG, 46:9) These data support the view that ‘fronting’ links to contrast. The final set of examples which follow involve the quantifier ‘hver’/ each.

(122) Eða vera drepnir hverr í sínu rúmi. Or were smote each in his room ‘Or each were smote in his room’ (LX, 4:15)

(123) Fór Ormr heim ok hverr annarr boðsmanna til sins heimilis Went Ormr home and each other public officer.GEN to his home ‘Ormr went home and each other public officer to his own home’ (ER, 204:31)

The fronting in these cases appears to be linked to scope relations. If the default ordering for a phrase such as ‘rúmi sín’ means ‘the room’ of the previously mentioned referent, then the meaning would be each was killed in one particular room belonging to one particular person. Here ‘sín’ falls outside the semantic scope of every, thus the value of is fixed. However, if the sín is fronted, it is then within the scope of everyand the value of y is no longer fixed. For every person there is a room such that the person was killed there.

82

Plural personal pronouns in anaphoric usage demonstrate some unusual behaviour. The plural pronoun could be used alongside the noun phrase which it is anaphorically referring to as below at (124).

(124) Þenna Morgin inn sama stóðu þeir Sigmundr upp ok Skj ldr This morning the same rose they Sigmundr up and Skj ldr.. ‘That same morning they Sigmundr and Skj ldr rose up…’ ǫ (BN, 115:15) ǫ ǫ But, it is also common to have a plural in anaphoric function with only one of the pair represented as a named person. These examples tend to be reserved for contexts in which only one of the members of the plural unit are currently in-focus. In such a context in English, we would say he/him and Mary. In Old Norse, though, a third person plural from is used instead in this context as stated above. A number of examples of this are given below.

3.3.3 Word Order and Demonstratives The starting point for the discussion of demonstratives will be the use of demonstratives in their pronominal function. As in English demonstrative pronouns tend to be used in a discourse deictic sense: i.e. when the demonstrative represent an event in the previous discourse. This type of demonstrative pronoun seem to be similar to English usage, so are unremarkable. However, demonstratives are also used instead of personal pronouns. Third person plural pronouns were often used alongside a proper noun to signal that one of the members represented by the plural anaphoric pronoun was co-referential with the previous topic, but the accompanying proper noun, who was also incorporated in the meaning of the anaphoric pronoun, is non-topical. A small number of examples are presented below (125-126):

(125) Um morginn var niðr sett lík Gests In morning was down set body Gest.GEN ‘In the morning Gest’s body was buried’

83

Ok hvíldu þeir Ósvífr í einni And slept they Ósvífr in one grave ‘And they (Ósvífr and Gest) were laidgrǫf to rest in one/a single grave’ (LX, 196:24-25) When used alongside a proper noun, the plural personal pronoun can also mean person x along with all his company. (126) Þeir Eiríkr urðusekr á Þórsnessþingi. They Erik outlaw at Thorsnes Thing ‘Eiríkr and his compay were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing’ (ER, 2:20)

3.3.3.1 Pronominal Demonstratives In Old Norse, the sá paradigm could also be used as an anaphoric personal pronoun, alongside the third person pronouns hann, hún, þát. The forms were not randomly interchangeable, but had a designated function within the discourse context. Hann and hún were used to signal topic continuity: to signal that the referent was co-refential with the element which is currently in focus. On the other hand sá was used to indicate that the discourse participant in question is not the one which is in-focus or most topical. This use of the demonstrative suggests a contrast and seems to signal topic shift. It is common in discourse to have indefinite (unmarked) first mention of a referent, then a demonstrative on second mention and then have a definite marker on all subsequent mentions. In order to demonstrative this system at work, I have included a few examples within their discourse context from (127-130).

(127) Þorgerðr var eigi lengi ekkja, áður maðr varð til að biðja hennar. Þorgerðr was not long widowed, before man was to plead her.GEN ‘Þorgerðr was not widowed long, before a man wooed her’

Sá er nefndr Herjólfr. He is named Herjólfr. ‘He is called Herjólfr’

Hann var lendr maðr at virðingu auðigr He was landed man with respected, riches. ‘He was a landed man with respect to his standing and his wealth..’ (LX, 15:7-8)

84

In the first line of this extract, the initial topic is Þorgerðr, but sá informs us that the topic has shifted to ‘the other man’. Once he is established as the topic, any subsequent mention of this discourse referent will require a standard third person anaphoric pronoun. A similar pattern can be seen with the following example. We were initially discussing Guðrun, but with the introduction of sá, the boy becomes the topic of the discourse.

(128) Inn næsta vetr eptir víg Bolla fœddi Guðrún barn; The next winter after defeat Bolli.GEN delivered Guðrún child ‘The next winter after the defeat of Bolli, Guðrún had a child’

Þat var sveinn; sá var Bolli nefndr. It was boy he was Bolli called ‘There was a boy; he was called Bolli’

Hann var snimma mikell og vænn. He was early mighty and handsome ‘From an early age, he was might and handsome’ (LX, 170: 3-5)

(129) Þórðr átti þræl þann er út kom með honum. Þórður had this who out came with him ‘Þórður had this thrall who came out with him’

Sá hét Ásgautr He is called Ásgautr ‘He is called Ásgautr’

Hann var mikill maðr ok gørviligr He was mighty/great man and accomplished ‘He was a great and accomplished man’ (LX, 21:6-8)

(130) Lætr hann kirkju gera Let he church made ‘he had a church build…’

Sú var g r at Jólum That church was constructed at Christmas ‘That church was constructedǫ at Christmas’. (LX, 121: 25-26)

85

The data indicate that Old Norse had an elaborated discourse tracking system, as defined by Van Valin and La Polla (1997: 284-286). A number of different types of tracking system exist across the world’s languages. Van Valin and La Polla (1997: 284- 286) make a distinction between two primary subtypes: Switch Function systems and Switch reference systems. Switch function systems track particular discourse referents. This relates to systems where one primary argument is always realised as topic, but changes to active/passive marking on the verb in order to indicate a change to the semantic function of the participant. Alternatively, there are switch reference tracking systems, which do not track a particular referent, but a particular syntactic function (i.e. subject). These systems are linked to verb final languages, since the switch of reference is usually indicated by change to verbal morphology, which indicates whether the subject in the next clause will be the same or different from the current clause. I would argue that Old Norse had a system which was more along the lines of a switch reference tracking system than a participant tracking one. However, the switch of reference was not marked on the verb, but was indicated on the argument itself. If pronominal, switch reference would be indicated by a non-canonical pronominal form: that is, a distal demonstrative pronoun rather than a more typical personal pronoun. If referring to a full noun phrase, then switch reference was indicated by the focalising of the specifiers of the noun. A fronted demonstrative, possessive or definite adjective indicated that the participant in question is not the current active/topical/most in-focus referent, rather one which the accessible ‘other’ referent.

3.3.3.2 Adnominal Demonstratives It would seem that focused adnominal demonstratives carry out a very similar topic shift function as discussed for the pronominal forms. In this section, the focus will be on the Old Norse demonstrative system and the ordering of demonstratives with respect to their noun. Demonstratives of the sá paradigm which occur with a noun fulfil a similar ‘topic marking’ function, if they precede the noun; those which follow the noun, however, can be interpreted as non-topical.

86

The data at (131-132) are supporting evidence of sá in its topic marking function. In the first two clauses Þorleikr is the topic of the discourse; however, sá signals a topic shift, marking sveinn as the new topic. Once introduced the regular personal pronoun hann is used as sveinn continues as the topic.

(131) Þar bjó Þorleikr um hríð, sem fyrr var sagt. There lived Þorleikr for while, as before was said ‘Thorleikur lived there for a while, as was said before’

Þorleikr begat son við konu sinni. Þorleikr begat son with wife his ‘Thorleikur and his wife had a son’

Sá sveinn var vatni ok var hann inn vænligsti maðr. That son was grown and was he the handsome.SUPL ‘that son was grown and he was the most handsome man’ (LX, 71: 13-16)

(132) Konungr lætr mart nytsamligt vinna. King allowed much useful work ‘The king caused much useful work to be done’

Lætur hann kirkju gera auka Let he church construct enlarge much marketplace-DEF ‘He had a church built and enlarged the marketmjǫk kaupstaðin; place greatly’

Sú kirkja var at jólum That.FEM church was built at Christmas ‘The church was built atgǫr Christmas’ (LX, 121:26-28)

The link between a focused demonstrative and the grammatical function subject is linked to its discoursal function of TOPIC. If the TOP noun phrase of clause two was co- referential with the previous clause, then the demonstrative would follow the noun; if, however, the TOP noun phrase was linked to the promotion of an activated referent to topic status (i.e. it signalled topic shift). In this case, the focused demonstrative seemed

87

to be signalling that this topic was not co-referential with the topic of the previous clause; rather it had contrastive reference.

3.3.4 Relative Clauses As mentioned in chapter two, In Old Norse the antecedent noun to a relative clause with a definite interpretation would have been marked by a demonstrative of the sá paradigm. Neither an independent nor a bound hinn could do this job in its stead. This section will look at the position of the sá with respect to the noun. As would be expected given all other nominal modifiers, relative sá could either precede or follow the noun, as demonstrated by the following examples: A discernible pattern here seems to be that fronted sá coincides primarily with nouns in subject function, while the sá follows the antecedent noun in the case of relative clauses with function of clausal direct object. This would seem to indicate that the focalising function is not linked issues of definiteness per se, but that it is used to signal topic shift. Relative clauses tend to identify cataphorically rather than anaphorically: that is, the relative contained within the nominal phrase provides enough information to establish the entity as a discourse referent. In Prince’s term, this is an anchored phrase. This function is true of relative clauses in subject and object function. The key difference between relative clauses in subject and object function is that relative clauses in subject function indicate a new Topic referent/topic I therefore argue that the sá will occur in a prenominal position to mark the referent as having a contrastive rather than a co- referential referent. The following example at (133 and 134) exemplify this point. In both cases, there is a current topic of conversation. In (133) this is Kollr and in (134) this is Guðrun. In both cases, this is followed by the demonstratives sá (sá maðr and sú kona)

(133) Maðr er nefndr Kollr, Man was called Kollr ‘There was a man called Kollr’

Er einna var mest verðr Unnar; Who one was most worthy of followers Unnr.GEN ‘Who was onceone of the most worthyaf fǫruneyti of Unnr’s followers’

88

kom mest til þess ætt han; hann var hersir nefni. Kom most to that ancestry his; he was ‘hersir’ named. ‘Due mostly to his lineage; he was named ‘hersir’.

Sá maðr var ok í ferð með Unni, er hét; That man was also on journey with Unni who is called; he was ‘That man that called was also in the company with Unni’Hǫrðr Hǫrðr Hann var stórættaðrHǫrðr maðr ok mikils verðr He was highborn man also much worth ‘He was also a man of high birth and great worth’ (Lax, 7: 20-24) Here sá maðr seems to have introducesthe notion oHǫrðrf contrast to the as discoursean inherent as feature,a new topic. since Thesá signals topic markera contrast itself to the hann of the previous clause, and this in turn signals that there has been a shift of topic. Using a distal demonstrative in this function immediately suggests the idea of an entity being further away from the speaker than the current referent, not deictically, but discourse anaphorically, a feature which is not captured by the ordinary personal pronoun hann. While the ordering of the sá with respect to the noun here links to the discourse-semantic concept of shift in topicality, the inherent suggestion of contrast is once again connected to the fronted position within the nominal phrase as it was for the adjectives.

(134) Guðrun var kurteis kona svá at í þann tíma Guðrun was gentle woman such that in that time ‘Guðrun was a gentle woman such that at that time

Allra kvenna var hon kœnst All.GEN women.GEN was she wise.SUPL ‘She was the wisest/most cunning of woman’

Sú kona var á vist með Ósvífri er þórhalla hét. That woman was on visit with Ósvífri who þórhalla was called ‘That woman who is called Thórhalla was living with Ósvífri’ (LX, 86: 7-8) In the case of relative clauses which are non-subject, the demonstrative generally follows the antecedent noun. This is exemplified at (135).

89

(135) Brjánn hét konungr sá er hana hafði átta Brjánn is called king that who her had had ‘The king was called Brian who took her as his wife’ (BN, 440:14)

The data presented above clearly represent a system for signalling pragmatic status within the field of discourse, demonstrating an interaction between anaphoric, personal and demonstrative pronouns and the means by which they can mark a constituent as topical or anchored to topic. The anaphoric use of demonstratives also enables the speaker to signal some degree of distance to the current topic, and it is this which forms a contrastive type interpretation.

3.3.5 Summary of Data From this descriptive survey, it is clear that the focused or new part of the phrase is more informative than the noun. In many cases it identifies and restricts the referent, while postnominal material is presupposed. In the case of pronouns and demonstratives, examples mostly set up a contrast between the expected or most predictable referent and some less topical referent. In the case of adjectives, the contrast is achieved via restrictive modification. In this case, we appealed to Pfaff (2014: 229) who introduces the ‘auxiliary notions’ anaphoric and deictic properties, A property is deictic if it contributes to identifying a referent and anaphoric if it does not contribute to identifying a referent. The distinction works well for the Old Norse adjectival data, and can be extended to demonstratives and bound definite markers sit and poss pro, which also sit after the noun if the pronoun itself or the specifier + noun signal an known/given referent. This is complicated by two further types of example. A demonstrative which forms part of the antecedent to a noun phrase can be pre or post, nominal Here the demonstrative+ noun is identifying or deictic as suggested by Pfaff’s descriptive labels. Noun and demonstrative combinations can be deictic in the traditional sense of pointing. However, this is largely a terminological difficulty, because here too the referent is salient in the discourse context, thus the demonstrative + noun combination denoted an identifiable entity. The distinction identifiable versus identifying better captures the pragmatic distinction. Adjectives, as with demonstratives and possessives

90 occur after the noun, if the noun-modifier combination denotes an identifiable/identified entity, but it is prenominal is the modifier+ noun unit are identifying the referent. The key distinction is that prenominal modifiers/specifiers suggest set up a pragmatic contrast, because they suggest a contrast between the set denoted by the modifier+ noun and some other set. They identify the referent.

3.4 Analysis of Nominal Phrases in Old Norse 3.4.1 Introduction This chapter makes the following claims about the noun phrase in Old Norse: (a)The noun phrase is largely non-configurational and word order is determined by discourse-semantic considerations. (b) At the left edge of the phrase there is a syntactic FOC slot/domain. (c) Demonstratives, pronominal possessors, and adjectives can occur both pre- and post- nominally. (d) Prenominal placement indicates focused material: i.e. material which is more informative then non-focused material. (e) Emphasizing, Restricting the reference of the noun and indicating a switch in reference to a referent which is not the currently the most salient in the discourse context are core function of this focalising strategy.

In the following section, I will provide an analysis of the key facts as detailed above within an LFG-style architecture. As a preliminary to this, I will look to previous LFG analyses which sit at the syntax-discourse-semantics/information structure interface, to consider how focused elements have been incorporated into i-strcture and f-structure in previous works written in the LFG framework.

3.4.2 Word Order and Nominal Focus This section elaborates on the basic syntactic structure of the noun phrase in Old Norse, in response to the data presented to both chapter 2 and chapter 3. Often the deciding factor in motivating noun phrase structure relates to the observable order that each of

91

the constituents has inside the noun phrase. The fundamental difference between the noun phrase in a language like Modern English and that of Old Norse is that the former has a strict word order and the latter does not. It is clear from the data presented so far that demonstratives, adjectives, possessive adjectives etc. can either precede of follow the noun. While word order variation is in evidence in the Old Norse period, it has been argued that, in the earlier period of ancient , noun phrases were noun initial, with all specifiers, modifiers and complements of the noun occurring postnominally (Stroh- Wollin, 2009). This suggests that there was a period when word order was less varied, approximating a structure along the lines of the following.

FIG. 13 NP PRED ‘man’ N DEM/ADJ/POSS

Maðr hinn/minn

At some intermediate point between the Runic Norse and the Old Norse period, a more varied word order developed. This, I conjecture, is motivated by the development of a focus phrase to the left of the noun. No longer could the noun phrase be said to be noun initial, because specifiers and modifiers, genitive phrases and indefinite pronouns could occur both prenominally and postnominally. The data presented in this chapter suggests a link between discourse prominence, more specifically to ‘focus’, and the prenominal domain. Prenominal placement is the result of the development of a dedicated syntactic slot which houses focused elements in the nominal phrase. In the early stage of this development, I suggest that the noun phrase operated according to the following principle.

It would seem as if the element in FOC position carries information which is more prominent discoursally than the noun itself, but that the information which follows the noun carries information which is discoursally less significant (backgrounded). To give an illustrative example: when an adjective is restrictive, it affects the denotation of the

92

noun. If it is non-restrictive then the adjective can be seen to be background information, as it does not help the listener to identify a particular referent in question, rather it would be referring anaphorically to an already established referent. The restrictive version is identificational; it picks out a specific referent from the set of potential alternative referents set up by the restrictive modification. In this case, it could be said that the restrictive adjective is focused or accented, and that it is more informative discoursally than the noun itself. The noun then acts as the pivot around which information is structured. Since all constituent elements of the noun phrase are positioned with respect to discourse-semantic, rather than purely, syntactic considerations, there is no dedicated slot to house a demonstrative or a definite marker. The structure then would seem to be largely non-configurational, as suggested by the tree at Figure 14. Features, such as definite, were specified via morphology and captured at f-structure. FIG.14 NP (FOC) NOM

N DEM AP ...

The order in which the modifiers come with respect to other modifiers is not completely random, but it is freer than is the case for the present day Scandinavian languages. Whether part of the focus domain or the background domain, there is a tendency for elements which are specifiers of the noun (demonstrative and possessive pronouns) to precede descriptive adjectives and prepositional phrases. It is not the case that all nominal specifiers and modifiers must uniformly be either before or after the noun. The modifiers do not operate as a unit, being either all prenominal or all postnominal; rather, they can be flanked either side of the noun. There are many examples in the data in which some of the specifiers precede the noun and some follow, as demonstrated by example (136). (136) Þessi maðr hinn gamli This man the old ‘This old man’

93

The noun phrase then is non-configurational, and has as its centre the nominal pivot. I take this as the first piece of evidence in favour of an NP, rather than a DP, analysis of the Old Norse noun phrase. A second piece of evidence in support of this claim is that there does not seem to be a dedicated category of determiners or a dedicated D slot at the left edge of the phrase. Demonstratives and possessives are not in complementary distribution with the definite marker, but can co-occur with it. There is no indefinite article at this stage of the language and the definite article itself is not a requirement of nominal syntax. That is, bare nouns can function as definite or indefinite noun phrases in core argument positions in Old Norse. If the phrase were a DP headed by a D node then we would expect there to be a requirement in the grammar that the D slot be filled, since heads are usually non-omissible. Heads also select their complements, but there is no sense in which a syntactic D requires the presence of a particular type of noun, or that the noun requires a functional head. In Old Norse, the only essential element of nominal syntax is the noun itself. Given these facts, it is difficult to see how there can be a DP projection in Old Norse. These data militate against the idea that there is a uniform underlying structure to language (i.e. that all languages have a pre-existing DP, with no overt realisation). They suggest instead that functional categories and functional structure can develop and grow as has been argued in Börjars, Harries and Vincent (forthcoming 2014).

3.4.3 Nominal Focus and i-structure in LFG In this section, I will continue to explore how to capture the idea of a nominal focus phrase within the LFG architecture. Dalrymple suggests that rules which change the order of elements without affecting or modifying grammatical function are a form of scrambling and these phenomena should be dealt with at c-structure. Well-documented instances of scrambling in the German or Swedish middle field, though, differ somewhat from the Old Norse context, since there appears to be a dedicated slot which houses FOCUSED information, rather than the order being determined by individual speaker emphasis in

94

particular discourse contexts. While the surface syntactic order is visible at c-structure, the focusing of particular elements is significant to the interpretation of the cognitive status of the discourse referents, which suggest that the information may project into i- structure in the same way that syntacticised discourse functions do at clause level. Alternatively the discourse-semantic effects of focalising information may be best captured at f-structure. In the following sections, I will explore both options and consider which approach better explains the facts. It will be demonstrated that while focusing within the noun phrase can be incorporated into existing LFG models of i-structure, this captures the notion of contrastive focus within the context of the whole clause only; it does not adequately capture the expressive power of nominal focus. A feature-based analysis at f-structure, on the other hand, neatly capture the effect of nominal focus and adequately highlights how an interaction of morphological features and c-structure focus enriches the grammar with a discourse tracking device and fine-grained distinctions relating the cognitive status of discourse referents.

3.4.3.1 Previous Accounts of i-structure There has been limited work done on the i-structure projection in LFG. The most significant works has been produced by King (1997), Butt and King (1998) and Choi (1999). Since word order in Old Norse is driven by pragmatic, rather than syntactically, considerations, the analysis presented will need to explore both the syntax/pragmatic interface and the syntax-information structure interface. I have already proposed that the noun phrase has developed a dedicated focus slot at the left edge of the phrase, which is represented at the level of c-structure. The question is does this c-structure information project into f-structure or i-structure? The issue is also complicated by the fact that there is an obvious interaction between focus (i.e. the traditional counterpart of background) as it relates to information structure and the activation status of the discourse referents (i.e. identifiable and activated). Focus can have many different meanings in the literature which seem to cross cut distinctions relating to the information structure and the cognitive status of the discourse referents. I will begin with some definitions of focus and define the concept as I will use it in the Old Norse context.

95

At clause level focus (new) is the counterpart to background (old) in informational terms. This in itself can be easily transferred to the context of the noun phrase, as we saw above. Information which follows the noun is background information, while information which precedes the noun is focused information. The focused element at clause level is associated with the verb and post verbal position and prosodic accentuation, while the subject slot in unmarked clauses is linked to discourse old information and deaccentuation. The issue of accentuation is also relevant to this context, since designating focus by ‘fronting’ an element via word order is very similar to focalising by adding pitch prominence in prosodic terms. It is even likely that Old Norse used both strategies together. However, it is in the association of ‘new’ and ‘given’ information that transferring the concept ‘focus’ into the noun phrase is less straightforward and problematic. Focused information is often associated with new information and can become entangled with similar concept linking it the cognitive status of discourse referents. In Old Norse, elements cannot be focused if they are explicitly definite and presupposed. Focus is not an encoding of newness in this sense. It is clear then that focus and activation status are entirely separate, if interacting, concepts and that we need to appeal to a more fine- grained definition of focus.

Instead of this two-way distinction (focus (assertion) and background (presupposition), Chafe (1976) suggests that there should in fact be a three way distinction between discourse old information, discourse new information (informational focus) and discourse contrastive (contrastive focus). Herring (1990:164) and Lambrecht (1998: 286) also make a distinction between presentational focus and contrastive focus. Following work on Germanic and Romance (Katz and Selkirk 2011) also uphold the phonological, semantic and grammatical distinctions between discourse focus and contrastive focus. According to Herring (1990:164) the difference between presentational focus and contrastive focus is that presentational focus presents someone for the first time as a

96 discourse referent, while contrastively focused arguments are already ‘explicitly or implicitly present in the discourse context’. It is clear that the type of focus that is required to account for the Old Norse data is contrastive rather than presentational focus. At clause level, Presentational focus will usually fall in the new part of the clause and one element of the focused phrase will carry the nuclear stress/ pitch prominence. Whole noun phrases which are considered new to the discourse will occur after the verb. In terms of the Old Norse noun phrase new discourse referents will be unmarked for definiteness and if there is an adjective present, it will follow the noun in question. Presentational focus then is not the type of focus that relates to the use of focus slot in the Old Norse noun phrase. Firstly, the cognitive status refers to the whole noun phrase. It shows a relation to the issue of the presupposition and assertion the whole proposition, expressed by the grammatical sentence. Grammatically, it relates primarily to the clause, not noun phrase. However, the encoding of identifiability and activation status in Old Norse is linked to both clausal position as well as the noun phrase. The demonstratives and (in) definite markers which form part of the noun phrase do encode information about the activation status of the noun itself. The idea of contrastive focus accounts well for the Old Norse data, since if an element such as descriptive adjective or possessive adjective occurs in the focus slot, this would suggest a contrast between referent 1 and some other established referent. If there is no shared previous discourse, all non-pronominal NPs receive a pitch accent, regardless of their sentence position. This, of course, is the ‘marked’ option. The unmarked utterance will include a given subject or topic domain, followed by a focus domain, housing the new part of the message. The given (given, presupposed or background) information will be deaccented. Semantically, the difference between discourse new and discourse focus is as follows. Discourse new refers to NPs which have no existing representation in the mind of the addressee. A core semantic property of contrastive focus, though is that it ‘establishes alternative sets’ (Lambrecht, 1998).

97

For this idea of focus is part of its general pragmatic meaning. For Lambrecht focus is not to be defined as the complement of topic, or linked to the activation status of the discourse referents, but to “the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition, whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition”. It refers to a relation, not a property of the constituent. He defines focus as a semantico-pragmatic, not a formal category. It is defined at the semantic level of a (pragmatically structured) proposition, not at the grammatical level of a (syntactically structured) sentence. (Lambrecht 1998: 213). The pragmatic category ‘focus’ should be “sharply distinguished from its grammatical realisation in a sentence (i.e. the syntactic domain in which it is expressed) or the prosodic means whereby the syntactic domain is marked (i.e. sentence accentuation). In some of the examples discussed for Old Norse, this definition also seems pertinent. It was demonstrated in section (3.3.2) that in the case of copular sentences, the adjective preceded the noun in unmarked order, but followed the noun if a new description of the subject noun phrase was introduced by the predicate nominal. In this case, in example one the noun represents an assertion which differs from the presupposition, and in example one the noun represents information which does not differ from the presupposition. In this case, it is the adjective which is more informative. It is clear that Lambrecht’s definition of focus, which clearly distinguishes focus from activation status, is successful in dealing with the Old Norse data. With both Lambrecht’s definition of focus and contrastive focus, the idea of contrast is important. Now that we have established the type of focus under discussion, the present section will now consider how information about nominal focus and activation status is incorporated into the grammar. There has been considerably less discussion about the projection which relates to information structure (i-structure) in LFG than has been written for f-structure. However, a brief overview of the key ideas taken from seminal papers on this level of LFG’s projection architecture will be presented below. In the model of i-structure developed by Butt and King (1996, 1997), it is argued that particular positions in the phrase structure tree license discourse functions. Annotations relating to the discourse

98

functions TOPIC, FOCUS and BACKGROUND are added to c-structure to indicate the syntactic encoding of discourse functions. In the earlier paper, these syntacticised discourse functions are projected into f-structure and map onto to grammatical functions. An illustration is given at figure 15. FIG. 15 PRED ‘give ’ IP TOP PRED ‘Jane’ I’

(↑TOP Jane =↓) SUB

In a subsequent paper, the model was deemed to be problematic because f-structure annotations only allowed for discourse functions associated with core arguments; therefore, when the verb lexical head itself is in focus, then it is impossible to demonstrate focus on the verb without also referring the verb’s arguments. This lead to a revision of the model and the development of a projection known as projection. This new model allows for the positioning of an information structure projection distinct from the f- structure, results in the argument structure of the predicate being removed from the analysis in order for the i-structure to be able to refer to just the core meaning of a predicate. Here each discourse function has a set notation, to allow multiple category membership. This is illustrated at figure 16. FIG. 16 f-structure I-structure PRED ‘read ’ TOP ‘ [‘she’] SUB [PRED ‘she’] FOC [‘read’] OBJ [PRED ‘book’ ] BCK [‘book’]

99

Another significant work which makes reference to the i-structure projection is Choi 1999, who proposes another architecture that includes both an information structure and a prosodic structure in addition to the f-structure and c-structure. In this model, the a-structure and the f-structure pass the syntactic information to the c-structure, while the i-structure passes along discourse-pragmatic information. This i- structure is constrained by information from the s- and the p-structure. Choi builds on the work of Vallduví (1992) to articulate her analysis of focus. Vallduví (1992) assumes a division of the information structure into focus and ground, with a further subdivision of ground into link and tail (elements that are in the link are more prominent than elements that are in the tail). Choi (1999) assumes a similar division for focus: focus is divided into contrastive focus and completive focus, where contrastive focus has the additional property of being more prominent than completive focus. Choi (1999) represents these four distinctions through two primitives: new and prom., replicated at figure 17. FIG.17 +NEW -NEW +PROM contrastive focus topic -PROM completive focus tail With respect to information structure –NEW should precede +New and +PROM should precede –PROM and in optimality theoretic terms PROM takes precedence is ranked higher than NEW. She also postulates a +NEW feature will result in the requirement to add pitch prominence at prosodic structure. Choi articulates a number of limitations of the analysis herself. Firstly, she states that the view of sentential prosody is limited, because it assumes that each word is an independent information unit which can bear an individual feature assignment. Secondly, it only applies to narrow focus.

3.4.3.2 Presentation versus Contrastive Focus Returning now to the Old Norse noun phrase, it would be possible, to add to the models of i-structure which has already been established by Butt and King to incorporate a

100

mapping of prosodic features from p-structure (prosodic structure) to i-structure. This would be one means by which to capture an analysis of the feature FOCUS in the Old Norse noun phrase, since there is clearly a link to accentuation. Since the focus is signalled by word order, and finds expression at c-structure just like clausal Topic and Focus, it would seem appropriate to consider whether there is mapping from c-structure to the i- projection. The model of i-structure proposed by Butt and King (1996 and 1997) as it stands is problematic for an account of focus in the noun phrase, since the focus and topic at f-structure are linked to the denotatum of the noun phrase. Therefore the categories TOP and FOC are instantiated at i-structure by lexical categories (elements with a PRED feature). There is, therefore, no way to signal that a demonstrative or determiner element carries focus and that this focus is relational (more informative with respect to the noun). Similarly, the model itself does not incorporate the relational aspect of focus as discussed by Lambrecht: that is, the difference between what is presupposed and what is asserted. However, I wonder here whether this relates to semantic/pragmatic idea of focus rather than the grammatical encoding of these elements. Recall that for Lambrect (1998) “the pragmatic category focus should be “sharply distinguished from its grammatical realisation in a sentence (i.e. the syntactic domain in which it is expressed) or the prosodic means whereby the syntactic domain is marked (i.e. sentence accentuation)” (214). To successfully capture this interaction for Old Norse, there would need to be some form of mapping from the sorts of accentual features we might expect to at p-structure (prosodic), the sorts of features articulated by Choi at f-structure, and the discourse domains as represented by by Butt and King’s representation of i-structure. Accentuation and Contrastive Stress will result in the three way distinction suggested by Chafe, and this could be captured with a feature analysis.

+ ACC – CON = presentational focus +ACC +CON = contrastive focus = background/given

The advantage−ACC −CON of such an analysis is that it fits with the intuitive notion that the information structure overlays clause structure and separates the information unit into two clear sections which relate to a given part of the clause and new part of the clause. It

101

would also allow for an element to be in the focus domain but given (presupposed) information. The features themselves would capture the notion of background without having to have a particular c-structure position associated with this function. It also allows for every lexical item to be annotated with the functions accentuation and contrast, which would allow me to articulate the idea that a focused element is defined as prominent informationally with respect to the noun. In English, we could use accentual stress in this way to indicate the second of these interpretations. It may be that Norse too used both prosodic stress and word order to capture contrastive stress. While a mapping analysis may prove to be fruitful, it is beyond the scope of this current work to explore this further. It should be noted, however, that research into the complex mapping between i-strucutre and p-structure has been carried out by Mycock and Lowe (2013). The reason for not pursuing the idea further here is that while the approach may turn out to be successful in demonstrating the difference between contrastive and presentational stress, I do not think that it adequately captures the contribution that nominal FOCUS contributes to the interpretation of the noun phrase. This could be more successfully achieved via a c-structure to f-structure mapping, and this is the avenue I will pursue in the following section.

3.4.4 Nominal Focus and f-structure in LFG In this section, then I will present an alternative analysis which incorporates the idea of focus/contrast into f-structure. As a starting point, I return to the point made by Lambrecht about the difference between pragmatic distinctions which are grammatically encoded and those which are not, and from this I would conclude that all distinctions which find some expression grammatically should be represented at f-structure. A core function of the FOCUS phrase is an identificational one. Elements which come before the noun in some sense identify the referent in question, either by restricting the reference of the noun’s denontatum or by signalling contrastive reference. In the case of pronominal and adnominal possessives/demonstratives, focalising enables a distinction between referents which are currently in focus, salient, topical as opposed to being another less salient counterpart. This distinction is signalled via an interaction between

102

word order and the features associated with a word’s lexical entry. Pronominal forms, including demonstrative pronouns tend to be used when a referent is already salient in the discourse context. The data for Old Norse revealed a system of switch reference, in which the pronominal forms can themselves itself signal topic shift. Pronominal and adnominal forms can signal a distinction between co-reference and contrastive reference. It has been demonstrated that fronting a modifier of the noun to the topic slot results in a contrastive reading. A key issue with representing the FOCUS as a relational feature within the noun phrase at f-structure is that many lexical words contribute only features not PRED values to f- structure; therefore representing the notion that some aspect of the noun phrase is informationally prominent with respect to another, using annotations, such as the (±PROM) used by Choi (1999) or the (±ACC) as I suggested for i-structure could not be done at the level of nominal syntax for demonstratives because they only have a representation as the attribute: e.g. DEIXIS. For demonstratives, the approach is not quite as straightforward, because demonstratives does not have a PRED value. However, focusing the demonstrative in c-structure does lead to the same distinction between coreference and contrastive reference of the noun itself. Old Norse is not alone in allowing contrastive interpretation of demonstratives. ; it has been attested in many other language. Filmore (1982:57) documents a distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive deixis used for exophoric referents which are discussed in ‘serial order’ in the language Bakwiri. It is argued that the Bakwiri distal is very often used for the second of two objects and thus has the interpretation 'the other'. In Bakwiri then the semantic/pragmatic distinction is encoded explicitly in the grammar. Old Norse, unlike English, and many other languages has a means by which they can document fine-grained distinctions which link to the tracking of anaphoric and activated referent. Focus on the adjective leads to a pragmatic contrast between the referent identified by the adjective and the remainder of the set suggested by the noun. This is the same as a restrictive interpretation.

103

There is a well-established history of incorporating discourse functions into c-structure and f-structure. These are treated as overlay functions and they have long been associated with the specifier slot of a functional projection within c-structure and with long distance dependency at f-structure. This is demonstrated below at figure 17.

FIG. 17 IP NP IP PRED ‘LIKE ’ ( TOPIC [PRED ‘CHRIS’ ] NP NP I’ SUBJ [PRED ‘pro’ ] ↑TOP )=↓ VP OBJ [ ] N V

Chris we like Diagram adapted from Dalrymple (1990: 395)

It is argued for Old Norse that the nominal unit is an NP with no functional projection. Despite this, there is evidence of a dedicated slot for housing elements which are more prominent and focused than the noun itself. My analysis, therefore suggests an FOC slot internal to the NP. Traditionally, TOPIC and FOCUS would be linked to the PRED feature, as the example above demonstrate. However, in recent work by Rad (2012: 409) on Persian Verbal ellipsis, it was argued that FOCUS should extend to other features, and not just to PRED. The evidence from Old Norse would point to a similar conclusion. Following Rad, I, therefore, suggest an analysis of the Old Norse NP which allows a feature to be in focus. At figure 18, I suggest that is is the demonstrative which is in focus.

FIG.18 NP FOC [DEIXIS DIST] (FOC) NOM PRED [ ‘MAN’ ] ( DEIXIS

DEM↑ FOC = ↓) N AP POSS …

104

At figure 19, is the adjective which is in focus.

FIG. 19 NP FOC [ PRED ‘BLACK’] (FOC ) NOM PRED [ ‘HORSE’ ] ( SPEC + ADJ [ ] ↑ FOC ) = ↓ AP N DEM POSS …

(( ↑ PRED = black ADJ Є ↑) SPEC) = + In this analysis, nominal focus is mapped between c-structure and f-structure. It is argued that it is the development of a slot before the noun, which seemed to take place somewhere between Runic Old Norse and Medieval Old Norse period, which over time develops into syntactic D slot in Modern Faroese.

3.4.5 Contrast and the Development of hinn (the other) In this chapter, it has been demonstrated that there was a focus slot at the left edge of the nominal phrase and that this focus slot was eventually replaced as the neutral slot for determiners. Support for this particular trajectory of change comes from the demonstrative hinn, which in present day Scandinavian corresponds to the other and which can either act as a demonstrative pronoun or a determiner. This element is usually seen as entirely separate from the definite article hinn; however, I argue that this is a relic feature of an older grammar which makes sense only within the context of a language which once upon a time had a focus domain at the left edge of the noun phrase. In this section, I propose an account of the historical development of the demonstrative hinn. In the oldest attested Norse, the noun phrase is argued to be noun initial, so the usual position of the demonstrative hinn was postnominal. I have argued that, over time, a prenominal focus slot develops and hinn can then occur either prenominally in the focus position or post-nominally in the background position. This is demonstrated by the f- structure -c structure mappings below. In the earliest Norse, I conjecture that the demonstrative hinn would have been postnominal, then when the focus phrase develops,

105

hinn could either sit before or after the noun, as shown at figure 20. Once the focus phrase develops, word order can be used to indicate that the demonstrative contributes contrastive reference, yielding the interpretation ‘the other’. FIG. 20 (A) NP (B) NP FOC [ DEIXIS DIST] (FOC) PRED ‘MAN’ PRED ‘MAN’ ( FOC= ) NOM DEIXIS DIS NOM DEIXIS ↑ hinn ↓ N N hinn

The postnominal hinn would signal the interpretation ‘that man’, and the focused hinn would carry the interpretation ‘that other man’. Over time, I suggest, that two further developments took place. (1) the postnominal hinn becomes deaccented/ background information and loses its ability to signal deixis. Postnominal hinn thus starts to develop into a definite marker. Because it is deaccented, it weakens phonologically and becomes enclitic on the noun. Once this marker has been reanalysed as a definite marker, there remains but one option for prenominal hinn: viz, to be reanalysed as a separate contrastive demonstrative. These changes effectively lead to a lexical split. In its ability to signal anaphoric relations and its central meaning, the prenominal hinn seems to adopt pronominal properties. In Modern Faroese, however, the demonstrative hinn can occur adnominally.While both have developed away from the core function and lost the feature ‘distal’, the elements still differ in their central features and distribution.

>> >>> (1) hinn DET ( DEF)= + FIG. 21 hinn DEM ( DEF) = + ( DEIXIS) = DIS >>>>>> (2) hinn DEM (↑DEIXIS) = CON ↑ ↑ ↑ 3.4.6 Contrast and the Development of Adjectives I also posit that were also important changes to adjective and the features that are encoded in the adjective. In Old Norse, The weak adjective could signal that the noun acting as modifier was a specific referent. If the adjective was fronted then the combination of specificity and focused word order would suggest a restrictive interpretation. This is not signalled by the weak/specific marking on the adjective per se,

106

but the combination of specific marking and FOCUS. Over time, however, as word order changes and becomes set to the pre-nominal position, the weak and strong adjectives take on a closer correspondence with the restrictive/non-restrictive function I will discuss this further in Chaper 4. In response to data presented in this chapter, I suggested that the syntactic hinn marker that accompanies the adjective is an adjectival marker signalling specificity. This element begins as a marker of nominalised adjectives to signal a distinction between a specific and a non-specific set of referents. The hinn marked adjectives were also commonly used appositionally in expressions such as þorgrímr inn grái (Thorgrimur the grey). These terms operated as proper names or titles. In such cases, the phrase is appositional rather than restrictive and equates to a meaning similar to Thorgrimur the grey one. In such cases the hinn and the weak marking on the adjective signal that the referent is SPEC, but not restrictive. It is from these sorts of examples which the definite marker hinn is thought to have developed, though it is no discussion on exactly how this shift in function took place. The answer to understanding the trajectory of this particular change lies in the expressive power of the FOCUS phrase in Old Norse. Just as the combination of deixis and FOCUS resulted in the meaning ‘this/that other’, the combination of SPEC and FOCUS resulted in the notion of restrictive modification. In contrastive readings [SPEC +] [FOCUS +], the adjective is picking out a referent from a potential set of referents. If the feature marking [SPEC +] and [FOCUS –]. As the focus domain is weakened and the prenominal domain comes to be associated with modifiers and specifiers of the noun, and the noun becomes the locus of definiteness marking, the weak form of the adjective comes to be associated with the function [±RES] since the distinction between co-reference and contrastive reference is no longer available.

3.4.7 Grammaticalisation of Non-Contrastive hinn In response to the question of grammaticalisation pathway and to which hinn was prior, I would argue that postnominal positioning was prior to prenominal positioning. The development of hinn as a marker on the adjective must have been the result of an

107

ambiguous reading of the syntactic structure. The development of hinn as a specificity marker must have taken place before the hinn became a bound feature.

3.5 Summary of the Chapter In this chapter, I have provided evidence of a FOCUS slot at the left edge of the noun phrase. This grammaticalised slot enables speakers of Old Norse to develop a means of tracking reference shift. This chapter has also demonstrated how modifiers of the noun could contribute the feature/attribute [REF] whose value can be co (co-referential) or CON (contrastive) to the noun phrase represented by a higher f-structure. The [REF] feature can be marked on an adjective, or a pronoun or it can be contributed via deictic contrast. It is only possible in Old Norse to focalised one adjective; the remainder have to follow the noun. This restriction is also likely to be associated with a limit on the number of permitted identifying adjectives. I have demonstrated that the distributio of hinn is very straightforward accounted for, if the facts are understood within the syntactic structure of the Old Norse noun phrase, and the development of the FOCUS domain. I have also established a link between the demonstrative hinn meaning ‘the other’ and the standard postposed hinn which provide a tenable hypothesis about the origin of the forms. Since contrastive readings naturally had an identificational function, I argue that over time, the focus domain becomes associated with definiteness and hence leads first to a preference for definiteness to be present in this domain, this eventually leads to a left edge requirement and to the development of a DP projection in some Scandinavian languages. The earliest is Danish, but this has now taken place in all the standard Continental dialects. In the following chapter, I will also demonstrate that the same development is now happening in Modern Faroese.

108

4. Faroese Definiteness and the Growth of Structure

4.1 Introduction Having provided a comprehensive overview of the facts for Old Norse in the previous two chapters, attention shifts in this chapter and the next to the distribution of definiteness markers in Faroese. The current chapter will provide a diachronic overview of changes to the structure of the nominal phrase from the oldest attested sources of Faroese to Modern Day usage. Data will be presented from three key periods, which I label Medieval Faroese (1300-1400), The Language Revival Period (1770-1890) and Modern Faroese (1890s to Present) respectively. The overall aim of this chapter is to discuss the ways in which the Insular Scandinavian varieties differ in terms of their nominal syntax from Old Norse, with particular focus on the facts for Faroese. The chapter will survey the key changes that took place within the noun phrase primarily, and at clause level more peripherally, between the period of Old Norse and modern Insular Scandinavian, before shifting focus to the facts of Modern Faroese more centrally. A principal goal here is to demonstrate that Faroese/the Insular Scandinavian branches have gradually undergone a syntactizisation of the major nominal constituents and that word order variation within the noun phrase is now the marked option. From a theoretical perspective, the principal aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that there is now evidence that Faroese has developed a DP projection at c-structure and that the category [±DEF] has become largely grammaticalised, which means that the focalising strategies and discourse-semantic distinctions which were available in Old Norse are no longer grammatically encoded. Key changes, such as (a) evidence of the development of a syntactic category ‘determiner’ and (b) the loss of adjectival definiteness features will form part of the narrative. Finally, even though word order has become more rigid and the syntactic category ‘determiner’ is now in evidence, vestigial word order patterns linked to the placement of adnominal possessor phrases provide evidence that the developing determiner category should qualify as an instance of change in progress in Modern Faroese. The chapter will be structured as follows. In section 4.2, I will discuss the literature which has been written on Faroese nominal syntax from a historical perspective and also discuss the issue of data availability for historical Faroese. Then in section 4.3, I will

109

present and discuss my findings with respect to each of the definite markers (bound and free markers, demonstratives, and adjectival markers) for each of the key historical periods of Faroese. The emphasis in this chapter will be on the development of a syntactic definiteness marker and the resulting changes to nominal syntax. Feature distribution will be discussed in detail in the following chapter (chapter 5). In section, 4.4 I will discuss the data for definiteness in the light of word order variation in the noun phrase. Section 4.5 aims to summarize key changes to the structure of the noun phrase between Old Norse and Modern Insular Scandinavian, with particular reference to Faroese. Finally, in the analysis section (4.6), I argue that developments in Faroese are consistent with the growth of functional structure and the development of a DP category.

4.2 Historical Faroese: Literature and Sources This section will provide an overview of the historical approaches to Faroese. First, I will discuss the availability of data for the earliest periods. I will then consider any works which have made a contribution to understanding of definiteness marking or the nominal syntax of historical varieties of Faroese. Any survey of ancestral forms of Faroese is fraught with difficulties due to the hiatus in available historical data from the time of Danish rule in the mid 16th century to around 1770, when the Faroese language movement began to gain momentum. With the exception of a few runic inscriptions, the earliest extent documents for early Faroese come from the medieval period, the most important of which come in the form of the legal document Seyðabrævið, and a small sample of personal letters Húsavíkarbrøvini, which date from 1403-5. From this point onwards, Faroese remains largely undocumented for a number of centuries (Thráinsson et al. 2004:370—372). The earliest attempts to develop a for the undocumented post-reformation spoken varieties of Faroese come from the latter half of the 18th century, and take the form of transcriptions of the oral ballads (Jens Christian Svabo (1770), Hans Christian Lyngbye and Johan Hendrik Shrøter). Shrøter also translated the Gospel of Matthew (Evangelium Sankta Matteusar) and this was published by the Danish Bible Society, as well as his Færeyninga Saga, which formed part of Carl Christian Rafn’s 1832 text Færeyinga Saga eller

110

Farøboernes Historie (Thráinsson et al. 2004:374-78). These early attempts at providing a systematic for Faroese were based on phonetic principles and so vary according the dialect of the writer (Lockwood, 1977: 5). Barnes and Weyhe (1994:197) call this approach quasi-phonetic, and state that this essentially meant that “people brought up with Danish, and to a lesser extent Latin and German, spelling habits wrote what they thought they heard”. VU Hammershaimb later developed an orthographic system based on etymological principles, and this is the system which has been adopted in the Modern Faroese (Petersen and Adams, 2009; Lockwood, 1977). Between 1845 and 1889, Hammershaimb’s system underwent a number of influences, since his earliest system was itself largely phonetic. The most significant of these influences was a direct consequence of a critique by the Danish Scholar NM Petersen, who questioned the suitability of the earliest systems of orthography. He argued that the phonetic basis of the early Faroese writing system made the written literature wholly inaccessible to all the other Scandinavian languages. To address this problem, he argued that consonants which are etymologically recoverable should be represented in written form (Thráinsson et al. 2004:382-85). Hammershaimb subsequently adapted his earlier system to create the etymologically based orthographic system, which has been adopted as the official standard in the Faroe Islands. In 1889, a rival orthography, known as Broyting (Thráinsson et al., 2004:391) was developed by Jakobson, which sought to establish a 1- 1 correspondence between speech sounds and letters. Jakobson protested against Hammershaimb’s system which contained all unvoiced sounds, because this was proving difficult for Faroese speakers to master due to the lack of correspondence between the sounds and their representation. This new system did not manage to displace Hammerschaimb’s, now established, system based on etymological principles. While the earlier system was eventually abandoned, the works which were produced in this phonetic system offer insight into actual pronuniciation and seem closer to the vernacular. The language revival period saw the beginnings of an elaborated code for Faroese, as the language began to take on more and more functions which were once the preserve of Danish. The language which emerges post 1770 is one which has changed in many significant ways from immediate post-Norse period. In terms of diachronic

111

analyses of the oldest forms of Faroese, the most significant are. These works identify key differences in orthography as evidence of sound change and they provide the basis of the claim that the Medieval source Húsavíkarbrøvini is the earliest text written in Faroese, as distinct from generic Old Norse. In terms of systematic surveys of nominal syntax in diachrony, one of the most significant works is the survey of genitive usage by Håkon, which charts usage from the period of the first written ballads in 1770 to Modern Faroese Usage, with Modern Faroese being represented by data from novels written from 1930 around the 1950s. To my knowledge, there have been no previous diachronic surveys of definiteness markers in Faroese, so this chapter aims to fill this gap. It is fully acknowledged that any survey provided on such a restricted data set offers but a small window onto earlier grammatical systems; however, it is the only source we have for charting change in Faroese and it does, at the very least, give an indication as to whether the Old Norse system was operative, or whether there is evidence of change afoot, at the earliest stages of Faroese. It is clear that no survey of Faroese would be complete without reference of this data set. The data set from 1770 onwards is less restricted, but has not, thus far, been subject to a systematic survey of definiteness marking either. Again, this chapter aims to fill this gap in knowledge. In the next section, I will present my empirical findings for these key historical periods of Faroese.

4.3. Presentation of Data: Faroese Definiteness in Diachrony In this chapter, three claims will be made on the basis of data presented in this section: (1) that the ordering of elements in the noun phrase has become more rigid and is determined less by discourse-semantic considerations, (2) that Insular Scandinavian develops a preference for left edge placement of features which ‘identify’ the referent of the noun (3) that noun phrases in Faroese have a DP projection and a unified category determiner is developing. The data for this current section is taken from the Medieval texts, Seyðabrævið (The Sheep Charter), and Húsavíkarbrøvini (The Húsavík letters); early Faroese publications of the revival period, which will include the ballads, Evangelium Sankta Matteusa (a translation of Matthew’s gospel) and Føringatíðindi, the first newspaper written in Faroese; and Modern Faroese, in the form of data from novels.

112

From these manuscripts, I will provide a detailed account of the definiteness markers across the various time periods.

4.3.1 Medieval Faroese: Evidence from Seyðabrævið and Húsavíkarbrøvini The oldest extant manuscript of the Faroese language, Seyðabrævið, a legal charter written in 1298, addresses the Faroese people and it is written by the ealiest Norwegian settlers to the islands. Húsavíkarbrøvini/ the Húsavík letters are a series of 7 very short letters written in between 1403-1407, and these are generally accepted as the earliest attested linguistic source of the Faroese language. They are an important source, as they are considered to be an indicator of Faroese innovation (phonological) which represents the beginnings of divergence from Old Norse. For my survey, which charts change from Old Norse to Modern Faroese both sources provide invaluable data about developments in the language in the post-literary Old Norse period. My purpose in including the data set is for the sake of completeness: i.e. that I have investigated all historical sources. In terms of the grammar, very Early Faroese is extremely close to Old Norse. From the limited data set, however, there are some patterns which are worthy of note, despite the fact that the earliest sources differ from each other quite dramatically in terms of text type. The fact that Seyðabrævið is a formal legal charter further limits the type of data we can expect to find. This is especially true of definite markers, because the text makes extensive mention to potential, rather than actual, referents. With the above caveats in mind, however, the data provide some insight into earlier usage. Generalising across the two medieval texts, it would seem that when syntactic definiteness markers are present, they were far more commonly demonstratives, than definites represented by the bound or free hinn. Hinn is used in Seyðabrævið with numerals and superlatives. In all other contexts, demonstratives are used. In terms of placement, they are positioned generally in front of the noun, except in the case of relative clauses. In the case of both adjectives and demonstratives, there is a modicum of evidence is in support of the idea that nominal syntax was moving towards a more rigid order. The first example, taken from Húsavíkarbrøvini make mention of ‘goods’ which seem to be

113

given in the discourse context. Usually, in the case of an activated, topical referent would follow the noun. At (137-138) though it sits before the noun.

(137) Hon visti ad Guðrun siuhgurdar, kona Anbiornar Gudleiksson Husa vik She knew that Guðrun Siuhgurdar, wife Anbiorn.GEN Guleiksson in Húsavík ‘She knew that Guthrun Sigurthar, wife of Anbjorn Gudleissson in Husavik ..’

atti þessa peningha í garð. had these goods in yard ‘had these goods in her outfield’ (HUS, 38:12)

(138) hon hafdi fingid Magnus fullt og lagligt wmbod wm allt þat gods She had found Magnus full and fit authority about all those goods ‘She had found Magnus to be a full and appropriate authority on all the goods’ (HUS, 45:9) With the exception of relative clauses, which still show some variability, the position of the demonstrative now also seems to be more rigidly prenominal. See the examples at (139-141).There is thus no longer a focalising strategy for indicating topic shift with adnominal demonstratives.

(139) Ollum monnum j færoyum þæim sem þetta bref sea æða hæyra All men in Faroes those who this letter see or hear ‘To all men in the Faroe islands who see or hear this letter ’ (HUS, 36:1) (140) j þesse fiogur bløð 0n these four pages ‘On these four pages.’ (SEYÐ, 45:12) (141) Nu gengr þessi saiðr aptr í þann haga Now goes this sheep back in that pen ‘Then this sheep goes back into his pen’ (SEYÐ, 47:34) The demonstrative þa, not hinn is used with relative clawing that hinn has not extended its uses. This element precedes the noun in the majority cases.

114

(142) ða luti su þæim þotte vm bunadarbolken askorta Those things which to them.DAT thought in agricultural law.DEF lacking ‘Those things that seemed to them lacking in the agricultural law’ (SEYÐ, 45:10) (143) sva ok þæir men er inn taka husbændr Then also thoese men who in take householders ‘Then there are those who take in householders’ (SEYÐ, 46:42)

(144) Um þa men er annars vinnv men taka For those men who anothers work men takes ‘For those men who take away another’s servants’ (SEYÐ, 49:29-30)

Placing the demonstrative after the noun in relative clauses (145-146) is less frequent than is the case in Old Norse, where it represented the unmarked pattern. In the Old Faroese language, postnominal antecent pronouns remain in the grammar but as a more marked option.

(145) hovu ver ok spurt vm uvenio þa sem hevir fram farit have we also heard about bad custom that which has forward come ‘We have also heard about the bad custom which has started’ (SEYÐ, 47:1)

(146) Ef maðr vill taka sin lomb eða gamlan saið þann sem unmarkaþr er If man will take his lamb or old sheep that which marked is If a man will take his lamb or old sheep that have been marked’ (SEYÐ, 47:15)

Since there are no definite noun phrases with postmodification, it is impossible to assess whether hinn was still used for this purpose. Adjectives can occur either before or after the noun, and there does still seem to be some association with backgrounding and focusing information. The adjectives in the corpus were predominantly prenominal

(147) þæir men er skemma goða men í orðum eða verkum Those men who harm good men in words and deeds ‘Those men who harm good men in word or deed’

115

(SEYÐ, 51:13) (148) Virðuligi harra Noble lord ‘Noble Lord (SEYÐ, 45:19) (149) Anlegr fader ok hin kærazste win Spiritual father and the dearest friend ‘Spiritual father and best friend’ (SEYÐ, 45:6) (150) Eptir laga domi Following lawful judgement. ‘According to lawful judgement’ (SEYÐ, 46:22)

(151) Af þi at oss lizt sva ok skynsaman monnu Since that to us seems so and wise men-DAT ‘Since that sems so to us and to wise men’ (SEYÐ, 47:16)

In some instances, they can seem to have a contrastive dimension (152) Gamlan saið Old.STR sheep ‘An old sheep’ (SEYÐ 47:13) Adjectives can also be found after the noun (153) Til ii vitni skilrik Of two witnesses trustworthy ‘Of two trustworthy witnesses’ (SEYÐ, 53:6) (154) Huorsu morg pund ensk þa var henna hrentadi How much pound English that was to her profited ‘How many English pounds she earned’ (HUS 42, 21-22)

In these case, both do read as non-restrictive/ contrastive. It is sort of assumed that witnesses will be trustworthy. The same is true here of the idea of the English pound. English is part of its name. It does not distinguish in the same way as the Faroese and Danish kronar would. Numerals generally sit before the noun, as demonstrated by (155-157)

116

(155) Þriu fingrgull ok tuau silfr ker ok eitt stetta ker Three rings and two silver vessels and a vessel(with foot) ‘Three rings, and two silver vessels and a vessel (with a foot) (HUS, 39: 6-7) (156) Þrier motlar med skinumok kyrlaner ok syrkot Three mantles with skin and tunic and surcoat ‘Three mantles made out of sheepskin and a tunic and a surcoat’ (HUS, 39:9)

(157) Hrentaði leigan a huerium tolf manadem Profited rent-DET at every twelve months ‘Earned rent every twelve months’ (HUS, 38:25) There is some degree of variability with qunaifiers, but there is a general tendency for these to be place after the noun, if there is an adjective present. Compare (158) to (159- 160).

(158) Margan saið Many sheep ‘Many sheep’ (SEYÐ 49:11) (159) Fatókir men allir Poor men all ‘All poor men’ (SEYÐ 46:41) (160) Þan saið allan Those sheep all ‘All thoese sheep’ (SEYÐ 50:23) Genitives (161-162) tend to follow the noun (161) Ef huskarlar bonda hitta hval If servant.PL farmer.N.PL.GEN meet whale ‘If the servant of a farmer encounters a whale’ (SEYÐ 49:32) (162) J haglendi annars mans In pasture another.GEN man.GEN ‘In another man’s pasture’ (SEYÐ 45:49)

There are also prenominal genitive possessors, which refer to proper names. Husavik also has a masculine marking instead of a feminine one (Husaviks instead of Husavíkar).

117

(163) Vm Husa viks gods About Husavík.GEN goods ‘About the Husavík horde’ (HUS, 36:7) In this case, the hans refers to the most recent prior referent

(164) Efmadr gengr haglendi annarz manz ok ræckr brott fænad hans If man goes outfield second man and drives away livestock his ‘If a man goes into the outfield of a second man and drives his livestockaway (SEYÐ, 45: 48) Possessive adjectives/pronouns tend to sit after the noun in default order as was the case in Old Norse. If there is a contrastive reading, then the possessive will precede the noun. The examples at (165-167) represent the former and the example at (168) represents the latter. (165) Ihaglenden hans Outfield his ‘His outfield’ (SEYÐ, 45:59) (166) Loð sína Wool his ‘His wool’ (SEYÐ, 46:16) (167) Nagrannar hans Neighbour his ‘His neighbour’ (SEYÐ, 50:28) (168) Skal han fatil ii vitni skilrik at þat er hans sauðr Shall he provide two witnesses trustworthy that that is his sheep ‘He shall provide two trustworthy witnesses accounts that this is his sheep’ (SEYÐ 47:24) While there is arguably an added degree of rigidity in terms of word order, there is also a clear indication that the system of co-reference as opposed to contrastive reference is still productive. The aim of this current section was to investigate medieval sources of Faroese and consider the ways in which this language variety differs from common western Old Norse, and thus providing evidence of the birth of Faroese as an independent language. The data provides due hints that change may be afoot. These are a marginal preference for premodification in the case of demonstratives and adjectives, with postmodifcation

118

being encountered less frequently than premodification. Secondly, this generalisation does not hold for possessive pronouns, elements which can still productively show the link between co-reference and contrastive reference. The final point which is worthy of note is the prenominal genitive in Húsavíkarbrøvini with seemed to have a masculine, rather than a feminine ending. Within the context of genitive case marking, these changes are both significant. If these suggestions can be upheld, then this would mean that the focus slot in the noun phrase was beginning the process syntactisation.

4.3.2 Evidence from the Revival Period 1770-1890 In this section, I examine word order and definiteness marking in three key texts of the period associated with language revival, beginning at 1770, the date which corresponds with the publication of the Faoese ballads, up until the 1890s, the date of the publication of the first Faroese newspaper Fóringartíðindi. In the middle of these two dates is the publication in 1817 of the Evangelium Sancta Matteusar, a translation from Danish into Faroese of St Matthew’s gospel. It is written by a Faroese Minister Jóhan Hendrik Schrøter in a script which was very similar to the first orthography developed by Jens Christian Svabo for the translation of the ballads in in the 1770’s. This is the first prose text to be written in Faroese.

4.3.2.1 Evidence from Evangelium Sankta Matteuesar I begin by investigating Evangelium Sankta Matteusar, the first prose text, in Faroese and then compare the language to the poetic language of the Faroese ballads. The text clearly demonstrates that, by this stage in the language, Faroese had already developed a syntactic definiteness marker from the tann paradigm. The examples at (169-170) are some illustrative examples of double definiteness.

(169) Teir tolv disciplanar The twelve disciples.DEF ‘The twelve disciples’ (ESM 103, 20:17)

119

(170) Tann ungi maðurin The young man-DEF ‘The young man’ (ESM 99, 19:20)

It is interesting to note the difference between this very early translation of the bible and the later standardized version. Although only produced in the mid 20th century, the language of the Modern bible is very formal and replete with archaic structures. All possessive relations are marked in the genitive case, for instance, and the ‘archaic’ hinn is used almost exclusively as the definiteness marker on premodified nouns. Hinn is also used on nominalised adjectives. By comparing (171-172) it is clear to see biblical language (as represented by the extract from the Modern Faroese bible) is more formal and literary language than the loanguage represented from ESM, which is considerably older. Interestingly, though, it is double definite, which indicates that this is not simply a replication of the literary style associated with Old Norse, would have used syntactic hinn with a premodified adjective with no further definiteness marking on the noun

(171) Hin ungi maðurin The young man-DEF ‘The young man’ (BÍB, Matt: 19:20)

In Svabo’s translation, the opposite holds, both premodified nouns and nominalised adjectives take the tann paradigm, and in fact the any other example of hin found on the text was used in the meaning the other. Demonstratives/relative clauses, I found only one example in the text of the Icelandic style pattern of single definiteness.

(172) Tann heiliga staðin The holy.WK place-DEF ‘The holy place’ (ESM,157 C27:53) (173) Tey tveir fisharnar The two fish.PL-DEF ‘The two fishes’ (ESM, 80 15:35)

120

There would appear to be a link between formal usage and the employment of hinn instead of tann in Faroese of Modern period. In the case of single definite structures, which are to be found in ESM, it is typically the bound definiteness marker which is lacking, rather than a syntactic one, as in (174-175). (174) Tann æviga eld (ESM) Hinn æviga eld (BÍB) ‘The eternal fire’ (ESM 91 C18:9) (175) Tann æviga lív (ESM 101, 19:20) ævigt lív (BÍB) Det evige lív (Danish) ‘The eternal life’

It is clear in both of these contexts that the noun phrase in question refers to a uniquely identifiable entity and acts almost like a compound or proper noun terms. This may explain the absence of the bound definiteness marker. (177) also exemplifies another important fact about the language of this period: the extent to which the language of ESM seems to read like a direct translation of the Danish. This point will continue throughout this section. From ESM, there was also evidence of an indefinite article:

(176) Er íkilíknast ein husbonda, sum.. (ESM. P101, 20:1) Is like.MED a husband who….. Er líkt húsbónda, ið… (BÍB) Matt,20:1 ‘Is like a husband who’

(177) Við ein kong (ESM 94, Matt 18:23) Við kong (BÍB, Matt,18:23)

(178) Í himlinum og á jorðini In heaven-DEF and on earth-DEF ‘In heavn and on earth’ (ESM 10:25)

(179) Í himli og á jorð In heaven and on earth ‘In heaven and earth (BÍB)

121

At (176-179), I indicate a number of further differences between the modern bible and ESM: that is, (a) in the use of indefinite articles and (b) in the case of bound definite markers on the complements of prepositions. At (176-177), I demonstrate that ESM uses the indefinite article, whereas the Modern bible does not. These data reiterate the point made about the arcane nature of the writing style employed in the Modern bible. In (179) ESM has a bound definite marker for nouns which are the complement of a preposition; while the equivalent line of scripture from the modern Faroese bible has no definiteness marker. The example at (180) demonstrates two contrasts linked to definiteness marking, with the ESM data more closely reflecting Danish usage than the counterpart found in the MF bible.

(180) Sæl eru te fátæku í andini (ESM 12, C5:3) Salige ere de fatige i anden (Danish) Sæl eru hin fátæku í anda (BÍB) ‘Poor are the poor in spirit’

Danish and the ESM version mark the nominalised adjective with a definiteness of the Old Norse demonstrative sá paradigm. They also mark the word spirit with definiteness. In contrast, The Modern Faroese bible uses hin and has no definite marking on the word anda (spirit). The lexemes and the constructions used are very close to the Danish original. We can establish from this data set that Faroese had already developed a syntactic marker of both definiteness and indefiniteness by the year 1770. The standard marker of definiteness came from the ancient Old Norse demonstrative paradigm sá which was traditionally used with relative clauses, not as a generalized definiteness marker. Double marking of definiteness was attested within a single phrase. In terms of word order, there was no variation with respect to the definite markers/demonstratives: they always occurred was always prenominally. The absence of any radical variation in the representation of definite structures would indicate that the system is likely to be firmly established and stable by this period. In terms of possessor-possessee ordering, however, there was far more variation. The most striking thing to note was with respect to variation in the ordering of the genitive

122

possessor with respect to its possessum. Sometimes the possessor comes before the noun and sometimes after. There were some decipherable patterns, which can be expressed in the following generalisations. (1) If the possessor noun was a proper noun, then seemed to be acceptable to be positioned prenominally, and (2) there were some very common/ almost set biblical expressions which always followed the order possessor possessum. These are exemplified below.

(181) Himmerikis ríki Heaven’s kingdom ‘Kingdom of heaven’ (ESM, 17 C4:19)

(182) Helvitis portur Hell’s door ‘the door of hell’ (ESM,84 C16:18)

(183) Í harrans navn In Lords’s name ‘In the Lord’s name’ (ESM,107 C12)

(184) Israels børn Israel’s children ‘The children of Israel’ (ESM, 151 C27:9)

There was also the following examples (184-185), which in both cases (ESM and MF bible) have a postnominal genitive possessor, but which differ in the ordering of elements within the possessor phrase itself. (185) Staður hins stóra kongs Place the.GEN great.WK king.GEN ‘The great king’s place’ (ESM, 20 C5:35)

Staður kongsins hins stóra Place king.GEN-DEF the.GEN great.WK (BÍB)

123

(186) Tann lívandi Guds sónur The living God.GEN son ‘The son of the living God’ (ESM, 83 C16:16)

Sónur hins lívandi Guds Son the.GEN living god-GEN ‘Son of the living God’ (BÍB) Genitive phrases of the type exemplified at (180-183) were not attested in the MF bible, but were frequent in ESM. To take one example, the phrase himmerikis ríki heaven’s kingdom, which in the Modern bible takes a postnominal genitive ríki himmerikis, occurred 30 times in the data in total. In 27 out of the 30 instances the genitive possessor occurred prenominally. Pronominal possessors generally occurred postnominally. I found no examples of a modified noun in these constructions in this particular data set. Another feature which is worthy of notes is that some of the possessive relations were expressed via the preposition ‘av’. In such cases, the Danish text employed this strategy. At (187) it is clear that the Faroese version from ESM is closer to the Danish than the Modern Faroese edition in using the periphrastic form. The Modern Faroese bible uses a genitive pronoun instead. (187) Ein maður hevur 100 seyður og ein av teimum…(ESM 92 12: 2) Et Menneske har 100 får og eet af dem….(Danish) A man has 100 sheep and one of them.DAT…. ‘A Man had a 100 sheep and one of them…’

Maður eigur 100 seyður og ein teirra…..(BÍB) Man had 100 sheep and one them.GEN….. ‘A Man had a 100 sheep and one of them…’

The majority pronominal possessors occur postnominally, with one or two exceptions. Titles also seemed to occur before the noun, whereas, in Modern Faroese and Old Norse they follow. (188) Við prophetanum Jeremiasi With prophet.DEF.DAT Jeremiah ‘With the prophet Jeremiah’ (ESM151 27:9)

124

(189) Við Jeremiasi Profeti With Jeremiah-DAT prophet ‘With the prophet Jeremiah’ (MFB) There were also periphrastic possessives. Here the Faroese seems very close to the Danish translation. The modern Faroese bible, though, uses a traditional genitive.

(190) Tindin á templinum (ESM 12 4:5) Tindingen af templet (Danish) Takbrún tempelsins (MF) ‘Eaves of the temple’

There were also a number of instances, including the one at (190) which suggest that the translator had been influenced by the word choice of the Danish original, while the MF bible opted for a more Faroese word. There is evidence that the text then was clearly influenced by the Danish at the level of word choice and syntax, which is hardly surprising, given that Danish was the language of the church. Many Faroese speakers felt very uncomfortable with the idea of expressing biblical ideas in Faroese at all. This is evidenced by the actions of a minister of the Northern Islands, who in 1824 wrote a letter to the Danish Bible Society, expressing that his parishioners did not find it appropriate to use Faroese in a religious context (Thráinsson et al. (2004: 378), citing Matras (1973).

4.3.2.2 Evidence from the Ballads In this section, I will provide some general observation about definite usage within the poetry and narrative texts of Hammershaimb’s Færøsk Anthologi (1891). As suggested above, the Ballads were first documented in 1770; these were then published by Hammershaimb after he revised the orthography to reflect etymological principles. The ballads as to be expected are written in literary style and they contain many relic features associated with an earlier grammar. For instance, there are numerous examples of the Old Norse syntactic pattern, which permitted the co-occurrence of a demonstrative/possessive adjective alongside a definite marker.

125

(191) Tað hit ljóta troll That the ugly troll ‘That ugly troll’ (BAL, 18:21)

(192) Tað er mítt hit hægsta navn It is my the superior name ‘It is my superior name’ (BAL, 33:31) There are also a number of examples of definite marked noun followed by weak adjective, or an indfinite noun followed by a strong adjective, as shown at (195-198) (193) Skipini stór Skip.DEF big ‘the big ship’ (BAL, 118:22)

(194) Dóttur tvær Daughter two ‘Two daughters’ (BAL, 45:15)

(195) Kapú blá Cape blue ‘Blue cape’ (BAL, 74:14)

Other definites with an adjective lack a bound suffix. The ‘tann’ and the ‘hinn’ are both encountered. (196) Tann breiða fjörð The broad firth ‘The broad firth’ (BAL, 92:29)

(197) Tann ungu svein The young boy ‘The young boy’ (BAL, 41.9) (198) Hin lítla kona The little woman ‘The little woman’ (BAL, 112:1)

126

There are many examples of prenominal genitives, with a proper noun possessor. This was also a prevalent pattern in the ESM data in the previous section. (199) Risans rádum Giant’s counsel ‘The giant counsel’ (BAL, 7:16)

(200) Hildibrands knæ Hildibrand’s knee ‘Hildebrand’s knee’ (BAL, 21:6)

(201) Bóndans kona Farmer’s wife ‘The farmer’s wife’ (BAL, 5:16) Unlike the patterns found in the earliest Faroese, however, the demonstratives and definite markers all occur prenominally without exception. Interestingly, possessives adjectives/determiners occur prenominally in the majority of cases, except where the possessum noun is a kinship terms, where the opposite pattern is more prevalent. In prose texts in Færøsk Anthologi (1891), do not employ archaic constructions, such as the coocurrence of demonstratives and definite article. The possessive in unmodified nouns generally follows the noun. The tann definite marker is used to the exclusion of hinn, as with the ESM text. There were no examples of premodifed nouns without a syntactic definite marker, occurring either pre or post-nominally. The early Faroese texts demonstrate a language for which the patterns of definite marking are contingent on register. High and literary registers employed relic constructions, which emulated the style of an earlier historical periods. The ballads and the MF bible both employ this style. The data from ESM further demonstrated that the superstrate relationship that existed between Danish and Faroese lead to syntactic influence, which is likely to have been more significant in the written language, since Danish was the language of instruction in both in church and school. I will return to issue of foreign influence and how this affected development in chapter 6.

127

4.3.3 Evidence from Føringatíðini (1890s) to Modern Faroese In this section, I will briefly describe my findings from the 1890s data, which come from the first Faroese newspaper Føringatíðini and compare these data to modern day usage. The data will be presented systematically according to the three distinct categories, which were analysed for their individual contribution to the ‘definite’ interpretation of the phrase in Old Norse. These are the bound and free definite marker; demonstratives; adjectives. To complete this section, I will discuss indefiniteness marking in Faroese. Each category will be discussed with respect to distribution and form. The overall aim of this section is to present empirical evidence to support the thesis that Faroese nominals have developed a dedicated D slot at the left edge of the phrase, this developing from a NP to DP structure. Evidence will be presented for the development of a syntactic category determiner which is positioned firmly in the D slot at the left edge of the phrase. The emphasis in this section is on the growth of syntactic structure rather than on feature distribution; the development from single to double definiteness will, therefore, be assigned a chapter of its own and will follow on from the current chapter. I will then assign a whole separate section on the ordering of possessives with respect to the noun. The rationale for assigning a full section to ordering is that that there is great deal of variation in the word order within possessive phrase Faroese. The phenomenon has previously found explanation in semantic and discourse pragmatic terms, which given ancestry is a tenable explanation. However, I will demonstrate that the patterns of distribution one finds can be neatly accounted for within the context of a developing determiner phrase.

4.3.3.1 Definiteness Marking: Føringatíndi to Modern Faroese We have already established that by 1770, the syntactic definite marker was a feature of the Faroese language, and that double definiteness could be attested. Because these facts have already been established, my investigation into the 1890s data will be discussed in direct contrast to Modern Faroese usage in order to establish what the key differences were, if any, between the two time periods. That is, I am looking for further signs of

128

development between the 1890s data and modern Faroese usage. I will, therefore, take the facts, as presented in Modern Faroese grammars as the starting point. According to sources on (Lockwood (1977), Thráinsson et. al (2004), Julien (2005), Petersen and Adams (2009), Present Day Faroese, there are two possible ways that definiteness can be expressed in a noun phrase: by means of a bound element on the noun, as in (202-203) or, if there is premodifying adjective, by means of a preadjectival syntactic determiner as in (205).

(202) Genta-n Girl.DEF ‘The girl’

(203) Maðurin á posthúsinum Man-DEF at postoffice.MAS.SG.DAT-DEF ‘The man at the postoffice’

(204) Maður-in sum eg tosaði við Man-DEF that I spoke with ‘The man I spoke to’

(205) Tann lítla genta-n The little-WK girl-DEF ‘The little girl’

In the case of a prenominal adjective, as in (205), when a syntactic marker of definiteness is employed, the noun must also be marked for definiteness by means of the enclitic/bound definiteness marker. While all varieties of Scandinavian have an enclitic or bound marker on the unmodified noun, Faroese aligns more with the patterns of distribution for definiteness marking found in the continental varieties, when there is an adjective present. Faroese exhibits a phenomenon known as ‘double definiteness’ which also occurs in Norwegian and Swedish (example 206 is from Swedish), though not Danish or Icelandic, (207-209) where the syntactic determiner and the bound definiteness marker are in complementary distribution.

129

(206) Den vita musen The white.WK mouse-DEF ‘The white mouse’ (Swedish, from Börjars 1998:26)

(207) Den rode hest The red.WK horse ‘The red horse’ (Danish, from Hankamer and Mikkelson, 2002: 138)

(208) Hinn gamli maður (Icelandic) The old.WK man ‘The old man’

(209) Gamli maðurin (Icelandic) Old.WK man.DEF ‘The old man’

Both Danish and Icelandic are single definite languages so, consequently, there will either be a syntactic marker of definiteness or an enclitic one, never both within the same phrase. For unmodified nouns, this is universally a bound marker on the noun. If an adjective is present then, for Danish, the definiteness marker must be syntactic; for Icelandic, however, this can either be a syntactic marker (for formal Icelandic), or a bound morphological marker in colloquial Icelandic. The example at (213) in which a premodified noun can occur without a syntactic marker of definiteness represent an older grammar of Faroese and can still be encountered in formal written texts but is more marked in the spoken language.

(210) Gamli maður-in Old-wk man-def ‘The old man’

A feature which is common to all the Scandinavian varieties is that a definite unmodified noun cannot be marked exclusively by means of an independent syntactic determiner, as in (211). If, however, the nominal phrase is the antecedent to a restrictive relative clause, then a syntactic determiner can be used, but in such cases, the noun would also be marked with a bound suffixed definite marker, as in (212).

130

(211) *Tann maður The man ‘The man’

(212) Tann maðurin sum tú elska Theman-DEF that you love ‘The man that you love’

The development of the definite article in Modern Faroese follows the common trajectory of demonstrative>definite article, and in the case of Faroese, develops from the demonstrative tann paradigm (see table 10). If stressed, ‘tann’ still operates with demonstrative force. TABLE 10 Faroese Tann Paradigm Singular Nom. tann tann tað Acc. tann ta/tí tað Gen. tess teirrar tess Dat. tí tí/teirri tí Plural Nom. teir tær tey Acc. teir tær tey Gen. teirra teirra teirra Dat. teimum teirra teimum

The tann paradigm is the most usual marker of syntactic definiteness in modern Faroese; however, the hinn paradigm, (table 10) is the standard form in more archaic and stylized or formal writing. It can be found relatively commonly in the print media in particular contexts, which will be described in section 3.4 of the current chapter.

131

TABLE 11. Faroese Hin Paradigm Singular Nom. hin hin hit Acc. hin hina hit Gen. hins hinnar hins Dat. hinum hinari hinum Plural Nom. hinir hinar hini Acc. hinar hinar hini Gen. hinna hinna hinna Dat. hinum hinum hinum Adapted from Thráinsson et al. (2004:124)

The emergence of a definite article is not the only change that has occurred in the system of modifiers and specifiers of the noun in Faroese, but constitutes just one among a number of changes which support the idea that Faroese is developing a firm determiner category. Many of the other observable differences link to the expression of definiteness marking. While these same patterns can be found in the 1890s data, a definite noun phrase with premodification could either simply have a bound definite marker on the noun, as is the case in Icelandic (213-216) or have both a syntactic and a bound marker of definiteness, as in (217-218). All examples from this section have been taken from the Newspaers Føringatiðindi for the years 1890-1892.

(213) Kann nýggji blaðstýrarín Can new newspaperdirector-DEF ‘Can the new director of the newspaper’

(214) Til stundandi presidentavalgið. To coming presidential election ‘The up coming presidential election’

(215) Sami hesturin, ið her stendur Same horse.DEF, that here stands ‘The same horse that here stands’

(216) Til yngsta barnið To youngest child-DEF ‘To the youngest child’

Or they can have both a bound and a syntactic marker of definiteness:

132

(217) At nevna hit gamla landið ‘móðurland’ To name the old country ‘motherland’ ‘To call the old country ‘motherland’

(218) Teir seinastu 14 dagarnar hevur.. The last 14 days have.. ‘The last 14 days’

A number of noun phrases, such as the following, in which the adjective seemed to be describing the noun rather than restricting its reference, there tended not to be a bound definiteness marker, as in (219-220). (219) Sigla tann salta sjógv. Sail the salty sea ‘The salty sea’

(220) Kasta teir sinum akkerum á tan hvita sand" Caste the their anchor-DAT on the white sand ‘Caste they the anchor on the white sand’

The data from (221-225) are taken from the Modern Faroese bible, which was published in 1965. For the MF bible data, all nouns modified by an adjective were headed by the syntactic definiteness marker hinn, not the modern definite article paradigm tann, suggesting emulation of a literary style. The majority did not have an accompanying bound definiteness marker.

(221) Hinna illu anda The evil spirit ‘The evil spirit’ (Matt, 9:34)

(222) Hinar burtmistu seyðir The lost sheep ‘The lost sheep’ (Matt, 10:6)

(223) Hit trúverda orð The true word ‘The true word’ (Bræv Paulusar til Titus,1:9)

133

Sometimes they are double marked for definiteness: (224) Hinar fimm talentirnar The five talents-DEF ‘The five talents’ (Matt, 5:16) (225) Hitt tronga portrið The narrow gate.DEF ‘The narrow gate’ (Matt, 7:13)

The most dominant pattern from these data is that Faroese requires a syntactic definite marker in the case of prenominal modification. There were a small number of examples which followed the Icelandic pattern (ADJ+ N-DEF). Lockwood notes that this pattern is still a possibility, especially in the written press (1977:107). There is some variation with respect to whether the phrases are single or double marked.

4.3.3.2 Indefiniteness: Føringatíndi to Modern Faroese A key difference between Old Norse and Modern Faroese is in the encoding of indefiniteness. It is usually argued that neither Old Norse, nor modern Icelandic have an indefinite article. That is, there is no obligatory marking of a noun as indefinite, either by syntactic or morphological means. What each language variety does have, however, is the einn which can be used in some contexts for singular noun count nouns, to carry the sense of ‘a certain’. Non-specific indefinites receive no marking. For Faroese, there is obvious development here. In the newspaper data of the 1890s which would come closer to the spoken version of Faroese, there would seem to be a regular indefinite marker, which has developed as a generalising of the numeral one to a wider set of contexts than was available in Older Faroese. While in ESM an indefinite marker was used quite consistently. In the modern bible data, the indefinite marker only seems to be used in the older interpretation of ‘a certain’. Observe the examples at (226-229) from the Modern Faroese bible (MFB).

134

(226) Og rødd komi av himli And comes from heaven ‘And a voice comes from heaven’ (Matt. 4:17)

(227) So búsettist hann í bygd sum Nazareth Thus lived he in town that is called Nazareth ‘Thus he lived in a town that is called Nazareth’ (Matt. 2:23)

(228) Nú komu ein spitalskur At that point came a leper ‘At the point a leper came’ (Matt. 8:2)

(229) Ein arbeiðskona ein onnur genta A workwoman one other woman ‘A workwoman one other woman’ (Matt. 26:71)

These data again support the idea that the modern Faroese bible represents a more archaic/formal and stylised version of Faroese, while the newspaper data more closely mirrors the spoken vernacular. The indefinite article broadly corresponds to the English indefinite marker, but it is not used in all contexts in which it would be found in English. Lockwood (1977:109) notes that it is not used in predicate noun phrases or if the interpretation is clearly non-specific.

(230) Snæbjørn var frílíker seyðamaður. Snæbjørn is excellent shepherd ‘Snæbjørn is an excellent sheperd’ (Lockwood 1977:109)

(231) Bergljót hevur fingið sær hatt til veturin Bergljót has found himself hat for winter.DEF ‘Bergljót gor himself a hat for the winter’ (Lockwood 1977:109)

The development of an indefinite article means that Faroese now has symmetry within its article system. That Faroese has developed a lexical indefinite determiner is one of the fundamental differences at the level of nominal syntax between the two Insular varieties:

135

Faroese and Icelandic. This indefinite determiner, in common with many (Germanic) languages, developed from the numeral one. Like the definite article, the indefinite determiner inflects for number, gender and case (see table 12). TABLE 12. Faroese Indefinite Paradigm Singular Nom. ein ein eitt Acc. ein ein-a eitt Gen. ein-a ein-a ein-a Dat. ein-um ein-i / ein-ari ein-um Plural Nom. ein-ir ein-ar ein-i Acc. ein-ar ein-ar ein-i Gen. ein-a ein-a ein-a Dat. ein-um ein-um ein-um Adapted from Thráinsson et al. (2004:91)

More unusually among the Germanic languages, Faroese also has a plural paradigm of the indefinite article, which is required with pluralia tantum nouns, such as ‘trousers’- einar buksur, to denote the sense of ‘a pair of trousers’. The indefinite determiner adds the sense of ‘one pair’, so in its absence the ‘buksur’ would denote the sense of ‘some’ trousers, and thus would be less specific regard to the number of items involved. In general, however, plural indefinite nouns occur without an indefinite article, as is the case in English and most other Germanic languages. Conversely, singular count nouns with an indefinite interpretation require the presence of an indefinite article in Faroese, as in English and Danish too. The newspaper data from the 1890s demonstrate that the indefinite article was already a firm feature of the language by the 19th century. It will be remembered that the bible data of the same period used the ein paradigm to render the interpretation ‘a certain’, as is the case in Old Norse and Modern Icelandic, so represented older usage, but was not required syntactically with all indefinite NPs. The obligatory use an indefinite determiner with a singular indefinite noun means that Faroese is more closely aligned to the Continental Scandinavian languages than its Insular sister language, Icelandic, which does not require indefinite nominals to be overtly marked for indefiniteness in the syntax. An unmarked noun in Icelandic can thus render both a specific and non-specific reading. The syntactic marker of indefiniteness is the

136

only means by which unmodified nominals can explicitly mark indefiniteness; there is no equivalent bound marker of indefiniteness to match its definite counterpart. Thus any noun phrase with an indefinite interpretation will require the presence of the syntactic marker. Marking is not contingent on the presence of a prenominal adjective as is the case with the determiner. While Danish, Swedish and Norwegian have a small number of gender and number distinctions within the indefinite determiner paradigm, it should be noted from the chart that Faroese also distinguishes for case.

4.3.3.3 Demonstratives: Føringatíndi to Modern Faroese Traditionally, in Old Norse and Older Faroese, the demonstrative would generally have occurred with a bare noun, whether or not there was an adjective present, see (232-234).

(232) Sá maðr ‘That man’ ‘That man’ (Old Norse) (233) Þessari hinni fátœkri konu These the poor women ‘These poor women’ (Old Norse) (234) Hoyrir hesi orð Hear these word.PL ‘Hear these words’ (BÍB)

Demonstratives are generally double marked for definiteness in Modern Faroese. It should be noted, however, that, while demonstratives can co-occur with only a definite marked noun, as in the examples at (235-236), the definite article cannot unless the nominal is the antecedent to a relative, as above.

(235) Hetta vatnið This water-DEF ‘This water’ (Thráinsson et al. 2004:96)

137

(236) Tú fert ikki at keypad handan bilin You go not to buy that car-DEF ‘You aren’t going to buy that car’ (Thráinsson et al. 2004:96)

However, this generalisation does not hold for the 1890s data taken from Føringatíndi. A good number of the demonstratives I collected in my sample of data did not take a bound definite marker. This is demonstrated at (237-240) with examples from Føringatíðindi.

(237) Hesu nátt This night ‘This night’

(238) Hetta hús This house ‘This house’

(239) Alla hesu talu All this talk ‘All this talk’

(240) Hendan stranga æðulóg This strict eider law ‘The strict eiderlaw’

The variability bespeaks uncertainty, and this could be evidence in support of the fact that this is an instance of change in progress. While this point is not explicitly stated by Lockwood (1977:108), it seems significant that the bound markers in the case of demonstrative examples are parenthesized.

4.3.3.4 Adjectives: Føringatíndi to Modern Faroese It was argued for Old Norse that the adjective could contribute a specific interpretation the noun. There is some evidence as is the case for Icelandic that the weak and strong adjectives themselves continue to contribute to the definiteness of the phrase. In the Oldest Norse, the adjective itself could act as a nominalised adjective, without any further syntactic marking. The following examples taken from the modern Faroese bible suggest that an indefinite marked adjective can itself designate an indefinite group of referents.

138

The definite counterpart requires the presence of hinn, such as the ones at (241-242). Both types are used extensively in the bible.

(241) Fylgdu eftir honum tveir blindir Followed after him two blind.PL.STR ‘Followed after him two blind men’

(242) Komu hinir blindu til hansara Came the.PL.NOM blind.PL.WK to him ‘Came the blind men to him’

In this grammar, Lockwood (1999: 111) exemplifies other contexts in which adjectives can stand alone and function as noun phrase. In Faroese, the terms ‘lítli’ (little one) and ‘Góði mín’ (my good one) are in common currency. Weak adjectives can also occur with bare nouns and be the only contributor to the interpretation ‘definite’.

(243) Av føstu jorð From hard.WK earth ‘From the hard earth’

(244) Í stóru verð In big.WK world ‘In the wide world

(245) Storu høll Great.WK hall ‘The great hall’

The idea that the adjective itself contributes to the interpretation of the NP is a position not widely argued for. Börjars and Payne (2013:13), for Swedish, for instance that it does not contribute a [±DEF] feature to f-structure. Rather the adjectival inflection is commonly associated with the function of agreement marking between the adjective and the noun. Icelandic and Faroese both provide evidence to support the claim that adjectival marking is not simply a redundant inflectional marker, but that is contributes both syntactically and morphologically to the interpretation of the phrase.

139

Firstly, in all syntactic environments, except where there is a premodifying adjective, there is an overt/visible maker of definiteness at the left edge of the phrase. This would mean that there is an asymmetry in the marking of definiteness, which has evolved since the syntactic marker hinn became an optional element, unless the weak/strong marking on the adjective itself could also be considered an overt marker of definiteness/indefiniteness. Evidence in support of the hypothesis that the weak/strong morphology on adjectives in Insular Scandinavian can itself signal (in)definiteness comes partly from the distribution of numerals in Icelandic. Numerals are declined 1-4 in Icelandic for number, gender and case but there is no distinction between strong and weak forms: viz, no definite/indefinite distinction. Observe the data presented at (246- 249), which present the principal patterns and restrictions on numeral placement. The syntactic distribution of numerals suggests that Icelandic has a requirement for the numeral to be preceded by a syntactic definite marker. The numeral itself can be the first element in the phrase only if the NP carries an indefinite interpretation. Numerals within definite NPs which do not have a syntactic marker of definiteness at the left edge must occur postnominally. Numerals still show some degree of variation.

(246) Þessar/mínar/hinar þrjár frægu bækur These/my /the three famous books ‘These/my/the three famous books’

(247) *Þrjár frægu bækurnar Three famous books-DEF ‘The three famous books’

(248) Þrjár frægu bækur Three famous books ‘Three famous books’

(249) Frægu bækurnar þrjár Famous books-DEF three ‘The famous three books’ (data set based on Thraínsson, 2007:118-119).

140

The numerals data highlight that it is fine for the numeral to precede the adjective, if there is some form of syntactic definite marker preceding it, or alternatively, if the NP has an indefinite interpretation. If there is no syntactic marker of definiteness, but the NP itself has a definite interpretation, then the numeral cannot precede the adjective, but must follow the noun and any postnominal posssessors and definite markers. The interesting thing is that this same principle does not hold for adjectives, whether, weak or strong, can precede the noun, without the requirement of a syntactic marker of definiteness. One potential explanation is that the weak marking on the adjective itself acts like a marker of (in)definiteness at the left edge of the NP in Icelandic, possibly older Faroese too. One possible conclusion to draw from this is that there is a preference for definiteness to be overtly marked at the leftmost edge of the phrase. Since adjectives can occur at the left edge of the phrase without the presence of a syntactic determiner, we can conclude that the ‘weak’ adjective itself satisfies this requirement. In such a case the (in)definiteness marking can be instantiated in Icelandic either by means of a morphological marker or by a syntactic determiner. If this does not take the form of a syntactic category D, as I argue it doesn’t, then the facts must be linked to ordering preference rather than a precedence rule. It is easy to find examples which fit the pattern of numeral placement exemplified above. The following examples taken from the same stretch of text clearly show that surface word order is contingent on the (in)definite interpretation of the NP itself. Examples (250-251) are taken from an Icelandic version of Matthew’s gospel (Matt 14:17-19) two lines apart.

(250) Vér höfum hér ekki nema fimm brauð og tvo fiska. We have here nothing except five loaves and two fish ‘We have nothing except five loaves and two fishes’ (Icelandic Bible)

(251) Þá tók hann brauðin fimm og fiskana tvo, Then took he loaf-DEF five and fish-DEF two ‘Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes’ (Icelandic Bible)

141

Faroese displays a strong tendency for retaining the hinn with a numeral in archaic/formal language, if the noun phrase is definite. So the bible extract which was presented for Icelandic in section would be communicated in Faroese as in (252):

(252) So tók hann hini fimm breyðini og fiskarnar báðar So took he the five bread-DEF and fish.PL.DEF both ‘So he took the five loaves and both of the fish’ (BÍB)

However, while infrequent in the Faroese bible data, it is possible to come across the numeral in a postnominal position for definite noun phrases. The following is from (Revelations, 1: 20) (253) Stjørnurnar sjey eru einglar hinna sjey samkoma, Star.PL-DEF seven are angel.PL.INDEF the.PL.GEN. seven church.PL.GEN ‘The seven stars are angels of the seven churches’ (Faroese Bible)

4.3.4 Summary of Diachronic Survey of Definiteness In this section, we have established that Faroese has developed a syntactic marker of definiteness from the demonstrative paradigm tann. There is evidence that this development had already taken place by the 1770s. As a parallel change, Faroese has also developed a syntactic indefinite marker. Demonstratives, syntactic definite markers with a premodified noun and indefinite articles in Faroese all occur prenominally, never postnominally, as was the case in Old Norse. This suggests that definiteness marking has begun to be associated with particular slots in the prenominal domain, in both Faroese and Icelandic. The data also demonstrate that Faroese permitted double definite structures by 1770; however, the 1890’s data suggest some degree of variation in the use of the bound definite marker alongside the syntactic marker. Faroese’s status as a double definite language and the exact distribution of both syntactic definiteness markers will be the focus of chapter 5. In this section, I have also demonstrated that the early Faroese translation was heavily influenced by the Danish original in word choice and syntax. This topic will be discussed in greater depth in chapter 6. For the remainder of the current chapter, I will provide further evidence of a developing determiner slot in the Modern Faroese noun phrase.

142

4.4 Determiner Category and Possessor-Possessum Ordering 4.4.1 Introduction In this section, I will consider both pronominal and adnominal possessors from the perspective of ordering alone. The rationale for assigning a whole section to this topic is due to the degree of variation that exists in the language, and to the conflicting views on the motivation for the variant word order patterns which can be read in the previous literature. It is my view that the changes which are underway in Faroese reflect the changing structure of the Faroese noun phrase, which appears to have developed/ be developing a DP projection. The data set in this section will enable a clear comparison between Old and Modern Faroese and provide evidence of a developing determiner phrase.

4.4.2 Previous Literature There is no absolute consensus in the literature about how pronominal possessor’s position with respect to their possessee noun in Modern Faroese, but this area of the grammar has received quite considerable treatment in the literature, as compared to other features of the language. Faroese speakers themselves often state that both noun+possessive and possessive+ noun are acceptable word orders and that the options are essentially in free variation or, at the very least, constitute stylistic variants. Some scholars are more definite with respect to acceptable versus unacceptable usage. In Old Norse, the variation in the surface order of the possessor with respect to the noun was largely determined by pragmatic factors, with the fronted possessor signalling that it carried contrastive focus, and thus contrastive reference. This account is still considered an accurate approximation of usage in present day Insular Scandinavian by Delsing, who notes that the default position for a possessive pronoun is postnominal (1993:156). According to this account, possessors are prenominal only if they are being preposed for emphasis or to indicate a contrast. It is thus argued that the Old Norse system of ordering is still largely intact in present day Faroese. In direct contradiction to this point, it is acknowledged by Delsing that postnominal possessors are considered a little archaic and

143

are on the decline in the spoken language, thus Delsing hints at, but does not elaborate upon, how the spoken language differs from the written language in terms of the factors which motivate linear ordering. The facts as presented by Delsing are largely true of one Insular variety: viz, Icelandic. However, these facts do not accurately represent the situation in Modern Faroese. There are many scholars who do not wholly concur with this account (Hamre 1961; Lockwood1955; Barnes & Weyhe 1994 and Barnes ; Stolz and Gorsemann ,2001;Thráinsson et al. 2004; Adams and Petersen (2009). In these works the situation presented is far more complex. Like Delsing (1993), Petersen and Adams (2009) also maintain that pragmatic motivations continue to determine the linear ordering of possessor and possessum in pronominal possessive phrases; however they also acknowledge that there are some key ordering distinctions which are semantically motivated. In the system described by Petersen and Adams (2009:57), it is argued that family relatives or kinship terms behave differently from non-kinship terms in that they usually occur postnominally irrespective of pragmatic interpretation. This would seem to suggest that there is no longer a syntactic distinction between my dad /pápi mín and the contrastive my dad / mín pápi. In all non- kinship relations, however, this pragmatic distinction continues to be represented by means of syntactic ordering.

(254) Hetta er bók mín This is book my ‘This is my book’

(255) Hetta is mín bók, ikki tín This is my book, not yours ‘This is my book, not yours’

The same is true of Modern Icelandic, see Thraínsson (2007:117). Petersen and Adams (2009) do not go on to demonstrate how an equivalent contrastive reading is achieved with kinship terms or which aspect of the grammar fulfils this role, if this pragmatic distinction is no longer determined by linear ordering. According to Adams and Petersen too then, the system which operated in Old Norse has remained largely unchanged. It is claimed that the possessive pronoun usually comes

144 after the noun except if the speaker wishes to emphasize the possessor, an argument also put forward by Henriksen 2000:21, according to Barnes (date) Adams and Petersen do, however, hint at the oversimplification of the system in acknowledging that “there is a great deal of flexibility” with respect to ordering, but very little in the way of further elaboration is given. Lockwood’s account (1977) is broadly similar, but states that, if a noun is already qualified by an adjective, then it is more common for the possessive to precede the adjective+ noun unit. This pattern of usage is confirmed in the study by Hamre (1961). Hamre asserts that the more usual order in the case of a premodified noun is prenominal. This is corroborated by statistical data which indicate that this is the case in 92% of examples within his corpus. The remainder of the data are less conclusive. In the case of an unmodified noun, there was a 60/40 split in favour of a prenominal adjective. Håkon concludes that, in colloquial usage, it is now more common for the possessive to precede the noun, and this trend he attributes to Danish influence. However, it is the reverse order noun+possessive which he considers more authentic colloquial Faroese. Barnes contributes a number of significant points to the debate. He notes that the use of possessive pronoun+ noun is used less frequently as a construction than prepositional circumlocutions. These are particularly common in the case of body parts and “where the sense of ” is strong (63). Barnes also carries out a sample of informant testing which highlights that the choice of construction is sensitive to both the semantics of the noun and the pragmatic context. He notes that mín skuld is far more acceptable than skuldin hjá mær if the notion of the possessor was being emphasized. In his sample of data taken from the 1890s Faroese newspaper føðingatíðindi, Barnes notes that possessor followed by noun is more common than noun-possessor. Stolz and Gorseman (2001) attribute the motivation for surface ordering patterns to semantic factors. They argue that the pronominal system in Faroese provides evidence of a semantically, as opposed to grammatically, motivated distinction between possessive alienability versus inalienability. A key claim is that Faroese data provides counterevidence to the claim made by Nichols (1992:119) that “inalienable possession is found almost exclusively, and very often, in languages which use head marked

145

possession.” The aim of the paper by Stolz and Gorsemann then is to argue, contra Nichols, that dependent marking and the alienability-inalienability distinction can go together if one considers semantic as well as structural facts. Since the debate surrounding the structural versus semantic encoding of (in)alienability is orthogonal to the present discussion, it will not be elaborated any further. Instead the focus will be on the extent to which it was convincingly argued that the ordering of pronominal possessor in relation to its possessum can be understood in terms of the semantic distinction between alienable versus inalienable possession. The basic distinction for the alienable/inalienable contrast in Stolz and Gorsemann is based upon Heine’s hierarchy of inalienable relations. The following list is taken from Stolz and Gorsemann (2001:562) (i)kinship roles (ii)body parts (iii)relational spatial concepts (top, bottom, interior) (iv)parts of other items (branch, handle) (v)physical and mental states (strength, fear) (vi)nominalisations where the possessum is a verbal noun (his singing, planting,) (vii)individual concepts (name, voice, smell shadow, footprint)

Inalienability reflects a more intimate relation between the possessor and the possessum which is “less easily disposed of” whereas in the case of alienable possession, the relation between the possessor and possessum is of a looser kind (Stolz and Gorseman, 2001:559). The data for the study by Stolz and Gorseman were collected from a range of prose texts dating from 1979-1996 and provides a quantitative survey of prenominal versus postnominal ordering of the possessor. According to their data, possessive pronouns occur more frequently than their prenominal counterparts, accounting for around 55% of the all tokens. This they take as firm evidence against the claim that postnominal possessives are on the decline. However, the figure 55% constitutes just over half of the examples collected so it is clear that the grammar is still in a state of flux. The statistics

146 themselves also suggest that linear ordering is motivated by factors other than purely pragmatic ones, since we would surely not expect to find that 45% of our examples require the possessor to be emphasized or require a contrastive interpretation. A final problem is that this statistic is that it is based on tokens rather than types of possessee nouns, which means that a high percentage of familial terms, for instance, would have skewed what the findings are telling us. From the quantitative survey, it is also argued that there is clear evidence showing that linear order is to some extent semantically motivated. 90% of the postnominal examples were kinship terms. Some of the other examples of postnominal possession related to other intimate social relations or body part terms. However, the association of linear order with inalienable possession is weakened by the fact that both kinship terms and body parts and words expressing intimate social relations can also occur prenominally and not always where the possessor is in any obvious way being emphasized. For tokens involving attributive adjectives or numerals, it was shown that the preference is for prenominal possessors irrespective of the semantics of the possessum noun. Stolz and Gorseman attribute this to the fact that they are syntactically “heavy” possessed nouns; yet in the majority of cases the attribute in question is simply ‘egin’ or ‘best’, neither of which can be said to be syntactically heavy either in terms of the length or the hierarchical complexity of the string. In the remainder of this section, it will be demonstrated that observed changes to the factors which determine the positioning of the possessive with respect to the noun are, to a large extent syntactically/grammaticalically motivated, and that these changes are part of the development of a D-node in Faroese. The apparent pattering according to alienable inalienable possession is driven largely by the fact that proper nouns/kinship terms and body part expressions typically follow the noun in current usage. In addition to the word order changes, the chapter will also consider the ways in which possession and definiteness marking interact.

147

4.3.4 Presentation of Data: Possessors-Possessee Ordering 1890 to Present 4.3.4.1 Data from Føringatíðindi In Føringatíðindi pronominal possessors can occur prenominally without rendering a contrastive interpretation as would have been the case in Old Norse. A good half of the examples gathered in my corpus for the 1890s data had a prenominal possessor, which makes it unlikely that so many intended to invoke a contrastive interpretation. In the modern bible data, the pronominal possessor must be postnominal unless contrasted, as in Older Faroese and Icelandic. (256) Hansara starv His staff ‘His staff’

(257) Trúgv sínu Belief his.REF ‘His belief’

This first data set related to noun phrases without premodification; but similarly with a premodifying adjective, the position of the possessor was predominantly prenominal in Føringatíðindi, as shown by examples (258-259). (258) Ein av okkara Donsku prestum One of our Danish priests.DAT ‘One of our priests’

(259) Senda okkara bestu heilsu Send our best wishes ‘Send our best wishes’

We had established that the MF bible uses the traditional genitive almost exclusively in the marking of possessive relations, see (260-261) as representative examples.

(260) "Gev mær higar høvd Jóhannesar doypara á fati!" Give me here head Johannnes.GEN Baptist on plattr ‘Give me here the head of John the Baptist’ (Mark, 6: 25)

(261) Tit eru salt jarðarinnar You are salt earth.GEN ‘You are the salt of the earth’ (Matt 5:13)

148

The 1890s newspaper data, however, suggest that while traditional postnominal genitives were still to be found, as in (262), this was not the most common way of marking possessive relations.

(262) Elstu sonur bóndans. Oldest son farmer.GEN ‘The farmer’s oldest son’

Even where genitives were to be found, they were usually postnominal as traditional genitives are. The majority of the examples within the colloquial Faroese corpus of 1890s data have a prenonimal possessor, as exemplified by the following two examples. The examples with a genitive possessor placed postnominally are more limited in number, and are especially common when the possessee is a kinship term, as in the examples at (263-264).

(263) Ársins myrkastu tíð Year.GEN darkest time ‘The year’s darkest time’

(264) At tala landsins mál To speak country.GEN language ‘To speak the country’s language’

Adnominal genitive possessors provide further evidence still of the development of a left edge determiner slot. In Old Norse, Insular Scandinavian and Older Faroese, the unmarked position for a genitive possessor was postnominal, though these elements could in certain contexts occur prenominally, i.e. for emphasis or contrast. In the modern day language genitive marked phrases are encountered far less frequently in the spoken language, due to the fact that the genitive as a case form appears to be in decline. There are, however, plenty of genitive marked phrases to be seen and heard in colloquial Faroese, most commonly those from the masculine singular paradigm, with the ‘s’ case marking, but ‘ar’ and ‘a’ genitive endings are still common in the case of place names. In those instances where the genitive does remain, it occurs prenominally, though rare

149

exceptions can still be encountered of postnominal genitives, again especially in very formal written registers.

(265) Kongsins fóðingardag King-GEN birthday ‘The king’s birthday’

(266) Felags bókasavnsskipanina Company-GEN libraryorganisation-DEF ‘The company’s organisation of the libaray’

(267) Í hølunum hjá Havnar telvingarfelag In premises.DAT-DEF at Torshávn.GEN chess club ‘In the premises of Torshávn’s chess club

The prenominal rule cannot be absolute, due to data such as the following:

(268) Fyrsta føroyameistaraheitið í søgu felagsins First Faroese championship in history.DAT institution.GEN ‘The first Faroese championship in the institution’s history’

The above mentioned genitive possessors can take the place of the definite article in satisfying the syntactic requirement that a syntactic determiner must occur before to the left of the adjective and the noun.

(269) Landsins besta fótbóltsspælara Country.GEN best.WK footballplayer ‘The country’s best football player’

(270) Jógvansa nýggja bók Jógvan-poss new.WK book ‘Jógvan’s new book’

With respect to pronominal possessors, there seems to be a greater degree of variation, and little consensus as to the factors which seem to be motivating the variant ordering possibilities. What is clear, however, is that this area of the grammar is undergoing change. The following section is an attempt to survey the current trends and recent

150

changes and provide evidence to support the proposal that the changes are indicative of some underlying change to the grammatical system. Conceptualising change as a change to the underlying abstract system.

4.3.4.2 Possessor-Possessee Ordering in Modern Faroese This section considers possessor-possessum ordering in current usage. The data from this present study supports the claim that the linear ordering of possessive pronouns with respect to their possessum noun is, in part at least, syntactically motivated. The data was taken from a number of sources, including modern Faroese prose texts (1990-2012), newspaper texts, and from the Faroese corpus FTS which is just one of the corpora housed at Språkbanken. From this preliminary enquiry, most notably as a result of the data collected from prose texts, it is clear that there remains a great deal of variation with respect to linear ordering of the possessor and the possessum in Faroese and that no one of the grammars or previous sources has yet neatly captured how the system works. While the actual facts of usage themselves are very messy, as one would expect if this area of the grammar is in the process of change, that doesn’t mean that we cannot abstract over the data to describe changes in the frequency of various surface word order patterns to see if they reflect hypothesized changes to the underlying abstract grammatical system. My findings are as follows. It is clear from the work on prose texts that post- versus prenominal ordering is not in free variation, but is highly systematised with differences in usage occurring only when the system of one author is compared with that of another. This would suggest the idea that variation is linked to idiolect and that there are a number of competing grammars existing side by side in Faroese, which is hardly surprising given the geographical spread and insular nature of some of the Faroese communities. Some authors seem to have a modern writing style, while others retain clusters of linguistic features which are indicative of a more conservative dialect grammar. Two of the 10 novels which were analysed for the linear ordering of possessive pronouns appeared to be relatively conservative in their marking of possession as well as in the marking of definiteness. In one of the texts there were a high number of noun phrases

151

without a syntactic definiteness marker, and a high number of postnominal genitives phrases. In this text there were double the number of postnominal possessor phrases (81) than prenominal (40). Of the 81 postnominal examples without attributive adjectives, 39 had possessum nouns which were kinship terms and 41 were non-kinship terms. The second novel in question was an English novel translated into Faroese by Hjalmar Petersen who co-authored the 2009 grammar mentioned in the introduction. The linear ordering in this text follows the pattern described in his grammar. The default position for the positioning of possessive pronouns is post-nominal, with prenominal ordering being used to emphasize the possessor. In this text 181 of a possible 215 of the possessive phrases had a postnominal possessor. There was one clear tendency that was not highlighted in his grammar, and that was the in the position of pronominal possessors with respect to abstract type nouns. The remaining 25 prenominal examples were not all examples of an emphasized possessor, but were also related to the nature of the possessum noun. There is a tendency for abstract type nouns for instance to occur prenominally.

(271) Sín møguleiki (FTS corpus) His opportunity ‘His opportunity’

(272) Mínir tankar (Føringatiðindi) My thoughts ‘My thoughts’

This tendency finds parallels in the system of definite marking. It is very common in modern Faroese for an abstract noun to be marked definite by means of a syntactic, rather than a bound definiteness marker. This issue will be picked up in chapter 4 in which actual usage of the definite markers will be discussed I more detail. The other 8 novels seemed more modern in their use of language, as they demonstrated double definiteness in the majority of cases, and they had larger number of prenominal possessors. The figures for the other five novels collectively can be summarized as follows:

152

Collectively there were 267 possessive noun phrases with a pronominal possessor. Of these, the possessive pronoun occurred prenominally 177 times and postnominally 90 times. Of the postnominal examples, only 13 were not kinship terms. These involved nominals such as: navn (name); lív (life); hjarta (heart); eygum (eyes). A more significant and prominent pattern is decipherable with the possessive phrases involving attributive adjectives. The collective data for the five less conservative novels was as follows: Collectively there were 373 examples of pronominal possessive phrases involving attributive adjectives. Of these only 6 of the examples had a postnominal possessive pronoun, with the remainder 367 having a prenominal possessive pronoun. A number of the postnominal examples are given below.

(273) Lítla dóttir hansara Little daughter his ‘His little daughter’

(274) Svørta veingjum sínum Black wings his ‘His black wings’

The data for pronominal possessor phrases with adjectives in the case of the ‘more conservative’ novels was as follows: Collectively there were 74 examples of possessive phrases with adjectival modification, of which only 10 involved a postnominal possessive pronoun.

(275) Grønu eygu hennera Green eyes her ‘Her green eyes’

(276) Ungi hjálparað hansara Young helper his ‘His young helper’

(277) Gamli vitur mín Old friend my ‘my old friend’

153

In all novels then there seems to be an overwhelming preference for a prenominal possessive pronoun in the presence of an adjective. This supports the claim that there is requirement for determiner marking at the left edge of the nominal phrase. The postulation of the development of a firmer syntactic determiner position at the left edge of the nominal phrase in Faroese is supported most clearly by the possessive structures which involve pronominal adjectives. In older forms of Faroese, the default position for the possessive pronoun was postnominal; thus if pronominal elements were present the adjective would precede the nominal while the possessive pronoun would follow as demonstrated below. A sample of data was also taken from the Faroese corpus of newspaper texts in which the first thousand examples of possessive phrases with an attributive element and first thousand examples of possessive phrases without modification were taken and analysed in terms of linear ordering. Similar trends were comparable to the data gathered from prose texts. 863 of the examples involving attributive adjectives had a possessor pronoun in prenominal position, whereas the remaining 137 were postnominal. While it is difficult to provide a definitive account of the motivations for postnominal placement within the group of examples involving adjectival adjectives, there are very striking parallels to the contexts in which I will argue a syntactic marker of definiteness is also not a requirement in Faroese either. It is common for the possessive pronoun to be postnominal, based on the form of the adjective. Thus it is common with superlative adjectives, nationality adjectives, and adjectives designating first, last, second etc. Obvious correlations will become apparent once we observe the contexts in which a syntactic definite article is not required in chapter 4.

(278) Størsta ynski hennara Biggest wish her ‘Her biggest wish’

(279) Fyrsti spurningur hennara First question her ‘Her first question’

154

(280) Yngsta barn mitt Youngest child my ‘my youngest child’

(281) Seinasti skúladagur teirra Last schooldays their ‘Their last school days’

However, while a good half of the examples follow the patterns just described. Of these a good number came within a prepositional phrase, which again is a significant context for the non-requirement of a syntactic definiteness marking. (282) Fleiri av søgum hansara Many of story.PL.DAT his ‘Many of the stories’

(283) Í private advokatvirki hansara In private legalwork his ‘In his private legal work’

(284) míni viðurskiftir í stóra blaði okkara My involvement in big paper our ‘My involvement in/with our paper’

The first 1,000 corpus examples of possessive phrases without premodification demonstrate approximately a 60:40 split with respect to linear ordering, with 603 examples having a pronominal possessor and 397 examples having a postnominal possessor. Within the set of postnominal possessors, 219 of the examples were kinship terms, such as beiggi (brother); pápi (father); omma (grandmother) ; faðir (father); foreldrum (grandparents) ;barn (child), and 178 were non-kinship terms. From within the group examples involving non-kinship terms, there were a number which related to body parts: lív mítt; andlit mitt; hjarta mínum; megi hennara However, there were also a substantial number that could not be considered inalienable in any sense and which form too heterogeneous a class to neatly classify.

155

(285) Valevni mínum Candidate my ‘My candidate’

(286) E-mail adressa hennara E-mail address her ‘Her e-mail address’

There were further examples involving: house, car, bag, teacher, work. These data cast doubt on the hypothesis that semantic alienability is the deciding factor; arguing for some syntactic motivation is a more tenable position. That there are a number of syntactic factors which do impact on the patterns observed. The presence or absence of the adjective would appear to be a key factor. It is also very common to have a postnominal possessor if the whole noun phrase is the complement of a preposition. The nature of the noun itself is also significant. Kinship terms act like proper nouns, so do not require a determiner element. Finally, an abstract noun will most commonly have a prenominal possessor. This is equally true of Icelandic. Some of these factors find parallels in the data for definiteness, which would seem to support the points being made here and this supports the claim that the motivation is more likely to be a syntactic than semantic. Further to this it was also demonstrated that syntactic definiteness markers and prenominal possessors cluster in some idiolects, whereas lack of a syntactic definiteness marker and postnominal possessors cluster together in other idiolects.

4.3.4.4. Factors Motivating Variation In this section, it has been demonstrated that Faroese has developed a syntactic determiner category. In Modern Faroese, there is now a symmetry in the article system, the language having developed both an indefinite and a definite article. There has been a growing trend towards a left edge marking of all specifiers of the noun. This has resulted in the development of a left edge determiner slot in Faroese and the recategorising of adnominal possessor phrases as determiner elements, which are also able to satisfy the requirements on adjectival usage: i.e. an adjective must be fronted by a syntactic marker of (in)definiteness or some other determiner element. I conclude that, while there is evidence of variation in the ordering of possessor with respect to possessum in colloquial

156

usage, the core motivating factor would seem to be syntactic: Faroese has developed the category determiner and it is a requirement that determiners precede the noun in the case of a premodified noun. If there is no adjective present, then there are other observable patterns, which seem to be equally significant for the positon and type of definite marker required in Faroese. These latter examples will be revisited in the following chapter on the distribution of definite markers in Modern Faroese.

4.5 Changes to Nominal Structure Old Norse >Faroese and Icelandic In this section, I will summarize the key developments which seem to have taken place between Old Norse and Modern Faroese from a diachronic perspective and then discuss some differences between Faroese and its Insular Scandinavian counterpart: Icelandic. Between Old Norse and the modern period, a number of important changes took place in the nominal phrase. In general terms, the nominal phrase became more rigid in structure, with very few of the ordering possibilities which were available in Old Norse being retained. It would seem, certainly at the level of nominal structure that word order variation could no longer be associated with the focalising function identified in Old Norse. The one exception to this is that the possessive element can still occupy both the prenominal and the postnominal slot and yield the same interpretations as were available in Old Norse: hence a fronted pronominal possessor can still yield a contrastive interpretation; whereas a postnominal possessor entails that the possessive relation is background information. This is especially true of Icelandic; this traditional function is now in competition with other syntactic requirements in Modern Faroese. The distribution of definiteness markers in Faroese have altered as the language has developed through a number of key stages since the Old Norse period. The most pertinent facts relating the nominal phrase in common Insular Scandinavian are as follows: Firstly, at some point after the literary Old Norse period, the noun became the morphological locus of definiteness marking irrespective of the presence or absence of adjectival modification. The syntactic definiteness marker hinn was no longer required in the presence of a prenominal adjective, except in very formal registers, in which case, the

157

hinn preceded the adjective and the noun remains unmarked for definiteness. This is the marked structure, however. A second key change between Old Norse and Modern Faroese relates to the fact that the ordering possibilities linked to discourse-semantic interpretations which were in evidence in Old Norse have been lost, except for the restricted contexts involving possessors listed above. Older Faroese and Icelandic have a rigid adjective-noun order. Both the noun and the adjective carry information inflectionally which relates to the definite/indefinite interpretation of the noun, while a syntactic marker of definiteness becomes largely obsolete outside of rather stylised usage. Each constituent of the phrase is now associated with a strict syntactic position. Quantifiers, demonstratives and adjectives precede the noun. The order is now more firmly: demonstratives < adjective < noun, as shown at (287)

(287) Þessi gamli maður This old man ‘This old man’

The unmarked position of the genitive possessor NPs was postnominal in Old Norse and continues to be so in Icelandic, unless the genitive possessor is the focus of a contrastive interpretation, in which case a proper noun can occur prenominally. This would seem to be true of proper noun possessors particularly, as demonstrated at (8). (Modern Icelandic data from Thráinsson 2007:93-95)

(288) Úr liði Guðmundar ríka From army Gudmund.GEN powerful.WK ‘From Gudmund the powerful’s army’ (Old Norse/ Faarlund, 2004: 22) (289) Bók stelpunnar Book girl-the ‘The girl’s book’ (Icelandic in Thráinsson 2007:93-95) (290) Bók Margrétar Book Margret.GEN ‘Margret’s book’ (Icelandic:Thráinsson 2007:93-95)

158

Péturs fyrirlestur Peter’s lecture ‘Peter’s (as opposed to someone else’s) lecture’ (Icelandic: Thráinsson 2007:9)

The data presented in chapter suggests that genitive phrase are in decline in Faroese and that should an adnominal genitive be used at all, then it will occur in prenominal position. Faroese differs from Icelandic in having developed a functional DP projection. Evidence was provided of the fact that Icelandic has a preference for (±DEF) feature marking in the prenominal domain. Faroese, though, has developed a syntactic requirement for left edge marking, which has resulted in the development of a new definite marker, a determiner category and a fixed determiner slot. From a diachronic perspective, both Insular Scandinavian languages have gained stricter word order, but Faroese now privileges syntax over morphology and demonstrates a preference for analytic marking.

4.6. The Growth of DP Structure The thesis has been organised in order to highlight the parallels between Old Norse and Modern Faroese in terms of language development and change within the nominal phrase. In both language periods, there has been growth of syntactic structure and this has resulted in a situation where old and new usage patterns are living side by side and particular features are reanalysed, adapted or lost in the process. A fuller account of the associated changes of a move to DP will follow in chapter 5. The most important points from this current chapter were that (1) across time the syntax has become more configurational and rigid. Faroese has also developed a DP projection. Figure 22 (overleaf) provides an approximate structure for Modern Faroese.

159

FIG.22

DP

(DEF) N’ AP N’ N’ PP N (POSS)

Even during the Old Faroese period, there is some evidence to suggest that the noun phrase develops a more configurational structure. There is less variation in word order, with demonstratives and adjectives occurring before the noun with fewer signs of variation. The move towards a more rigid word order, indicates the weakening of the expressive power of the focus domain, and ultimately its loss. It is easy to appreciate how the focus domain could be reanalysed as a domain associated with definiteness, since demonstratives, pronominal possessors and restrictive adjectives are the elements which usually occur prenominally. I, therefore, argue that the left edge becomes associated with ‘specifying, identifying the noun (definiteness marking), rather than anaphoric tracking or marking the precise cognitive status. With the loss of FOCUS comes the loss of contrast, thus definite adjectives and demonstratives occur before the noun irrespective. The result of this key change is a more clearly defined structure with a dedicated slot for each of the elements of the phrase. In addition to the loss of the feature FOCUS, there is also marginal evidence of change in the form of the definiteness markers. There is evidence from the medieval sources that the modern tann paradigm was being used instead of sa in the case of relative clauses, and that the tann paradigm was also sometimes used instead of hinn. This stage of development matches the development in Medieval Swedish where þæn takes over from hinn (Dahl 2010:127, citing Larm 1936). By 1800, Faroese had developed both a definite and an indefinite article which seemed to be obligatorily present in the case of either definite or indefinite reference. I suggest that by the 1800’s Faroese has developed a DP

160

structure, since it is now standard to ‘find the demonstrative tann acting as a definite marker at the left edge of the phrase. There has been a plethora of work written on the development of definite markers in Germanic and there have been some attempts to identify the conditions under which we would expect such a development to take place. One common idea is that the development of definite markers is linked to loss of case and for some languages, there is definitely some connection between these two events. However, it may be that loss of case and development of definite marking are symptoms of a more profound change which is underway in a given language. Loss of case does not seem to be a valid explanation for Faroese, since Faroese still has NOM, ACC and DAT case marking on both nouns and all specifiers and modifiers of the noun. In Faroese, I would argue that this development finds explanation in two key facts. (1) As stated above the focus domain becomes reanalysed as a specifier domain due to the rigidification of noun phrase structure. (2) The rigidification of noun phrase structure and configurationality is linked to a more general tendency in Faroese towards analytic, rather than synthetic marking. Rather than expressing synthesis and analysis as a binary opposition, I would express it as a general tendency towards privileging syntax over morphology. Data taken from the formal, archaic or poetic language indicate that Faroese once had a system which was similar to the present Icelandic system in that premodifiied noun did not require a presence of a syntactic definiteness marker.

As the noun phrase becomes more rigid in structure (as it moves towards configurationality), the noun is regularised as the locus of the feature +DEF, such that all noun phrases with or without an adjective have to have +DEF marking on the noun, unless a demonstrative is present which signalled activation status (and thus entails + DEF). This is because the weak adjective would have originally contributed [+ SPEC ] and the noun will contribute the feature +DEF. At this point, I argue that the Norse noun phrase becomes double definite, if an adjective is present. However, this is achieved by any one of two distinct means.

161

If the adjective was traditionally a [SPEC+] marker, then in most configurations of the major noun phrase constituents, there will be a presence if [+DEF] as the leftmost element, as demonstrated by the set of data at (292). (291) Þessi svarti This black.WK horse ‘This black horse’

Svarti hestrinn Black.WK horse-DEF ‘Black horse’

Þessi hestur This horse ‘This horse’

Minn hestur My horse ‘My horse’

Minn svarti hestur My black horse ‘My black horse’

Hinn svarti hestur The black horse ‘The black horse’

Hestrinn Horse-DEF ‘The horse’

These are the core configuration types for definite noun phrases. There is also a growing trend for the following in both Faroese and Icelandic Here the noun is marked definite because the possessor follows the noun.

(292) Hestrinn minn Horse-DEF my ‘My horse’

These data suggest to me that there is a preference for marking the left edge of the phrase with an overt sign that the phrase is definite. In Icelandic and possibly Old Faroese too,

162 the marking can be done via morphosyntactic features. This generalisation would then explain the data set we introduced on numerals. Numerals cannot be the first element in the phrase if the phrase itself has a definite interpretation. The question is how does this left edge requirement find expression in the grammar? Given that the requirement is satisfied with the morphological features, rather than a category of word, such as ‘determiner’, I do not think Icelandic has a DP structure. The generalisation would be best captured as OT-LFG style ranked constraints

Faroese differs from Icelandic only in that the syntactic definite feature at the left edge of the phrase must be instantiated syntactically, which is why there is a move towards the recategorisation of words as determiners. Apart from this, Faroese also requires the definiteness to be visible on the left edge of the phrase. It seems likely that changes to the status of the adjective coincided with the development of a syntactic marker of definiteness.

The development of both a definite and an indefinite article means that Faroese now has the syntactic rather than the morphological means to satisfy the requirement of left edge marking. This develops is the dedicated D slot. In this chapter data was presented to demonstrate that lexical and pronominal possessor must also now occur in the D slot in Faroese. The slot has developed, and is still developing into a determiner slot, rather than a slot for definite and indefinite articles.

4.7 Summary of Chapter In this section, it has been argued that between the period of Old Faroese and Medieval Norse, the noun phrase has developed a more rigid and configurational structure. This, in turn, lead to the weakening/ loss of expressive power of the FOCUS domain which had been fundamental to the structure of the Old Norse noun phrase. The prenominal domain is reanalysed as the position for specifiers of the noun, which is important for signalling the cognitive status of the discourse referents expressed by the noun. As part of the process of rigidification, the noun also becomes regularised as the locus of DEF marking.

163

This means that modified nouns are double marked for definiteness. The adjective contributes +/- SPEC and the noun contributes + DEF. While the focus in this chapter was again on the growth of structure, the emphasis in the following chapter will on feature distribution and providing a synchronic account of the distribution of definiteness markers in Modern Faroese.

164

Chapter 5 Double Definiteness in Faroese

5.1 Introduction In this chapter the distribution of definiteness markers in modern Faroese will be discussed in more detail, with special reference to the phenomenon of double definiteness. Now we have discussed the core changes from a diachronic perspective, the focus in this following chapter will be more oriented towards synchrony. The chapter aims to present empirical findings of the distribution of definiteness markers in Modern Faroese and in so doing address the issue of whether Faroese is, or is not, a double definite language. In this chapter, I will demonstrate that Faroese is double definiteness, and that double definiteness is instantiated both a c-structure and at f-structure. I account for the key change from single to double definiteness by appealing to two factors: the fact that Faroese has become more analytic and (2) changes to the syntactic status of the adjective. In focusing on these two key factors, I will attempt to address the key questions raised in the literature regarding double definiteness: why is double definiteness linked to premodifying adjectives. I will also use my analysis to articulate how Faroese, as a double definite language, differs from its Insular Scandinavian counterpart, Icelandic, and how double definite languages differ from single definite languages, such as Danish.

While double definiteness in Scandinavian has been widely discussed in the literature (Börjars, 1994, 1998; Svenonious, 1992; Börjars and Donohue, 2000; Hankamer and Mikkelsen, 2002; Julien, 2003 and 2005; Lohndal 2007) relatively little attention (Faroese data is given in Börjars, 1994 and Julien, 2005) has been given to double definiteness in Faroese, despite the fact that the phenomenon is of particular interest for a number of reasons. Firstly, that Faroese is double definite at all is surprising, given that its key linguistic influences are Icelandic and Danish, both of which are single definite languages. Faroese thus more closely aligns with languages such as Norwegian and Swedish in its use of double definiteness marking; and since the possibility of influence via prolonged contact is less likely for either of these languages, this leads us to question the very origins of the construction or at least what conditions existed in Faroese which gave rise to the development of the construction. A second reason that Faroese is worthy

165

of further discussion is that, within the few sources which mention double definiteness it is often suggested that double definiteness is a preferred tendency in Faroese rather than a rule (Lockwood, 1977; Barnes and Weyhe, 1994; Börjars, 1994, 2000) or that double definiteness, in contrast to Swedish and Norwegian is in some sense optional. One exception to this view is Julien (2005) who would appear to suggest quite the opposite: that Faroese is categorically double definite. In this, as with other aspects of the language, Faroese is considered to be a mixed system which sits somewhere between the conservatism of Icelandic and the more progressive Mainland Scandinavian languages with respect to the phenomenon of double definiteness. It is the key aim of this chapter to show that double definiteness in Faroese is a rule and the apparent optionality is linked to the fact that the double definite rule has a more limited application than is the case for Swedish and Norwegian. It also relates to the stark sociolectal differences that exist in Faroese between formal/stylised written forms and those that reflect the Faroese spoken idiom. It will be demonstrated that exceptions to double definiteness in Faroese, are highly systematic and that they are linked to particular non-argument/ non-referential environments. This chapter will present the key ways in which definiteness is encoded in Faroese. The central aim is to provide a thorough empirical account of the use of both bound and syntactic definite markers in Faroese. Both syntactic ‘definite and indefinite articles’ will be discussed along with demonstratives and their co-occurrence with the bound definiteness marker. The use of both bound and free definite markers in relative clauses will also be discussed. The remainder of the chapter will be structured as follows: we begin in section 5.2 with an overview previous research on Faroese double definiteness, then in 5.3 the empirical findings from the corpus of modern Faroese novels will be presented. Then in section 5.4, I will elaborate the structure of the Modern Faroese DP and account for the feature distribution.

5.2 Previous Literature on Double Definiteness The discussion in this section will be divided into descriptive and theoretical approaches. In the first section, the data presented offers a point of contrast and for the latter section,

166

this provides an opportunity to foreground some of the key theoretical debates in the literature. 5.2.1 Previous Descriptive Literature on Faroese Double Definiteness It has been noted in the literature, especially in the earlier literature (Lockwood1977, Barnes and Weyhe 1994), that the application of the double definite rule is by no means absolute; as such it is seen as a ‘preference’ rather than a rule. This claim is based on the observation that examples without a syntactic determiner, such as ‘gamli báturin’ occur widely in written Faroese, especially in the press. Where this is possible at all in the spoken language, it is restricted to use with names of things or geographical features, and set phrases, such as the following at (294-296), which are cited by Lockwood (1977) and Barnes and Weyhe (1994): (293) Heiligi Andin Holy ghost-DEF ‘The holy ghost’

(294) Áin mikkla Stream-DEF big ‘The big stream’

(295) Hvíta havið White sea-DEF ‘The white sea’

Lockwood (1977:106-7) Barnes and Weyhe (1994) and Thráinnson (2004:125) further note that the definiteness suffix can also occasionally be omitted in a limited number of environments. In Lockwood, this is expressed in such a way as to suggest that any double definite examples could potentially have alternative expression as single definite, rather as if the suffix is an optional element. Thráinsson et al. (2004:226) who offer a number of concrete examples of the contexts in which exemptions to the double definite rule should be expected to apply. While the exceptions, which are taken form Thráinsson at al. (2004:125)and which are replicated at (297-299) below, are confirmation of the fact that single definiteness is somehow conditioned, the examples themselves given in isolation and without further explication offer a very limited account of usage.

167

(296) Tann maður, sum mest hevur skrivið um føroyskar bókmentir, er.. The man who most has written on , is ‘The one who has written the most on Faroese literature is..’

(297) upp á tann máta! Up on that way ‘oh, that way’

(298) Á henda hátt verður fiskurin In this way is fish-DEF ‘This way the fish is..’

5.2.2 Previous Theoretical Accounts of Double Definiteness Much of the theoretical work focuses on a number of factors: the distribution of the definite markers. Why is a syntactic determiner required when there is premodification. There are a number of common themes in the literature. I will mention a few to give flavour of the approach. The central idea is that the definiteness marker originates or is ‘base generated’ in D and that the element comes to be enclitic on the noun via head movement of N to D. Hellan, 1985; Taraldsen, 1990; Santelmann, 1993; Delsing (1993), among others have provided an analysis along these lines. Generally, the explanation for why a premodified noun lies in some prohibition on a definite noun moving past an adjective phrase into the D position (e.g. Delsing, 1993; Julien, 2005), which posit that there are two functional D heads in the maximal projection of the NP, (Taraldsen 1991 Julien, 2005), and those who argue for a single functional D node (Hellan, 1985; Santelmann, 1993; Delsing, 1993). In Delsing (1993) it is argued that movement of N to D is blocked by the presence of the adjective head and thus this forces the D head to spell out a syntactic D. These accounts assume a structure of the DP which approximates the structure posited by Abney. See Figure 23 overleaf. Here the A is a head which takes the NP as a complement. AP in turn is the complement of D.

168

FIG. 23 DP D’ D AP A NP Following this structure, it is argued that if there is lexical material in A, then head movement of N to D will not be possible and the D will instead be required to spell out a syntactic D. Julien (2005) questions the traditional movement blocking account, arguing instead that it is not head movement that is blocked but phrasal movement. Julien argues that for nouns without adjectives a definite noun is derived as follows. The N moves via a NUM projection to n, which hosts the definite element ‘inn’. This ensures that the definite marker is realised as a definite suffix on the noun. If the language in question requires there to be an overt phonological material in D, then nP (the definite marked noun) will move to SPEC-DP. The movement of nP to Spec DP is blocked, as nP will no longer be the closest goal for the probe D, as the AP will. However, moving AP to SPEC DP will not serve to identify D, as adjectives have no nominal category feature, thus no referential index (Julien 2005:29) In contrast, there are also a number of ‘non-movement’ accounts, which do not assume that words are formed via syntactic derivation, or that morphology is part of syntax, rather they constitute two separate dimensions of the grammar which are governed by different rules and principles. Hankammer & Mikkelsen (2002), argue that the noun+DEF is of category D and because of this it projects a DP rather than an NP. The suffix is combined with N in the lexicon by means of a morphological rule, yielding some kind of derived determiner. The distribution of the definite suffix in Danish is therefore a direct result of their status as determiners. In such cases D projects a DP which inherits the [DEF+] specification from its head. Hankammer and Mikkelsen (2002) assume a morphological process that takes a noun combines it with a definite suffix to yield a non-branching DP. The reason a noun phrase such as røde hesten is ungrammatical is then that APs adjoin to NPs and in this example there is no NP to adjoin to. This explanation would then not be transferrable to

169

the Scandinavian which have double definiteness, since definite nouns in these languages are assumed to be of category N. In Börjars and Donohue (2000) an Optimality theoretic account for the facts of Danish definiteness is proposed, in which the choice between a syntactic realisation as opposed to a morphological realisation of definiteness is accounted for by the ranking of the constraint AVOID-SYNTAX above AVOID-MORPHOLOGY. This would correctly predict that det æble (the apple) is overridden by the presence of æblet (apple+def) in the grammar. However, the ranking of AVOID –S over AVOID-M does not account for the fact that definiteness must be instantiated by a free standing article/syntactic determiner when an adjective occurs pronominally. An alternative approach discussed by Börjars and Donohue (2000) has been proposed to account for Swedish, in which the obligatory presence of a syntactic determiner with adjectives is motivated by feature assignment. More specifically, it is argued that adjectives occur in definite noun phrases require that specific features be assigned to them: a definite feature, a weak feature and case features are the three types which have been considered in previous works. Arguments based on the assignment of features are considered problematic, since percolation would make it impossible to restrict the assignment of features the domain of the AP and impossible to prevent them filtering through to the head noun. The requirement of a syntactic determiner to the left of any prenominal modifiers is a feature common to all Scandinavian languages and most dialects. Faroese, Swedish and Norwegian of course differ from Danish in that there is also the question of whether definiteness is, at the same time, required to be marked morphologically on the noun, thus giving rise to a phenomenon which has come to be called double definiteness. In Danish definiteness is marked once and is, therefore, a phrasal feature. In Norwegian and Swedish definiteness needs to be marked on multiple elements within the NP and so is analysed as an agreement feature. The data and status for Faroese are less clear. Within an optimality theoretic LFG account, it is posited, in accounting for the data for Danish, that in addition to the ranking of the constraint AVOID SYNTAX above AVOID MORPHOLOGY discussed above, that an OB-HD constraint be ranked between PARSE and AVOID –S. The OB-HD constraint as defined by Bresnan 1997:21 states that every

170

projected category must have a lexically filled head. Within an LFG account this could mean that a full referential noun phrase in Danish could either be analysed as NP or DP depending on the presence or absence an AP. Such an analysis would be unproblematic for LFG, a theory in which all nodes of a tree are optional unless required by some overriding principle, such as the completeness or expressivity. A noun which is not premodified by an adjective could be NP, but one which is premodified by an AP could be an extended projection of an NP, i.e. a DP. The OB-HD constraint would then require that the DP be filled with a lexical head, i.e. a syntactic determiner. Common to both Börjars and Donohue (2000) and Hankammer and Mikkelsen’s approaches is the idea that morphology is more economical than syntax. In Börjars (1998) the necessity of the syntactic definiteness marker with adjectives is linked to a selectional restriction on

adjectives, requiring them to combine with a nominal which then combines with a FREE-

DEF. Dahl (2007) suggests that the development of a definite article may start with APs requiring a definiteness marker as a consequences of the semantics of restrictive modification.

5.3 Presentation of Data: The Distribution of Definite Markers 5.3.1 Introduction To investigate these issues further, Modern Faroese data on double definiteness taken primarily from written sources will be presented and discussed; the aim here is to abstract generalisations about the environments in which an independent syntactic marker of definiteness is not a requirement in Faroese and to seek a unified account of the major exceptions to the double definite rule. Exceptions to double definiteness involving the bound definiteness suffix will also be discussed and the implications for assessing its status discussed. The section then concludes with an overview of the effect on semantic interpretation which is caused by the non-occurrence of either one of the definiteness markers. Since the principal grammars on Faroese do not discuss the facts in any detail, the conditions under which Faroese is single or double definite, the following discussion is based upon empirical data gathered from 10 Faroese modern novels totalling around 171

2,196 pages of prose text which yielded a corpus of 652,033 words. The novels have been chosen because of the high probability of providing examples of adjectival-rich and informal-register prose. The results demonstrate that modern Faroese, like Norwegian and Swedish, is double definite and that a syntactic definite marker is required in the presence of a prenominal adjective. Omission of the syntactic definiteness, however, is permissible in a number of definable contexts. One of the prose texts differed from the other nine in terms of the ratio of single to double definite marking and in the patterns of usage. The other six texts displayed common patterns of usage from which a number of generalisations can be made. From the texts collectively, there were a total of 2059 definite phrases containing an adjective. Of this number, 1915 were double marked for definiteness and thus had both a syntactic and a morphological marker of definiteness. 144 of the definite phrases with adjectives, however, did not contain one or other of the definite markers; of these exceptions to double definite marking, there are a number of discernible patterns which are suggestive of highly systematic constraints on usage.

5.3.2 The Synactic Definiteness Marker In this section, I will discuss the contexts under which a syntactic definite marker is not a requirement according to my corpus of examples for Modern Faroese. In so doing, I hope to establish the contribution which is made towards the definiteness of the phrase by each marker in double definite structure. For completeness, I will provide the same information with respect to the indefinite marker. As has been suggested in the previous literature, the non-occurrence of the syntactic definite marker occurs when the adjective and noun form a ‘proper noun unit’. The examples from (299-300) are the names of chess pieces from an extract of text describing a game of chess and the example at (301) names a particular type of rock, and the example at (302) as a unit labels the name of a disease.

172

(299) Hvíta frúgvin White queen-DEF ‘The white queen’ (HP 235) (300) Svarti riddarin Black knight-DEF ‘The black knight’ (HP 235)

(301) Stroyir hvítu tinnurnarút yvir oyggjarnar Sprinkle white crystalline-DEF over islands-DEF ‘Sprinkle white crystalline over the islands’ (SUM 79)

(302) Meðan svarti deyðin herjar í 1348 While black death-DEF ravished in 1348 ‘While the Black Death ravished in 1348’ (KF May 2008) Lockwood (1999:11) notes that is possible to express this proposition, using only weak adjective, as it is with all units in which the adj-noun unit form a name, as exemplified at (303-304).

(303) Svarti Deyði Black.WK death ‘The Black Death’

(304) Reyði Krossur Red.WK cross ‘The Red Cross’

A high percentage of the 114 examples of single definiteness could be defined by syntactic environment. 40 of the 114 occurred after prepositions. The following at (305-307) are representative.

(305) Við nýggju uglini With new owl.PL-DEF ‘With the new owls’ (HP 77)

173

(306) Á lítla skeltíð On little.WK sign-DEF ‘On the little sign’ (HP 27) (307) Aftur stuttu vitjan After short visit-DEF ‘After the short visit’ (SUM 108) 20 of the 114 are examples of what Dahl calls Selectors. Locational attributives (2010 in Huddleston and Pullum’s terms (2006:556). With reference to Swedish, Dahl states that the preposed article is not used in two core contexts: (a) with selectors as above and or in name-like uses. (2010:127-128) as these contexts are inherently definite. Selectors tend to be the last elements to receive definite marking (Dahl 2010:129) These adjectives “have to do with the relative time at which the description expressed in the head applies, or with location in space”. In English this group corresponds to groups of words such as, current, former, old, present, lower, future, original, previous, right, left, eventual, past, ultimate. Ordinals and superlatives also form part of this group. These adjectives differ because they often do not accept modification and tend to be used attributively. A few examples are given below. It is also argued that this set of adjectives does not form a subset in the same way as adjectives such as ‘pretty’ and ‘shy’ do. Thus ‘shy men’ denotes a subset of the set ‘men’. Examples of data containing time and location adjectives are given at (308-310) below.

(308) Fyrsta dagin First day-DEF ‘The first day’ (Sum 89)

(309) Næstu dagarnir Following day.PL.-DEF ‘The following days’ (NL 147)

(310) Seinasta kvøldmáltíðin Last eveningmealtime-DEF ‘The final mealtime’ (HP 131)

174

A further 14 of the examples took the form of superlatives, as demonstrated by (311) Hægsta fjallið í fóroyum Highest mountain-DEF in Faroe ‘The highest mountain in the Faroe’ (Peturson and Adams 2009: 110) (312) Elsti beiggin Oldest brother- DEF ‘The oldest brother’ (SEB 83) (313) Dudley fann størstu slanguna Dudley found largest snake-DEF ‘Dudley found the largest snake’ (HP 26) In some cases there is both a superlative/time adjective and a preposition present. (314) Í hægsta torníð In highest tower-DEF ‘In the highest tower’ (HP 205) (315) Í síðsta dystinum móti Slytherin In final match-DEF against Slytherin ‘During the final match against Slytherin’ (HP 130) (316) Við næsta barninum With next child-DEF ‘With the next child’ (MOR 49)

17 of the 114 were predicative NPs in copular constructions, as exemplified at 317- 318.

(317) Hetta var einasta vónin This was only hope-DEF ‘This was the only hope’ (HP 175) (318) Hart arbeiði og pína er bestu lærarnir Hard work and anguish are best teacher.PL-DEF ‘Hard work and pain are the best teachers’ (HP 209) A number of the examples (319-322) occurred within appositional phrases:

(319) Har nýggi presturin Thomas Petersen Where new priest-DEF Thomas Petersen ‘The new Priest Thomas Petersen’ (MOR 6)

175

(320) Bretska sjónleikarakvinna Helen Mirren British actress-DEF Helen Mirren ‘The British actress Helen Mirren’ (KF) (321) Gamli borgarstjóriní New York, Rudolf Giuliani Former mayor-DEF of New York, Rudolf Giuliani ‘The former Mayor of New York’ (KF) (322) Stóra bilverksmiðjan Hyundai Large carmanufacturer-DEF Hyundai ‘The large car manufacturer’ (KF) In these cases the adjective within the appositional phrase does not seem to be restrictive, rather they seem descriptive A small number of examples took the form of periphrastic prepositional possessives in which a string of possessum-noun and attributive adjective has no syntactic definite marker. In periphrastic prepositional possessives as demonstrated at (323) below, the possessum noun precedes and the possessor noun/pronoun is mediated by a preposition. As can be seen from the examples below the possessum noun must be marked for definiteness.

(323) Andlitíð á Jógvani Face.DEF on Jógvan.DAT ‘Jógvan’s face’

If the possessum noun is preceded by an adjective, a syntactic definite is also often present. (324) Tann nýggi bilurin hjá hennera The new car-DEF at her ‘Her new car’

However, there were 4 examples of periphrastic prepositional possessives in the data in which the possessum noun had no syntactic definite marker, despite the presence of a prenominal adjective. This is exemplified by the examples at (325-326).

176

(325) Hinvegin sá hann snerjandi andlitíð í Malfoy On the other side saw he grinning face-DEF on Malfoy ‘On the other side he saw Malfoy’s grinning face’ (HP 132) (326) Um kvøldið sendi Walther nýggja versonin hjá sær In evening- DEF sent Walter new son-in-law at him ‘In the evening Walter sent his new son-in-law’ (MOR 48) There were also four of the 114 examples from novels involving ‘nationality adjectives’ (327-328). This is a trend found both in Modern and Older Newspaper texts. (327) Danska ríkið Danish kingdom-DEF ‘The Danish kingdom’ (SUM 108) (328) Danska drotningin Danish queen-DEF ‘The Danish queen’ (SUM 90) It is unclear whether it is the class of nationality adjectives themselves, as semi-nominal words which makes the use of the definite marker unnecessary, or the fact that the phrases operate as unit of meaning ‘the Danish kingdom’, the Danish bank, the Danish queen. For the above examples, the unit of meaning could be seen to refer to a uniquely identifiable entity, not a particular token of a given type or else function as a semi- lexicalised name. This line of argument cannot be sustained, however, because of examples such as the following (329-330) which also contain nationality adjectives but are not uniquely identifiable or acting as a name for a specific entity.

(329) Aftur í apríl koma donsku politikarnir Later in april came Danish politician.PL-DEF ‘Later in April the Danish Politicians came’ (SUM 79) (330) Danski blaðmaðurin setur henna sama spurningin Danish journalist- DEF put her same question-DEF ‘The Danish journalist put the same question to her’ (SUM 110) In many of the environments in which the syntactic definiteness marker is not required, the adjective in question is not identifying or restricting the reference noun.

177

I would like, in the following section, to explore the group of adjectives which Huddleston and Pullum (2006:556) term temporal and locational attributives in a little more detail. Very similar examples have been discussed in the literature for other Germanic languages, so we will take previous accounts in the literature as our starting point. A number of the environments highlighted as significant for the non-occurrence of the syntactic definite marker within the Faroese data turn out to be common to a number of other Scandinavian and Germanic languages too. In Danish, it is common for the determiner phrase to be ‘determinerless’ if the adjective in question takes the form of one of the following time and location adjectives: first, last, following, last, other, left, present. The examples below (331-333) are from Allan et al. (1995:99).

(331) Første gang First time ‘The first gang’

(332) Sidste forestilling Last performance ‘The last performance’

(333) Samme størrelse Same ‘The same ….’

Dahl (2010:117-8) discusses similar data for Swedish, although, in this case, it is claimed that the preposed definite article is somewhat more restricted in Standard Swedish than is the case for Standard Danish. Dahl discusses two distinct types of environment where the preposed definite article is not required: these he calls ‘selectors’ and ‘name-like’ uses. The selectors class refers to three categories of adjective. Dahl (2010:117) follows Teleman et al. (1999:435) in labelling the first class of selectors a subset of “relational pronouns”. These include ordinative pronouns (första (first); sista (last); nästa (next) and förra (previous) and “perspectival pronouns” (höger (right hand); vänster (left hand); norra (north)).

178

The second class of selectors not requiring the presence of a preposed syntactic definite marker are ordinal numbers and the third class involves superlatives. Dahl points out that all these categories of selectors share a common semantics. Each picks out a member of a subset by referring to some relation between the member of the subset and the set as a whole, such as the youngest son. Apart from selectors, there are also the ‘name-like’ uses. Some of this group are truly lexicalised units consisting of a noun and prenominal adjective. One such example for Swedish, as cited by Dahl, is Vita huset. Lexicalised examples are often written with the first letter of the adjective capitalised. Such examples came up too in my own data, e.g. Í Stóra Høll. Dahl argues however that this group involves other units, which are not overtly marked for capititalisation, which have not yet reached the stage of fully lexicalised phrases. Dahl (2007:156) also discusses lexicalised adjective-noun combinations with no overt marker of definiteness at all (no syntactic form, no bound form and no weak adjective on the noun). These structure occur more frequently in Danish and Norwegian, than in Swedish, but they are found in Swedish too. The Swedish example cited is Svensk Upplagsbok (The Swedish Encyclopedia). From this brief overview, it is clear to see that the system of definite marking in Faroese shares certain areas of commonality with both Danish and Swedish. Dahl’s account has more of a semantic than a syntactic bias, in that the option to omit the preposed definite article is dependent on matters of inherent definiteness and the relational nature of the adjectives which permit the syntactic definiteness marker to be omitted. While this would go some way to accounting for the data in Faroese, It would be difficult to apply a purely semantic account to Faroese because the non-occurrence of the preposed definite article also seems to be linked to particular syntactic environments and also to the use of nationality adjectives. The use of syntactic definite markers in Faroese is even more restricted than is the case for Swedish. Pfaff (2014: 217-244) investigated four major adj- noun constructions and considered the differences in function carried out by each. The core patterns were as for weak adjectives were as follows. (1) The default construction

179

is the pattern adj+n (334). The examples at (335-337) phrases are more marked stylistically and have a more limited distribution.

(334) Raudi billinn Red.WK car-DEF ‘The red car’ (Pfaff 2014: 218) (335) Hinn frægi leikari DET famous.WK lecturer-DEF ‘The famous lecturer’ (Pfaff 2014: 218) (336) Kreppan mikla Depression-DEF great.WK ‘The Great Depression’ (Pfaff 2014: 218) (337) Blár himinn-inn Blue.STR sky-DEF ‘The blue sky’ (Pfaff 2014: 218) Both Thráinsson (2007) and Pfaff (2014) articulate the restrictions in usage for each. It is noted that with appositive phrases that those examples which contain a syntactic marker (338 Thráinnson (2007), and 339 Pfaff (2014)) are acceptable. The counterparts with a bound definite marker were not possible.

(338) Hin vinsæla hljómsveit 4x10 leikur fyri dansi The popular band 4x10 plays for dance ‘The popular band 4x10 plays at the dance’ but *Vinsæla hljómsveit-in Popular band-DEF ‘The popular band’

(339) Hinn þekkti leikari Clint Eastwood The famous actor Clint Eastwood ‘The famous actor Clint Eastwood’ but

180

*þekkti leikari-nn Famous actor ‘The famous actor’ (Pfaff 2014: 220) Pfaff (2014:231) also notes that the appositive phrase stand in for a known referent, In many cases the selectors also carry an inherently definite interpretation. In the case of selectors, such as ‘former’ which tend not to need a syntactic determiner in English the pattern at (340) would be used. (340) -nn fyrrverandi President-DEF former ‘the former president’

*Hinn fyrrverandi forseti. The former president ‘The former president’

The use of the postposed adjective is stylistically marked in Icelandic, but it is still to be found in the written language. The following from (Pfaff 2014: 222) are typical of this construction.

(341) Föstudagr-inn langi -DEF long ‘Good Friday’

(342) Eyja-n græna Island-DEF green Ireland.

Remember also that in Faroese proper noun units, such as the Red Cross, could be expressed by a weak adjective alone.

(343) Reyði Kross Red Cross ‘The Red Cross’

It would seem in each case that key factor is that more subtle meaning distinctions are often encoded in any non-default structure so as to draw attention to its difference of interpretation.

Almost of quarter of the examples taken from prose texts for Faroese seemed to involve NPs contained within prepositional phrases.

181

This tendency is also noted by Longobardi (1994:612-613) for Italian, though he notes that only some kinds of PP allow an articleless singular noun; he accounts for this by assimilating this category with predicate expressions. For the Old Norse data, it was demonstrated that definiteness marking was often omitted within preposition phrases, even when used elsewhere.

5.3.3 The Bound Definiteness Marker In this section, I will consider the bound definiteness marker. With respect to the non- occurrence of the morphological marking of definiteness, there are a number of observable patterns. In usual circumstances a nominal headed by a demonstrative would usually be expected to require a bound definite marker on the noun, thus instantiating another type of Faroese double definiteness. However, if the noun complement of the demonstrative denotes an abstract concept then the bound marker of definiteness is not a requirement, as exemplified at (367-370)

(344) Ta orsøk (KF) The reason ‘The reason’

(345) Henda hugmynd (KF) This idea ‘This idea’

(346) Til tað úrslit (KF) To this result ‘to this result’

(347) Ta størstu virðing (BRA 10) The greatest respect ‘The greatest respect’

(348) Tann tilburð (BRA 141) The incident ‘The incident’

182

It is also common to find a noun headed by a syntactic determiner if the nominal renders a generic interpretation (349) Vesælur tann maður sum ikki hevur oyra og hjarta opið Miserable the man who not have ears and heart open ‘Miserable the man who does not have ears and heart open.’

(350) Tann maður, sum mest hevur skrivið um føroyskar bókmentir, er… The man who most has written on Faroese literature is… ‘The man who has written the most Faroese literature is..

(351) Hetta er tann fyrsti føroyingar ið..(BRA 57) This is the first Faroe Islander that ‘This is the first Faroe Islander that..’

Or if the entity referred to is uniquely identifiable.

(352) Á tann fagra sjón (BRA 41) At the beautiful sun ‘At the beautiful sun’

In the case of the bound definiteness marker, the motivation seems to be to suggest a non- specific entitity or a one member set.

5.3.4 Indefinite Marking Before summarizing the findings of the empirical study on definiteness marking, I would like to complete the picture by considering the omission of the indefinite marker. The indefinite article is required in most contexts in which the nominal contains a singular , as in English and many other Germanic languages. However, there are particular syntactic contexts in which this requirement does not hold. Thraínsson et al. (2007) highlight a small number of contexts in which syntactic markers of indefiniteness are not required. Omission is especially common in the case of predicate nominals, and also in contexts which, by and large, coincide with a general or generic interpretation. (353) He attends school /he goes to school In the first context, as in English, a marker of specificity (definite or indefinite) is not required, if a general action is invoked which does not refer to a specific school in a

183

specific context. The indefinite article is required to express the notion of a specific school which is unfamiliar to the hearer. (354) He attends a school in Denmark. Lockwood states that the indefinite article is not used as frequently as the indefinite article in English. As a generalisation, however, it is always used to denote the sense of ‘a certain’. (355) Bóndin hevði ein húskall, sum æt Rasmus (Lockwood 109) Farmer-DEF had labourer who was called Rasmus ‘The farmer had a labourer who was called Rasmus

Where the interpretation is non-specific indefinite, it is possible for the article to be omitted. (356) Bergljót hevur fingið sær hatt til veturin Bergljót has found herself hat for the winter Bergljót has found herself a hat for the winter. (Lockwood 109) (357) Um stutta tið In short time ‘In a short time’ (Lockwood 109) Indefinite phrases in predicative position do not require the presence of the indefinite article. This is particularly true of instances where the predicative phrase defines the occupation of the subject, a feature shared by the other Scandinavian languages as well other Germanic languages such as German.

(358) Hann er sjómaður He is sailor ‘He is a sailor’

(359) Henda er nýggj lóg This is new law ‘This is a new law’

It is usually the case for Danish that if the nominal has adjectival modification, then the indefinite article will be required to be present. This is not true of Faroese, however, as demonstrated by the example from Lockwood.

184

(360) Snæbjørn var frílíkur seyðamaður Snæbjørn was excellent shepherd ‘Snæbjørn was an excellent farmer’

There is also some degree of overlap in the syntactic contexts in which a determiner can be omitted. Neither definite nor indefinite articles are required in a predicate nominal slot. Both definite and indefinite articles also seem sensitive to the overall interpretation of the nominal phrase. If there is a non-specific interpretation then the indefinite article is not a requirement. This would seem to be especially true of nominals occurring in the new part of the clause. We also saw that a syntactic definite marker is only required if the nominal identifies the referent in question, rather than nominals which predicate some

property of a referent.

5.3.5 Relative clauses The distribution of definite markers in the case of nominal phrases which are the antecedents to relative clauses show some interesting patterns which are distinct to Faroese. The trends also contribute to our discussion of double/single definiteness, and this is the rationale for introducing the discussion at this juncture. The first pattern, which is to some extent shared by Swedish and Norwegian according to Julien’s account (2005: 78-79), is that relative clauses with a non-restrictive interpretation tend to be represented by a suffixed definite article only, in the absence of a prenominal adjective. Restrictive relative clauses, however, require the presence of a syntactic determiner, irrespective of the presence or absence of a prenominal adjective. In such cases, Julien states that there is an element of optionality when it comes to the presence or absence of the bound definiteness marker for Swedish and Norwegian. This would seem to have been the case for older Faroese too. In Faroese, however, the bound definiteness marker will tend to be present except where the antecedent noun is either abstract or it has a non-specific indefinite interpretation. The fact that Faroese prefers the presence of the bound definiteness marker in current usage is confirmed by Julien’s Faroese informant who states that “this would sound very unnatural in modern Faroese”. The absence of a bound definite marker in the case of non-specific indefinite interpretations appears to be

185 shared with both Swedish and Norwegian too. The distribution of definite markers, as the rest of the examples in this section demonstrate, points to the fact that the syntactic definiteness marker and the bound definiteness marker perform slightly different functions. This is unsurprising considering the patterns of usage highlighted for Old Norse. The fact that the bound definiteness marker contributes some element of meaning has been highlighted too by Julien for Norwegian and Swedish. In her account, Julien (2005: 37-38) also discusses the possibility and the significance of the omission of the definiteness suffix. Single definite structures where the morphological suffix is absent often carry a generic rather than a specific reading.

(361) Den kvit-e man har alltid undertrykt andre kulturar DEF.SG white.WK man-DEF.SG has always oppressed other cultures ‘The white man has always oppressed other cultures’

(362) Den kvite mann*(en) åt ein is. DEF.SG white-w man-DEF.SG ate an ice ‘The white man ate an ice-cream’

The final examples, which are from bokmål reiterate the notion that the omission of the definiteness suffix has meaningful consequences. Here the absence of the morphological suffix forces an abstract rather than a concrete interpretation.

(363) Han er en lærer av den gaml-e skole(-n) He is a teacher of DEF.SG old-WK school-DEF ‘He is a teacher of the old school’

(364) Vi så på den gamle skole*(n) We saw at DEF.SG old-WK school-DEF ‘We looked at the old school’

5.3.6 Summary of Findings In Modern Faroese, the form of the adjective usually corresponds quite straightforwardly with the the (in)definiteness of the noun phrase. The weak form is used with a definite

186

syntactic marker and the strong form is used with indefinites and predicative uses. This mirrors the pattern that is found in the Continental Scandinavian languages. It is clear, though, that in older forms of Faroese and Older Swedish (Stroh-Wollin and Simke 2014:97) that this was not the case. The adjective’s ability to contribute to the interpretation of the phrase lasted to at least the Medieval period (Stroh-Wollin and Simke 2014:97), but longer in some varieties. In addition to gaining a syntactic determiner category, Faroese has lost the ability to signal a (±) restrictive interpretation on the adjective. Data from Icelandic, however, demonstrates that Icelandic has maintained this and other semantic distinctions which have been lost or are in decline in most of the other Scandinavian languages. However, the language has developed new ways of maintaining distinctions which would formally have been noted by the adjective. The development of syntactic definiteness marker has resulted in associated changes in terms of the distribution of the feature ‘definiteness’. That the presence or absence of either one of the definiteness markers is semantically significant and forces a reassessment of the notion that the definite suffix in double definite constructions is a mere agreement marker. In this section, it has been argued that Faroese has developed a determiner category and that Faroese nominals should now be analysed a DP rather than an NP. In this sense, the noun phrase seems to have evolved structure. While in the earlier language and for modern Icelandic, it was argued that the adjective itself was a marker of definiteness, the evidence for this in Modern Faroese is rather weak for two key reasons: (1) the syntax requires that the adjective be preceded by a determiner (2) the syntax requires that an adjective is weak or strong as a direct reflex of agreement. Definite determiners require a weak adjective; indefinite determiners require the strong inflection. Thus the adjective no longer contributes independently to the meaning of the NP. The data presented demonstrate that the Faroese noun phrase has undergone a whole restructuring, resulting in the recategorisation of possessor NPs as determiners which occupy a determiner slot at the left edge of the phrase. Pronominal possessors precede the noun as a direct result of this syntactic requirement. Fronting related to ‘contrastive’ interpretation remains only as a marked pattern. The findings of this research are that, although not all Faroese NPs are

187

double marked for definiteness, the circumstances in which this marker is not a requirement of the grammar can be categorised systematically.

5.4 Analysis: Feature Distribution That Faroese developed into a DP in modern era has already been established. Mention has also been made of the fact that, in the process, adjectives have lost their ability to independently contribute a [+RES] feature. So far, we have discussed the DP projection in terms of word order and the development of structure. In this present section, I will focus my attention on feature distribution, specifically, with special reference to double definiteness and the distribution of the bound and the syntactic definiteness markers and their interaction with weak adjectives. We have established that Faroese is a double definite language: that is, it generally requires the presence of both a syntactic and a bound marker of definiteness, if the noun is premodified. However, there are a number of exceptions to the generalisation. My corpus data do not support free variation, as has been suggested in the literature. All core arguments of the verb should be marked for syntactic definiteness, but not if one of the following contexts hold. The primary syntactic marker of DEF in Faroese is instantiated by a filled D slot. I postulate that Faroese has a left edge requirement and this requirement is satisfied in Faroese by a syntactic D slot. I will now look to the evidence from feature distribution. Of central importance to any discussion and analysis of double definiteness are the following issues: (a) how to account for the distribution of the various definite markers and (b) what the status of each of the different markers of definiteness is. It is clear from the data presented for Faroese that double definiteness is not a matter of multiple exponence of the feature DEF, but that each element contributes independently to the interpretation of the phrase and thus to f-structure. I argue that the independent DEF is the true syntactic marker and the bound marker is a morphological marker which encodes a particular form of semantic definiteness, viz: specificity. The data for Faroese provides evidence that noun phrases which have a unique reference, or a generic, intensional or abstract interpretation must be syntactically marked [+DEF], but

188

generally lack a bound marker of semantic specificity , while phrases which are

specific in reference must contain both the independent[−SPEC] and the bound marker of definiteness. The co-occurrence of the syntactic marker with the bound marker signals that a phrase is syntactically definite and semantically specific. A similar conclusion has been reached by Julien (2005:39), who argues that there are two aspects of definiteness- specificity and inclusiveness- and that each of these aspects of definiteness reside in different functional heads. Based on the available data, I concur with Julien that the bound marker is associated with specificity; on the other hand, pace Julien, there is no evidence that these are separate instantiations of definiteness, which reside in different functional heads. There is no evidence to support the view that the syntactic marker of definiteness is associated with any one type of definiteness; rather it is a grammaticalisation of the general feature [+DEF]. The fine-grained semantic distinctions are enabled by the presence or the absence of the bound marker of specificity. The syntactic marking does not encode a particular type of definiteness in its own right, but as with most syntactically encoded features, its meaning distinctions are opaque and the feature itself represents the general syntactic status [+DEF], which enables the phrase to carry out particular functions in the grammar. All core arguments of the verb are necessarily DP in Faroese. Predicative phrases and noun phrases which are the complements of prepositions are not usually required to be DP. Noun phrases which act as appositional modifiers are also tend to lack DP status. I, therefore, posit that that the feature [± DEF] and the feature [± SPEC] are both represented at f-structure.

FIG. 24 PRED ‘man’ DEF ± SPEC ±

With both the features [± DEF] and [± SPEC] as part of the Modern Faroese grammar, this enables a four way distinction to be encoded in the grammar; this differs from English which does not encode these distinctions grammatically, even though the meaning distinctions are available. This is represented at figure 25.

189

FIG. 25

SPEC + SPEC – DEF + Double DEF zero bound Definite specific Definite non-specific

DEF - INDEF zero INDEF Indefinite specific Indefinite non-specif

I posit that the development of a syntactic determiner category is the direct result of the move towards analytic marking in Faroese and this has resulted a number of key changes to the grammar: these are: (a) the adjective [weak] marker has been reduced to an agreement marker in the noun phrase, and lost the ability to independently contribute information about the restrictive/non-restrictive nature of the adjective, and (b) the bound suffix has been reanalysed as a semantic marker of specificity. This development then has simultaneously led to the loss, as well as the development of features, in the Faroese DP. A further development which is of significance is the requirement of bound definite markers with other demonstrative forms, whether or not there is an adjective present. This change is related to the reanalysis of the bound definite marker into an obligatory marker of semantic specificity.

I now consider in more detail the adjectival weak/definite feature. From my corpus of examples, there was a clear link between the syntactic DEF and the adjective. In particular, it was noted that in some syntactic contexts, the lack of a syntactic DEF seems to render the adjective non-restrictive. In Faroese, restrictive relative clauses also require

190

the presence of syntactic definite marker. In addition to this, there has been a historic connection between the tann paradigm and relative clauses. There is also the more obvious point that it is in the presence of premodifying adjectives that a syntactic determiner has been required throughout its history. This could suggest the idea that the syntactic definiteness marker is some kind of restrictive modifier. While there is some merit to this suggestion, I think there are a number of points which militate against such an analysis. The first is that there is a growing trend for abstract nouns in Faroese to be marked for definiteness by a syntactic marker of definiteness, not the morphological suffix. In this case, there is no adjective, so the function of the syntactic DEF in this case cannot be linked to restrictive modification. I would suggest, therefore, that the syntactic DEF is a fully grammaticalised feature, which marks general DEF. If in the current change towards analysis, it is likely that morphological features and distinction may be lost. One such instance of loss, I would argue is in the weak/definite feature, which has been due to the grammar’s requirement to have a visible +DEF feature at left edge of the phrase. The syntactic marker had scope over all the following elements, so this meant that the adjective could no longer signal a restrictive interpretation. Therefore without a syntactic definite, the adjective can only enter into non-restrictive modification I return now to the c-structure tree which was posited for modified nouns in chapter 4. It was argued that when Faroese develops a DP projection, a noun+DEF combination would also occur in D since it satisfied the left edge requirement. I now adapt this analysis in the light of the above discussion. I would argue that the bound D is associated both definiteness and specificity. Thus if a noun with abound definiteness marker occurs in the D slot, this will ensure that the phrase is syntactically marked for definiteness and semantically marked for specificity. The evidence presented for both definite and indefinite NPs points to the fact that both definiteness (DEF) and specificity (SPEC) must be part of the analysis for Modern Faroese. It is, therefore, argued that both types of definiteness are represented at f-structure. The unificational architecture of LFG will ensure that the feature budles associated with each node project up to the higher nodes. Thus if the bound morpheme is attached to a noun, both definiteness and specificity will be projected up the tree. This is demonstrated

191 at figure 26. If there is also a synstactic marker of definiteness then the definiteness is caontributed by both the syntactic marker ‘tann’ and the bound marker ‘DEF’. FIG 25.

DP PRED ‘MAN’ DEF + D NP SPEC + ↑SUB = ↓ ADJ [ PRED ‘OLD’ ] AP N’ ↑=↓ ↑=↓

↓∊ (↑ ADJ) ↑=↓ A N

↑=↓ ↑=↓ Tann gamli maðurin

↑ DEF =↓ ↑PRED = ‘OLD’ ↑ PRED= ‘man’ ↑ DEF = + ↑ SPEC = + FIG. 26 DP PRED ‘MAN’ SUB DEF + SPEC + ↑ D’ =↓

↑=↓D

↑=↓ maðurin

↑ PRED= ‘man’ ↑ DEF = + ↑ SPEC = + At figure 27, it is demonstrated that a noun phrase without a bound definite marker will be interpreted as definite, but not specific.

192

FIG. 27 DP PRED ‘MAN’ DEF + SPEC - ↑ SUBD’ =↓

D NP ↑=↓

↑=↓ ↑=↓N

↑=↓

Tann maður (sem…..) DEF =

↑ ↓ ↑ PRED = ↓ The reason abstract nouns would seem to have a preference for syntactic marking is that they are not associated with being semantically specific. In Modern Faroese, noun phrases seem to require the presence of definite marker at the left edge of the phrase. This will usually take the form of a syntactic definite marker. This edge position can be filled by lexical determiners, such as nominal and pronominal genitive phrases, demonstratives, or the definite article. Adjectives which are inherently definite and nouns marked with a bound definite marker can also satisfy this left edge requirement. The association of definiteness with the left edge suggests that there is a D slot to house these elements, and also suggests that Faroese has developed a determiner category. Unlike the situation in Old Norse, singular count nouns cannot occur as fully referring noun phrases or as core arguments of the verb without the presence of a determiner. Definite phrases which are semantically non-specific do not require the bound definite marker; the opposite is true of definite phrases which are semantically specific.

193

Chapter 6 Old Norse to Faroese: Synthetic to Analytic

6.1 Introduction Throughout the thesis, I have attempted to discuss definiteness within the context of the noun phrase for each historical period. In this final chapter, my focus will move towards more wide-ranging changes to the noun phrase itself within the context of changes to the language system. In this chapter, I will demonstrate that Faroese now shows a preference for analytic marking across a range of categories and constructions. In many ways, this has been the constant theme of the dissertation: that from Old Norse to Modern Faroese, there has been a move towards analytic marking of the feature definiteness and this has resulted in the development of a grammaticalised definiteness marker and the loss of certain discourse-semantic contrasts in the grammar. The principal aim of this chapter is to highlight that the changes discussed in this thesis represent just one part of a more dramatic shift towards analysis in Faroese, despite the overt signs of conservatism in terms of case. In this chapter, I will be drawing attention to additional changes which are in evidence from within the noun phrase; however, mention will also be made of clause structure. The fact that Faroese is more analytic while still retaining a case system will be used as evidence of the fact that syntax changed before morphology, hence demonstrating that case loss is not a cause but a consequence of the movement towards analysis. Faroese is currently undergoing a similar pathway of morphosyntactic change to the one that has been witnessed in many other Germanic languages: that is, a process in which the case system is being reduced, and where prepositions are taking over the functions once performed by case in certain contexts. There is also some evidence of a shift from synthesis to analysis. Such a shift often manifests itself as an increased reliance on syntax, and some form of loss in the morphological system, along with the development of prepositions and periphrastic innovations. Faroese thus provides the unique opportunity to chart the transitional stages in the process and thus allow us to speak directly to the theoretical debates around the issue of diachronic change by drawing on empirical evidence. The shift from a to an is a familiar one in the history of Germanic, as well as languages branches, such as Romance, and the issue of

194

whether the process starts by means of morpho-phonological weakening and loss or a greater reliance on syntax is a vexed one. The ongoing debate has led some researchers to regard the issue as a ‘chicken or egg’ question. It is in this spirit that Lehman (1985:312) states that that if we assume “the historical simultaneity of these changes, there is no way to justify the logical priority of one over the other”. One aim of this chapter is to attempt to shed some light on this question. For languages, such as English (Hogg)and Old –Middle Scandinavian Kock (1921) and Petersen (1981) among the studies discussed by Norde 1997,the process of morphological levelling and attrition is usually thought to be triggered by phonological reduction and loss. Atheoretically, the loss of morphological features would result in language users having to rely on other means of marking grammatical relations within in the clause, such as a fixed syntactic position. Other researchers, such as Marold (1984) for Scandinavian, argue that it was the increased reliance on rigid word order and the use of periphrasis which rendered the case system redundant. Following Marold (1984), I conjecture that for Insular Scandinavian, with particular reference to Faroese, the evidence points to the fact that the rigidification of the syntax has begun in both languages irrespective of the presence or absence of morpho- phonological loss. Could it not be concluded from this evidence that the rigidification of the syntax was triggered by some other factor than morphological loss, or even, as I would like to explore in this thesis, that rigidification of syntax was prior to morpho- phonological loss in Insular Scandinavian. In order to explore this issue in more detail, the exact nature of the morphological loss and the syntactic strategies which compensate for this loss will be explored in depth. For Faroese, I would argue that there is evidence to suggest that syntactic rigidification can and does precede morphological loss, a situation which may lead to morphology being rendered superficial or redundant. This is not to suggest that there has been no reduction in case. It is usually said of the genitive case that it is no longer productive in modern Faroese (Lockwood, 1977; Thráinsson et al. 2004). The remainder of the cases, however, remain intact. In the following section, we will explore in detail the fact of the loss of the genitive case in Modern Faroese. We will then go on to discuss the various

195

syntactic changes which are in evidence in both insular varieties in order to assess the claims made in this section. 6.2 Case in Faroese In the survey of inflections discussed in the introduction, it was demonstrated that Faroese has retained the vast majority of nominal endings from the western Old Norse period, as has Icelandic. It was demonstrated that the nominal paradigms in both insular varieties differ only minimally in terms of their case inflections. The accusative plural in Old Norse ends with the inflection –a, as opposed to the nominative –ar, whereas, in Faroese the nominative and accusative forms have been syncretised, and both now take the form –ar. (365) Hest-ar (Icelandic) Horse-MAS.PL.NOM ‘Horses’

(366) Hest-a (Icelandic) Horse-MAS.PL.ACC ‘Horses’

(367) Hest-ar (Faroese) Horse-MAS.PL.NOM/ACC ‘Horses’

This also extends to the definite endings, so the definite accusative forms for Icelandic and Faroese respectively are as follows: (368) Hest-ana (Icelandic) Horse-MAS.PL.ACC-DEF ‘Horse’

(369) Hestar-nar (Faroese) Horse-MAS.PL.ACC-DEF ‘Horses’

There are similarly minor changes to nominative definite, which has the ending ‘inn’ in Icelandic, but ‘in’ in Faroese; similarly, the nominative and accusative neuter plural definite form is ‘in’ in Icelandic, but ‘ini’ in Faroese. In the nominative system, there is minor change in form, but not loss of case forms.

196

The same is true of demonstrative and pronominal endings. The differences in verb agreement marking are demonstrated as follows. While the systems are not identical, the differences are not major. Icelandic case froms are represented at table 13, and Faroese case endings are presented at table 14. Table 13. Icelandic- Synopsis of verb endings (preterite present and past) PRES PRET 1st sg - - a i 1st sg - i 2nd sg ur/ rð/ð/r ar ir 2nd sg St/zt/t ir 3rd sg ur r ar ir 3rd sg _ ir 1st pl um 1st pl um 2nd pl ið 2nd pl uð 3rd pl a 3rd pl a

Table 14. Faroese –synopsis of verb endings (preterite past and present) PRES PRET 1st sg i i i i 1st sg ði ti di 2nd sg ur/ rt a(r) ir 2nd sg ði ti di 3rd sg ur t ar ir 3rd sg ði ti di 1st pl a 1st pl ðu tu du 2nd pl a 2nd pl ðu tu du 3rd pl a 3rd pl ðu tu du

A summary of the key changes is as follows: Faroese has regularised /syncretized verb forms in first person singular and all plural forms. Here Icelandic has two remaining 1st person verb forms, and three distinct plural forms for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person. For past preterite forms Faroese has three distinct paradigms, but the only two distinctions within each paradigm, that between singular and plural. Both languages have retained a full system of nominal case forms and fully inflected definite suffix, as well as identical strong and weak case endings for adjectives.

197

There has, however, been one very significant change to Faroese, which is a decline in the use of the genitive. This will be the focus of the following section.

6.2.1 The Decline of the Genitive in Modern Faroese One of the most significant and widely discussed morphosyntactic changes that Faroese has undergone sometime between the 14th and 19th century is in the reduction in use of the genitive case. This new development means that Icelandic is now the only Germanic language to have retained the full paradigm of Old Norse nominal inflections from within the Germanic branch, as the other ‘full case’ language, Modern German, has retained the case distinctions largely within the determiner system. This development would suggest that Faroese has begun the process of case reduction which has taken place in all other Germanic languages. And, since only one of the four remaining cases is, at present, affected, Faroese provides a unique opportunity to observe more closely the process of morphosyntactic change and inform our understanding of how inflectional morphology and syntax relate to one another in the context of a move from synthesis to analysis. In the literature, there is no absolute consensus on the state of the genitive in Present Day Faroese; while all are in agreement that the genitive is in decline, there are few who provide a detailed account of the present day state of this case form. Lockwood describes the use of the genitive as being rather limited, in that it “occurs in the spoken language only in a very few nouns”, with “most nouns not existing as independent words in the genitive at all”, except as fixed idiomatic phrases (1977:28). Holmberg (15) takes this a step further by claiming that Faroese “simply lacks a genitive case”. Not as categorical in their conclusions, Thráinsson et al. (2004:62-63) state that “of the four morphologically distinguishable cases in Old Norse and Older Faroese, only three are completely productive in modern spoken Faroese”. They state that “a genitive form “exists” or can be produced for most nominal categories, with the exception of adjectives and that genitives can be found in fixed expressions, in genitive compounds and with particular pre- and postpositions. They add that the traditional adnominal genitive does sound very unnatural in many cases and that native speakers would more naturally use

198

a prepositional construction. The majority of examples tend to occur in unmodified fixed expressions, such as the following:

(370) Til strand-ar To beach-FEM.GEN ‘to the beach’

(371) Til Vág-s To Vagar.MAS.GEN ‘To Vagar’

Most grammars provide but an introduction to the topic and do not elaborate in depth on how the genitive is used in present-day Faroese. The aim of this particular section is to discuss, as far as is possible, the general fact of the loss of productivity of the genitive case and to explore the process by which the genitive came to be in a state of decline. The key question is to what extent is the loss in morphology the trigger for a move towards an increased reliance on syntax, rather than being the result of a process of syntactisisation. In following sections, evidence will be presented that both Icelandic and Faroese have been witness to very similar changes from Old Norse to the latter period; yet only in Faroese has there been this very marked move towards the loss of the genitive case. There are perhaps a number of external factors which come someway to address this. As a western Norse dialect, Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese will have the same language inheritance: that of Western Old Norse. Swedish and Danish are from the Eastern branch of Old Norse. According to Bendiksson (1963) there has not been sufficient prolonged contact between Norwegian and Faroese for the similarities between the languages to be to the result of contact. The languages, themselves, share features and innovations, which she puts down to a common base form. Another possible reason, for changes to Faroese is the superstratal contact history which Denmark. That Faroese has been influenced at every level of structure has been widely documented in the Faroese literature, for instance Thráinsson et al. 2004, Petersen 2009, 2011. This would provide a motivation for why the process is more advanced in Faroese than Icelandic, but does not explain why both languages have become more

199 configurational/reliant on syntax, and both have been witness to an increased use of prepositional constructions. These facts suggest one of two things: (1) that morphological loss is not the trigger (or the only trigger) for a move towards increased reliance on syntax, or (2) that a shift towards the syntactic encoding of grammatical relations can predate the actual loss of surface case forms. Both of which seem to run counter to the general accepted notion that changes to syntax are motivated by loss of case.

6.2.2 The Use of Genitives in Modern Faroese The evidence for the decline in use of the genitive can be observed at the level of nominal morphosyntax, as well as in the verbal and prepositional systems, since the genitive traditionally governed particular verb classes and prepositions. Nominal genitive forms have not completely disappeared, but they are now used very infrequently in the spoken language. These forms do still exist and are employed in very formal or stylized forms of writing, a factor which speaks against attrition and loss of case forms. This shift away from the use of the genitive is a major difference between the two modern Insular varieties, since Icelandic has largely retained the system familiar to old Norse. In addition to nominal possessor genitives, there would also have been both and prepositions which governed the genitive case Old Norse, verbs such as, njóta-enjoy, bíða- wait for, vænta-expect , hevna-avenge would traditionally have required a genitive complement, see (376-377) (372) Hevna mín (Thraínsson 2004:127) Avenge me.GEN ‘Avenge me’

(373) Aftur skalt tú vænta mín (Thraínsson 2004:127) Back shall you expect me ‘You shall expect me back’

The examples above are from the Faroese ballads and show the use of the genitive pronoun as the complement of the verbs expect and avenge.

200

Some ditransitive verbs also required a genitive theme object with verbs such as biðja/spyrja-ask; krevja-demand; ynskja-wish. In Modern Faroese, there has been a marked reduction in the number of verbs which can still govern the genitive. These genitive marked objects, or themes in ditransitive structures, however, are said to have been replaced largely by accusative marked complements, though some have been replaced by dative or by prepositional oblique complements. In Old Norse and Older Faroese, the prepositions, innan, uttan, millum, ímillum,til and vegna all governed the genitive case. Many could occur pre- or post positionally. In present day Faroese, these prepositions usually take an accusative complement. Postpositions, especially millum, ímillumand vegna are still said to governed by the genitive case. So there is evidence of a decline in the productivity of the genitive both in the number of verbs and prepositions which are still governed by this case form and in the frequency with which the nominal genitives are actually employed in the spoken language. In a number of earlier works on Faroese, from the earlier 18th and 19th century, evidence was presented which was suggestive of the declining genitive. It will be remembered from the introduction that one of the first attempts to document the Faroese language, after a long hiatus in the use of written Faroese, comes in the form of Hammershaimb’s Færøsk Sproglare of 1841, and his 1886 revised edition. Hamre (1961) and Thráinsson (2004:407) Barnes and Weyhe (1996) both discuss the details of this first grammatical treatise as evidence of the state of the genitive at that particular point in time. While genitives are included in the paradigms of nominal inflection, it is suggested that a number of forms are parenthesized to indicate that they are no longer used in the spoken language. Most notably these parenthesized forms include the plural forms of all genders and the genitive forms of adjectives. Hammershaimb (1891) notes that an adjective modifying a genitive noun is sometimes construed in the accusative, as in Danish (gamlan mans as opposed to a genitive adjective as in gamals mans). He had also indicated that definite genitive forms, with the exception of the masculine singular paradigm, were used

201 very rarely. This evidence all points to the conclusion that the case system was undergoing attrition, as well as possible levelling. Hamre (1961) claims that this process of levelling and loss in the genitive case was halted by the publication of a second, rather conservative grammatical text, Jákup Dahl’s Føroysk mállæra of 1909. Hamre suggests that this very conservative text is heavily influenced by Old Norse grammars, and that Dahl essentially reintroduces and reconstructs the genitive nominal paradigm from the original medieval forms. Dahl does not parenthesize any of the forms, suggesting that all are in current usage. He does, however, discuss and condemn the recent trend of using the masculine genitive singular forms to represent the female genitive. He does not discuss how widespread this trend is, and sites but a few examples of current usage (examples replicated below). These examples testify to the fact that a process of levelling of forms had begun, with the singular masculine s form becoming the dominant case ending perhaps under influence form Danish, as had happened in all the Continental Scandinavian languages and in English. Dahl notes examples such at (374). (374) Drottning-ins for drottningar-innar QueenDEF-MAS.SG.GEN queenDEF-FEM.SG.GEN ‘Of the queen (masculine) of the queen (feminine)’

Bygd-ins for bygdar-innar VillageDEF-MAS.SG.GEN villageDEF-FEM.SG.GEN ‘of the Village (masculine) of the village (feminine)’

Jørðs-ins for jarðarinnar EarthDEF-MAS.SG.GEN earthDEF-FEM.SG.GEN ‘Of the earth (masculine) of the earth feminine’

It is clear from this section that the genitive has been in gradual decline across a number of centuries. However, we also have evidence from the ballads that syntactic structure has already moved towards a DP structure by this period. In the following sections, I will explore a number of syntactic changes which have taken place in Faroese which indicate a movement towards analytic marking. In his 1961 paper, Hamre reports the results of his survey on Faroese use of the genitive based upon a corpus of examples he built up from modern Faroese literature. In this paper, he provides a survey of usage from some of the old Faroese Ballads (From Hans

202

Christian Svabo’s ballad manuscripts of 1770-1780), but also provides an overview of usage from informal written texts from on a timeline ranging from 1936-1950. Hamre’s conclusion, largely agrees with Lockwood (1977) in stating that the genitive is “ not often used in modern Faroese everyday language” except in fixed expressions and traditional phrases (Hamre, 1961: 231) and that it is more commonly found in high formal, technical or literary language. The option of employing the genitive in all contexts in formal written Faroese indicates that the ‘forms’ themselves have not been lost. The forms encountered in the bible data, and in various modern grammars (Thráinnson, 2004) show number, gender and distinctions of all categories. (375) Kettlingur barns-ins Kitten child.NEU.GEN-DEF ‘The child’s kitten’

(376) Í bili grana-nna In car neighbour-PL.GEN.DEF ‘In the neighbour’s car’

(377) Horn jarðar-innar Corner.PL earth.FEM.SG.GEN-DEF ‘The corners of the earth’

Finally, a note about frequency in Modern Faroese. In my corpus of Modern Faroese the following trends were obvious. Out of a possible total of 792 full NP possessor constructions in my novel data, 162 of these phrases took the form of a genitive-type phrase, and 603 employed prepositional periphrasis (see following section). A small number of this group (20) were accusative possessives, and 6 were sa-possessives. This brief survey broadly confirms the pattern of usage suggested by the various grammars. Of the group termed ‘genitive’, further elaboration is required. 153 of the genitive type examples involved the modern Faroese equivalent of a genitive, which is positioned prenominally, as opposed to postnominally. This is to be expected, given the development of a determiner category. (378) Havnar kirkju (KF) Torshavn.GEN church ‘Torshavn’s church

203

(379) Havsins botni (Matu: 18) sea.GEN bottom ‘the bottom of the sea’

(380) Í dagsins ljós (Seb:167) In day.GEN light ‘In the day’s light’

There were a small number which did conform to the pattern of older genitives in terms of positioning, see below for a representative set of examples.

(381) Gerast drottning Náttulandsins (Skug: 141) Become queen nightland.GEN ‘Become queen of Nightland’

(382) Falli svartagandsins (HP: 92) Death blacksorcery.GEN ‘Death of the dark arts’

(383) Til endamørk jarðarinnar (Matu:26) To endpoint earth.GEN ‘To the far reaches of the earth’

(384) Játtanir Augustinusar (Bøð:85) Confession.DEF.PL Augustine.GEN ‘Augustine’s Confessions’

Even from the few examples already introduced, it is evident that the genitive form is largely limited to the masculine ‘s’ form or the feminine ‘ar’ form. For Havnar, ‘Torshvan’s, it also possible to encounter the ‘s’ ending Havns. The postnominal examples at (411- 414) are a little more literary sounding. Another observation to be made about the use of genitive forms is that there are a small number of lexical genitives which are used extensively. There is not huge variation in the types of genitives encountered, except in very literary Faroese. Particularly common prenominal possessors are the following: (385) Lívsins drykkur (HP:217) Life.GEN drink ‘Life’s drink’

204

(386) Heimsins fagrasta ljósi (SH:133) World.GEN beautiful.SPRL light ‘The world’s most beautiful light’

The less frequently encountered genitive possessor nouns came from literary texts, which would seem to have employed a number of traits which are characteristic of formal, stylised and archaic Faroese usage. This the postnominal genitives also occurred in these texts. The following examples are prenominal genitives, but they are also rather literary sounding.

(387) Myrkursins tøkuarmar Darkness.GEN tentacle ‘Darkness’s tentacle’ (Skug:12) (388) Krígsins stálbað (Bøð:56) War.GEN steelbath ‘The Steelbath of war’

(389) Tingsins røðarapalli Parliament.GEN platform ‘Parliament’s platform’ (Matu:90) The most commonly attested complements of prepositions were in the , but there were a number of genitive complements which were either set phrases/idioms or place names, both of which still allow a genitive marked complement.

(390) Til havs To sea.GEN ‘To the sea’

(391) Til borðs To table.GEN ‘To the table’

(392) Millum skins og hold Between body and clothes ‘Between body and clothes’ (SH:19)

205

(393) Andlit til andlits Face to face.GEN ‘Face to face’ (HP:245) The most commonly attested genitive form was the s-genitive; however, a number of place name complements also allow either ‘ar’ or ‘a’ genitive endings.

(394) Til Denmarkar To Denmark.GEN ‘To Denmark’

There were a very small number of postpositions with a genitive complement, as in (395) Hosanna millum House.PL.GEN between ‘Between the houses’ (Skug: 206) As stated by Thráinsson et al. (2004), it would seem as if genitive forms of words do exist in Modern Faroese and can be produced for all nouns. However, it is clear that the genitive forms are not used productively in the modern colloquial language. All in all, my findings broadly confirm the trends already suggested in the literature. Now we have established the state of the genitive case, I will discuss a number of constructions which are suggestive of a move towards analysis.

6.3 Presentation of Data: Synthesis to Analysis A recent development which is intimately tied up with the loss of the genitive case, at the level of nominal syntax, is in the growing use of periphrastic circumlocutions to mark possessive relations. 6.3.1 Prepositional Periphrasis In Faroese, prepositional periphrasis has become the most natural means for the marking of alienable and inalienable possession and nominal relations. There seems to have been a growing trend towards this since around the time of the first written ballads (Hamre). In Norwegian too, this preference is also noted as a key distinction between the formal written (Danish influenced) Bokmal and , stating that, in colloquial speech, prepositional periphrasis is preferred to the use of the s-genitive (56). Once again in the

206

case of Faroese, the use of periphrastic periphrasis is seen as a direct result of the loss of the genitive case; a claim which could also be made of Norwegian, since it too has lost case marking inflections. A number of additional factors, however, highlight that this account is too simplistic. One significant fact is that in Icelandic too, there is a growing trend to mark some possessive relations via prepositional periphrasis, even though the traditional adnominal genitive system is still highly productive. This is especially true of the mention of ‘body parts’ and with abstract nouns. The second point is that a fully productive genitive case system seems to have been in operation concurrently with prepositional circumlocutions in Faroese at the time of the first written ballads. Surely, if this construction was due to the loss of the genitive, we would not expect to see evidence of its operation alongside a productive genitive case system. These facts open up the possibility that the move towards analytic marking of possession in these languages may be a trigger for, rather than the result of, the diminishing productivity of the genitive. Scholars are in general agreement that the frequency of periphrastic prepositional expressions, such as (428-429) are now the norm or default mechanism for the marking of possessive relations in modern day Faroese (Hamre 1961, Lockwood 1977, Thráinsson et al, 2004. Barnes and Wehye). (396) Hjártið í gentuna Heart-DEF in girl-ACC ‘The girl’s heart’

(397) Hesturin hjá Jógvani Horse-DEF at Jógvan.DAT ‘Jógvan’s horse’

The function traditionally carries out by adnominal genitives has been largely taken over by the use of prepositional periphrastic construction. The prepositional possessor occurs after the possessee noun, which must obligatorily be marked for definiteness. Unlike in English, where prepositional possessive relations are largely encoded by a single preposition (of), Faroese uses a number of prepositions to mark possessive relations. The form used depends on the nature of the possessive relation. Hjá (with dative) is used for true ownership alienable possession, whether the possessee noun refers to a concrete element or an abstract concept.

207

(398) Húsini hjá einem ríkum manni House-DEF with a rich man.DAT ‘A rich man’s house’

(399) Abbi at dreinginum Grandfather at boyDEF.DAT ‘The boy’s grandfather’

The prepositional possessor occurs after the possessed noun which must obligatorily be marked for definiteness. Whilst it clear that periphrastic periphrasis is the preferred mode of expression in the colloquial language, it is also evident that genitive forms do still exist and that they can still be found in more formal written genres. This preference for prepositional usage over conventional genitive adnominal phrases would seem to have been a growing trend over a long period of time, according to Hamre (1961) who found evidence that these constructions were being used alongside genitive phrases in the ballads. Hamre (1961:231) also notes that a similar process, albeit a far slower process, has begun in Icelandic as noted in section 2.2; this despite the fact that the genitive seems to be fully productive in Icelandic and the genitive inflectional paradigm fully intact. He notes “even in Icelandic, the most conservative of all the Germanic languages, substitutes for special genitives are not uncommon”. He cites the following examples as representative:

(400) Nefið á mér Nose on me ‘My nose’

(401) Skottið á hundinum Tail-DEF on dog.dat.DEF.DAT ‘The dog’s tail’

This growing trend is also supported by Thráinsson (2007) who attempts to make the conditions under which periphrasis is preferred more explicit. He links usage to the encoding of inalienable possession, especially those subcategories of inalienable possession which represent part/whole relations. While there is insufficient evidence to

208 accurately date this shift in usage, its notable absence in the Old Norse data confirms that this is a more modern trend. From this section, it is clear that, from the period of at least the Old ballads onwards, there has been the option of both genitive marking and prepositional periphrasis, and since these existed in oral form for generations before being written down for the first time in Faroese in the 19th century, it is unclear just how long this period of concomitant usage really was. It is also clear that within the spoken language, there were the beginnings, not of reduction and loss, but syncretisation of forms, possibly due to Danish influence. The true forms were later revived with the introduction of based on Icelandic principles. That Icelandic is also moving towards an increased reliance on prepositional periphrasis within the spoken vernacular means that using syntactic means to mark the grammatical relation of possession was not primarily driven by ‘loss of morphology’. In the following section, we will look to a number of other indicators of change in Faroese.

6.3.2 Partitive Phrases In addition to the development of periphrastic possessive constructions, there is the changing use of bare partitives. This construction is still available in Faroese, but it is in decline and tends to be used in particular contexts. Once again, this construction would seem to be in decline in Faroese in favour of prepositional partitives, thus suggesting more internal structure to the noun phrase. Partitives can either take the form of an NP with an embedded PP or an NP with bare embedded NP. This bare embedded NP can be a pronoun in genitive case, (402) Fleiri teirra Many them.GEN ‘Many of them’ or the bare embedded NP can also take the form of an embedded DP/ NP

(403) Summi skipini Some ship.PL.DEF ‘Some of the ships’

209

(404) Flestu studentarnir Many student.PL.DEF ‘Many of the students’

The most common environment to find this construction now is with the numeral one.

(405) Eitt tað vakrasta náttúruøkið í landinum (KF) One the beautiful.SUPL nature reserves in country ‘One of the most beautiful nature reserves in the country’

(406) Dóttir ein amerikanskan Hermann og eina japanska konu Daughter an American soldier and a Japanese woman ‘The daughter of an American soldier and a Japanese woman’

Corpus searches reveal, however, that it is much more common to express this relation using the preposition ‘av’ in the modern language.

(407) Ein av okkara Donsku prestum (KF) One of our Danish preists ‘One of our Danish priests’

(408) Fleiri av løgtingsmonnum okkara Many of parliamentarian our ‘Many of our parliamentarians’

For Psuedo-partitives, this seems an absolute. For true partitives, it is still possible to encounter bare partitives with some degree of frequency, especially those which involves a superlative statement, such as (407-408) above. However, it is more common to find partitives as an embedded prepositional phrase headed by ‘av’. This is further evidence that Faroese is adopting more analytic forms of marking.

6.3.3 Word to Phrase Marking: the Faroese Sa-Possessive In this section, I will discuss the sa-possessive as another piece of evidence in favour of the proposed shift towards analysis. The construction instantiates a development towards phrasal marking of possession, which seems to be a feature common to many other Germanic varieties which have undergone case loss, such as the continental Scandinavian languages and English, and would seem to be a natural progression when

210

the focus shifts from the marking of words for syntactic properties to the marking of whole phrases. 6.3.3.1 Previous Literature It has been argued (Staksberg,1996) (Thráinsson et. al,2004) that Faroese has developed a phrasal possessive marker along the same lines as Danish and English, a construction known as the Faroese sa-possessive, henceforth FSP, which traditionally took the form sar but which in present day Faroese tends to be sa. Examples of the construction are given at (413-414).

(409) Jógvansa(r) bilur Jógvan-POSS car ‘Jógvan’s car’

(410) Jógvan í Lonsa sessur Jógvan í Lon-POSS seat ‘Jógvan í Lon’s seat’

The marker is limited to use with proper names and kinship terms and thus cannot be suffixed to common nouns, as in (415).

(411) *Gentan-sa bók Girl.DEF-POSS book ‘The girl’s book’

The construction is regularly encountered in informal spoken language and can be found in informal written texts. The data which I collated from both novels and newspapers do corroborate, however, that the construction is used with far less frequency than prepositional periphrasis. Thus only five of the total number of possessives gathered from my corpus of data took the form of an FSP. 25 hits for sa-possessive came up on the FTS corpus of Faroese newspaper texts, but only three were found in the 1890s corpus. Hvussi langur var halin á Tobiasa hundi? (1890s data)

211

In his 1996 paper on the FSP, Staksberg argued that the bound sa ending was a clitic, on analogy with the s-possessive which occurs in English, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. The key motivation for this claim is that the FSP exhibits behaviour which is traditionally seen to be indicative of a clitic rather than a morphological suffix. The key piece of evidence for this is that the element is placed syntactically, with respect to the phrase, rather than with respect to the word. The element also appears to be able to attach promiscuously on the rightmost element of the phrase, irrespective of its word class. Thus in (416) the sa ending is attached to the rightmost element of the phrase rather than on the head noun as we would expect with morphological marking and in (417) the sa element takes scope over two conjuncts.

(412) Tummas á Dómarkonitorinum-sa bilur Thomas at legal office.POSS car ‘Thomas at the legal office’s car’

(413) Petur og Annusa hús Peter and Anna.POSS house ‘Peter and Anna’s house’

6.3.3.2 The Faroese Sa-Possessive and the English/Danish S-Possessive Based on morpho-phonological properties at the right most edge of the phrase, more recent accounts of the English ‘s’ possessive would argue that in this respect, the ‘s’ possessive element shows affixal behaviour, and is thus to be analysed as phrasal affix not a clitic element. These are properties which do not extend to the FSP and thus cast doubt on the original analogy proposed by Staksberg. Suffice it to say then that the Faroesesa-possessive exhibits sufficient differences from the English and other Scandinavian s-possessives to warrant giving the construction further attention. In addition to the properties already mentioned, the FSP exhibits a number of other interesting properties which warrant further investigation and which call into question Staksberg’s conclusions that the FSP is straightforwardly a clitic element or that the construction is simply the Faroese equivalent of the s-possessive construction. There is some evidence that the traditional genitive forms were also developing the ability to mark once only at the end of the phrase in the case of full name forms in the

212

ballad data presented by Hamre (1961:243). He cites the following examples, which as presented as evidence of Danish influence on Faroese.

(414) Móti minister Zahles vilja Against minister Zahl. wish ‘Against Minister Zahl’s wish’

(415) Jón Gudmundssons gerðir Jón Gudmundsson.POSS deeds’ Jón Gudmundsson’s deeds’

This construction is more clearly similar to the Danish possessive, but has been extended to incorporate other genitive forms. Such a development would seem to be a natural consequence of the move towards once only marking that occurs when a language is becoming more analytic. The FSP exhibits a number of other properties which are not shared by the English or the Mainland Scandinavian s-possessive. The first feature worthy of note is that the noun to which the sa ending attaches must obligatorily be in . Thus, for the name Anna, we find that (420) is unacceptable but (421) is acceptable.

(416) *Anna-sa bók Anna.NOM.POSS book ‘Anna’s book’

(417) Annu-sa bók Anna.POSS book ‘Anna’s book’

It should also be noted that that the sa element itself can have wide scope over coordination, so that the possessive element need occur only once at the end of the phrase, hence displaying the clitic-like behaviour observed by Staksberg. The fact that each conjunct must retain oblique case marking under such circumstances (see 422) is also worthy of note, and requires further examination and discussion.

213

(418) Beint-u og Ann-u-sa bók Beint-ACC and Ann-ACC-POSS book ‘Beinta and Anna’s book’

According to the coordination criterion, espoused by Miller (1992), the FSP functions unequivocally as a clitic element, because “the possibility of having wide scope over a conjunction of hosts is a crucial characteristic of postlexical status” Miller (1992:181). If, though, an item must be repeated on each conjunct in a coordinated structure, we are dealing with an affix rather than a post-lexical clitic. Following the usual definition, a clitic is a syntactic word which is phonologically bound to a host word. In the light of these assumption, If the sa-possessive were a straightforward clitic, the fact that the host word must obligatorily be in the oblique, non- nominative, form when the sa ending is cliticised, requires further explanation. The sa ending then appears to attach to only those words which are already case marked accusative/oblique. The same does not appear to be not true, if the name is embedded within a phrasal unit. My informants deemed that Ann-a and not Ann-u was the form used if embedded within a phrasal unit (See 423).

(419) Anna í posthúsinumsa bilur Anna at postofficeDEF.POSS car ‘Anna at the post office’s car’

This would confirm the fact that the sa-possessive attaches to the final word in the unit. In addition to this, it should also be noted that the FSP can occur in environments which would traditionally have been governed by the genitive. At (424-425) we see examples of the FSP with genitive governing prepositions.

(420) Mammusa vegna Mother-poss because of ‘Because of mother’

(421) Hjalmarsa vegna Hjalmar-POSS because of ‘Because of Hjalmar’

214

To finalise the discussion on the similarities and differences of the FSP to the s-possessive, two further properties seem relevant to the discussion. Firstly the FSP can occur without an overt possessum phrase in predicative and comparative environments as is the case for the English s-possessive

(422) Hennara hús er størri enn Annusa Her house is bigger than Anna.POSS ‘Her house is bigger than Anna’s

But, unlike the s-possessive recursion is not possible (423) *Jógvansa mammusa hús Jógvan.POSS mother.POSS house ‘Jógvan’s mother’s house’

To be able to express a similar meaning, the only possibility is the structure which is presented at (428), but even here the examples still remains only marginally acceptable: (424) Mamma Jógvansa hús Mother.ACC Jógvan.POSS house Jógvan’s mother’s house’

Here the function/meaning of the expression has been satisfied by combining an accusative possessive ‘mamma Jógvan’ mother of Jógvan, and combining it with a sa- possessive. Since here the possessor is Jógvan, the form will be accusative. This accusative form is in the correct oblique form to take sa ending, so that the whole phrase ‘mamma Jógvan’ can become the possessor to the possessum hús. The sa element is attached only once at the right edge of the phrase. While it has been argued that the sa ending is cliticlike in that it is positioned with respect to the phrase, rather than the head noun, it does not display, certainly not to the same extent as English, Danish or Norwegian, the associated property of promiscuous attachment. It is common for the sa to attach to the last element of a phrase if it is a nominal or pronominal form as in the examples in (429 and 430) but attachment to prepositions or as can be found in English are not encountered (431).

215

(425) Ólavur á heyggisa hús Ólavur at heyggur-POSS house ‘Ólavur of heyggur’s house’

(426) Systir mínsa taska Sister my-POSS bag ‘My sister’s bag’

(427) *Jógvan sum Malan býr saman við-sa systir Jógvan who Malan lives together with-POSS sister ‘Jógvan who Malan lives with’s sister’

As has been previously mentioned in the literature (Staksberg, 1996; Thraínsson et al., 2004; Petersen and Adams, 2009..etc) that the FSP is restricted to use with proper names, kinship terms and words which can be used as names. Rather than promiscuous attachment, this results in a bound element which is highly restrictive with respect to its host; not only will the sa-possessive attach only to nominals but it will only attach to a particular category of nominal. This selectivity is of course a feature usually associated with rather than . The distributional restrictions on the FSP are semantically rather than syntactically motivated. Thus the sa-possessive attaches to units/ phrases as well as words which can function as proper names: full names, names of things as well as people, proper names accompanied by a locational preposition phrase.

(428) Tummas á Dómarkonitorinumsa bilur Thomas at legal office-DAT.SG-POSS car ‘Thomas at the legal office’s car’

In the light of the above data, it would seem that the FSP shares some, but not all features, of the Danish and English s-possessive. It, therefore, cannot be a direct borrowing from Danish. However, it is a similar structure, which has developed within a context of a shift from synthesis to analysis as is the case for English and Danish.

216

6.3.3.3 The Origins of the Sa-Possessive The origins and diachronic development of the FSP are undocumented, largely due to the hiatus in historical written Faroese data from the 14th-the 19th centuries. It is, thus, unclear exactly how long the construction has been a feature of the colloquial language. One of the only sources to have discussed the possible origin of the sa ending is Thráinsson et al. (2004: 411). Here it is suggested that the form could have originated from a related development which took place in the possessive pronoun system. It is shown that masculine singular possessive pronouns were sometimes found to have variant forms in older documents, depending on phonological environment. Thus ON hans (his) can be found to have the form hans before vowels but hansa before consonants, with the form eventually becoming hansara in Present Day Faroese in all environments. It is suggested, that the sa-possessive had its beginnings in the pronominal system, but that it later spread to proper nouns. Most logically, the development would have proceeded as an extension of the phonologically conditioned allomorphy which was observable for the pronominal form, hence the genitive of the proper name Jógvan would have been Jógvans, before vowels, but would have had the variant form Jógvansa before consonants. There is, of course, no documentary evidence to corroborate this development. There are, however, two pieces of evidence from synchronic data, which cast doubt on this hypothesis. Firstly, given the trajectory which is hypothesized, we would surely expect to find that the ‘sar’ ending had extended to all possessive pronouns, before spreading out to incorporate proper nouns. Secondly, as a feature which began as a phonologically conditioned process, we should surely expect that any extension in usage would have most likely expanded to include all genitive forms ending in ‘s’, common nouns as well as proper nouns, and for the form to be restricted to the genitive paradigms ending in s; but this does not seem to be the case. The sar ending is an invariant form affecting all paradigms, but all and only proper nouns. It is also difficult to see how the proposed origin of the construction can help account for the requirement that the base noun to which the sa ending attaches must be in accusative form. Both Staksberg (1996) and Barnes and Weyhe (1994) describe the element as a relic of the genitive case. Lockwood too terms the sa ending a genitive suffix. However, neither

217

source goes on to explain the origin of the case form. It is clear though that neither in Old Norse nor in Modern Faroese is there a genitive ending which takes the form sa(r). All possible endings are represented as figures 15-17.

Table 15. GENITIVE MASCULINE PARADIGMS M1 M2a M2b M2c M3 M4 M5 M6 Masculine singular s s ar s s ar a a Masculine plural a a a a a a a a *Masculine 1-4 are strong Masculine 5and 6 are weak.

Table 16. GENTIVE FEMININE PARADIGMS F1a F1b F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Feminine singular ar ar ar ar ar u i Feminine plural a a a a a a a *Feminine classes 1-4 are strong and classes 5 and 6 are weak.

Table 17. GENITIVE NEUTER PARADIGMS N1a N1b N2 N3 Neuter singular s s s a Neuter Plural a a a na *Neuter classes 1-3 are strong and class 4 is weak.

The nearest form is ‘ar’ which is the class 2b and class 4 strong masculine singular genitive ending and also the strong feminine genitive singular ending. However, Barnes and Weyhe (1994:198) claim that only the strong masculine and neuter singular genitive form ‘s’ is to be found in the spoken language. All other genitive forms are found’ chiefly or exclusively in the written language’. If this is the case, it would seem unlikely that a relic form that is found exclusively in the written language should be generalised to become the genitive ending for a form which seems to be a feature only of the spoken language. Hybrid genitive forms are just one among a number of ‘deformed genitives’

218

(Dahl, 2010:159, using the term coined by Koptjevskaja Tamm) which have been attested in the . In the Swedish Corpus a –sa ending similar to the Faroese form is used and is thought to have developed as a combination of two endings (-s and – a). The form produced is ‘Alfredsa käring’ (Alfred‘s wife) (Dahl 2010:160).

That the FSP is a genitive form, albeit one with a very restricted distribution, would account for the fact that it can still be found in use with genitive marking prepositions.

(434) Mammu-sa vegna Mother-POSS because of ‘Because of mother’

This fact is discussed by Allen (2008 53-57) who concludes that, because, the form is not found with other genitive marking prepositions, such as ‘til’, then it is not truly a case of genitive marking. As an attempt to explain this anomaly, she suggests an analysis in which the postposition ‘vegna’ be treated as a noun-like element, so that it is parallel in its use with other proper nouns which are followed by a nominal possessum. The fact that the possessors marked with sa are alone in their ability to function as the complement of vegna is perfectly compatible with the present day facts of genitive usage. Til along with the many other traditionally genitive governing prepositions have now become governed by the accusative. Til can still be found with a genitive complement, but the forms which are still to be heard in present day Faroese are by and large set phrases and place names. The same situation holds for all genitive>accusative marking prepositions. The situation with the genitive governing postpositions, most notably millum and vegna, however, is different. As Thráinnson (2004: 178-180) states the postpositions millum and vegna are still “typically construed with the genitive”. Thus we find the following contrasts:

(435) Landanna millum Country.PL.GEN between ‘Between counties’

219

(436) Millum londini Between country.PL.ACC ‘Between countries’

(437) Vegna veður Because of weather.ACC ‘Because of the weather’

(438) Hjalmarsa vegna Hjalmar-GEN because of ‘Because of Hjalmar’

Delsing (2000) and Allen (2008) among others have highlighted that the FSP has properties more akin to the Saxon genitive which occurs in both German and Dutch than it does with the traditional adnominal genitive or the English, Swedish and Danish s- possessive. Unlike the English, Swedish and Danish s-possessives which allow syntactically complex phrasal possessors, involving common nouns and proper nouns, the Saxon genitive is restricted to use with Proper names and kinship terms, as the following examples from Dutch and German respectively demonstrate:

(439) Willems boek Willem-POSS book ‘Willem’s book’

The Saxon genitive can also occur with elements which function as names, such as the Dutch example at (439) cited from Weerman and de Wit (1999: 1164) and with phrases which function as names as in the example cited at (35) from Strunk (2004:16)

(440) Buurvrouws huis Neighbour-POSS house ‘Our neighbours house’

(441) Antonia aus Tirols newe CD Antonia from TyrolPOSS new CD ‘Antonia from Tyrol’s new CD’

As with Faroese the Saxon genitive‘s’ can have wide scope over two conjoined possessors:

220

(442) Eike und Inka-s Haus Eike and Inka-POSS house ‘Eike and Inka’s house’

One final point of comparison between the FSP and the Saxon genitive is that there are ordering restrictions for both constructions which do not apply to the phrases which are genitive case marked.

(443) Jákup-sa taska Jabob-POSS bag ‘Jakup’s bag’

(444) *Taska Jákup-sa Bag Jakup.ACC.POSS ‘Jakup’s bag’

One final point of contrast between the Saxon genitive and the FSP is that the FSP can occur with genitive governing prepositions while the Saxon genitive cannot.

(445) *Wegen Mutters Because of MotherPOSS ‘Because of mother’

(446) Mammu-sa vegna Mother-POSS because of ‘Because of Mother’

Despite the fact that it has wide scope over two conjoined possessors, the Saxon genitive is usually analysed as a morphological feature (Delsing, 1998; Weerman and de Wit, 1999); Strunk, 2004). Weerman and de Wit (1999) analyse the Saxon genitive as an instantiation of the genitive form of proper nouns. However, if these elements were listed in the lexicon as genitive forms of proper names, as the possessive pronouns are, then we would expect that each conjunct in a coordinated structure should be in genitive form. In the case of the Saxon genitive, there is a mismatch between its assumed status as a morphological affix and its syntactic placement at the right edge of a possessor phrase or conjoined possessor phrases. Staksberg (1996) takes these features as indicative of a phrasal marker of possession. That even here, the possessor phrase functions as a proper

221

name, albeit that the person being referred to is represented by a group of words, would argue against this idea. It is clear we are dealing in both cases with a set of properties which resist discrete categorization. Allen (2008-53-57) also acknowledges this point by stating that the forms are “something intermediate between a prototypical inflection and a prototypical clitic”. A second distinctive property of the FSP is its specific requirements with respect to case marking. One factor that these accounts fail to account for in the case of Faroese is that the fact that the sa ending attaches to a case marked form. This is a factor which has generally received only cursory mention in the literature detailed as one of the base facts about the construction, without any discussion of the possible significance, but this is surely the feature which holds the key to the possible origin of the construction. In this, the FSP differs from both the English and Scandinavian possessive ‘s’, and Saxon genitive in the requirement that the possessor noun to which the sa-possessive attaches must be in the oblique case. This suggests that there may be a similarity with another which is commonly attested in Germanic.

While the origins of the sa-possessive are difficult to decipher due to the paucity of extant Faroese historical material, it conjecture, based on evidence from the 1890s data and from biblical tracts, that the clitic sar has its origin in the reanalysis of a morphological boundary in the genitive paradigm. The above named texts provide a useful window onto earlier Faroese: the 1890s data demonstrate few but significant differences from the modern language, and the bible itself represents an example of ‘conservative’ formal Faroese usage, with possessive relations encoded in the form of genitive inflection rather than via periphrasis, as would be the case in the colloquial usage. In biblical texts, it was noted that there are two possible genitive forms for the word ‘Jesus’: the genitive could either take the form ‘Jesu’ or ‘Jesusar’, as demonstrated below.

(447) Í jesu navn In jesus.GEN name ‘In Jesus’ name’

222

(448) Í navni Jesusar In name Jesus.GEN ‘In Jesus’ name’

The two alternatives are confirmed in the ‘Sprotin’ Faroese dictionary. The whole paradigm for the name Jesus was thus: nominative and accusative,’ Jesus’; genitive ‘Jesu’ or ‘Jesusar’; and dative, Jesusi. Similarly, the name ‘kristus’ has two genitive forms as well: ‘Krists’ and ‘kristusar’. The forms Jesu and Krists are the forms used, if the words occur together, irrespective of order. (449) Ápostul Krists Jesu Apostle Christ.GEN Jesus.GEN ‘Apostle of Christ Jesus’

(450) Í navni Jesu Krists In name Jesus.GEN Christ.GEN ‘In Jesus Christ’s name’

If the words occur alone, they tend to occur in the sar ending.

(451) Orð Jesusar Word Jesus.GEN ‘Jesus’ word’

(452) Fyri Kristusar skuld For Krist.GEN sake ‘For Christ’s sake’

It is clear that both the form, ‘Jesu/Krists’ and ‘jesusar/kristusar’ express possessive relations and thus are genitive in function. We can be sure that both forms express the genitive, because within genitive phrases, all the names/nominals of the possessor phrases should be genitive marked. (453) Sonur hins hægsta Guds! Son the highest God Son of God most high’

223

Thus in the phrase ápostul Krists Jesu’the possessor phrase has two names in genitive form ‘Jesu’ and Krists In addition to the forms krists and kristusar, there is also the genitive marked kristi to be found in phrases, such as the following, which were located on various religious websites. (454) Tað er Jesu Kristi deyði This is Jesus Christ’s death ‘This is Jesus Christs death’

The ‘Sprotin’ dictionary here acknowledges the genitive forms ‘kristi’ and ‘kristusar’, but does not cite krists. I will further conjecture that Jesu Kristi is the older form; to support this, I present data from the oldest Faroese document the ‘Seyðabrævið’. The X edition of the Seyðabrævið contains facsimilie copies of the document itself, passages of transliteration into Old Norse, as well as translation into Modern Faroese and English. In this text, there are clear examples of the form Jesu Krisiti, which are translated into modern Faroese as Jesu Krists, suggesting that the form found in the Seyðabrævið is the form found in Older Faroese/Old Norse. The data presented above, with particular focus on the Jesu/Jesusar alternation, provide a potential explanation as to the likely origin of the Faroese sa-possessive. There are a number of proper name paradigms for both male and female names in Faroese. One of the paradigms has the genitive ending ‘ar’. This particular ending occurs particularly frequently in the bible, since names endings in ‘s’ tend to belong to this paradigm, and a high percentage of biblical names in Faroese end in ‘s’ Mattheus, Lukas, Markus, Jóhannes, Paulus, Tummus, Tobias, Móses, Amos, Obadias,Jónas, Zakarias etc. The high number of biblical names ending in ‘s’ also meant that many biblical genitives follow the ‘ar’ paradigm for the genitive, thus many possessors endings are completed by the ‘ar,’ Mattheusar, Lukasar, Markusar, Jóhannesar, Paulusar, Tummusar, Tobiasar, Mósesar, Amosar, Obadiasar,Jónasar, Zakariasar etc. It is possible that the ‘ar’ was added to the full form ‘Jesus’ on analogy to the many other names ending with ‘s’, which occur in the bible, thus resulting in the alternative genitive form Jesusar alongside Jesu.

224

Within the context of biblical language, this process seems tenable. But of course, this would be but the first step in a process which lead to the development of the present day sa-possessive. I would conjecture that this would be a staged process involving (a) reanalysis of a morphological boundary (b) generalisation of usage (c) cliticization. That both the Jesu/Jesusar forms co-occurred and both encoded ‘genitive’ may have lead to the reanalysis of the morphological boundary, so that ‘sar’ not ‘ar’ is taken to be an alternative possessive ending. While historical data is scarce, I have found a number of interesting examples from the 1890’s data which are indicative of all three stages of the process: reanalysis and To generalisation within the ‘ar’ paradigm for names endings in ‘s’ : i.e. that ‘sar’ is taken to be a genitive ending. This evidence comes in the forms of a doubling of the‘s’ in genitive marked nouns. Thus we find forms such as Kristussar or Jóhannessar. Here it would seem as though the ending ‘sar’ has been added to the names ‘kristus’ and ‘jóhannnes’ to mark them as genitive forms. Had the ‘sar’ spread only to names which end ‘s’ and names whose genitive forms end in ‘s’ , then it could have been maintained that the process is an inflectional one and that the ‘genitive ‘forms themselves have developed into a hybrid of the ‘s’ and ‘ar’ paradigms. In fact something along these lines has been argued for Swedish, see Dahl (2010). However, this is not an adequate explanation of the facts for Faroese, since the ‘sar’ has also extended to weak forms whose genitive form is a vowel as well as all other paradigms. To enable the form to generalise to other paradigms, the ending would have to be reanalysed as an analytic marker of possession, since to occur on names not contained within the ‘ar’ paradigm would entail a process of clitisization rather than a morphological process. Within the weak paradigms the vowel shift which separates a nominative form from its oblique forms is sufficient indicator of genitive marking.

(455) Bók Beintu Book Beinta.GEN ‘Beinta’s book’

225

(456) Hestur Önnu Horse Anna.GEN Anna’s horse’

But here too as we have previously seen, the sar ending can also be added. (457) Bók Beintusar Book Beinta.GEN-POSS Beinta’s book’

(458) Hestur Önnusar Horse Anna.GEN-POSS ‘Anna’s horse’

This provides evidence that ‘sar’ is not simply a hybrid of two originally separate paradigms, thus a morphological process; but that it involves the clitisization of an analytic marker, which results in names which are essentially double marked for genitive. One of core motivators of this double marking,, I conjecture, is the similarity of the genitive form Jesu to the weak female name paradigm. The very existence of the Jesu/ Jesusar contrast normalises Önnu/Önnusar. While these historical clues provide potential explanations to some aspects of the behaviour of ‘sa’, this does not explain all the facts. A further detail that still requires explanation is the fact that Present Day Grammars and Faroese speakers consider the present day form ‘sa’ to attach to an accusative noun form. Such a position would be difficult to argue for within the weak paradigm, since accusatives, genitives and datives carry the same oblique form. The overwhelming evidence then must come form the fact that in Present day Faroese, there is no doubling of the ‘s’ in s-genitives and ‘ar’ genitives which end in ‘s’. Thus it is traditionally presented in Faroese grammars that we get Olavsa not Ólavssa and Hanusa’, not Hanussa, as we would expect, if this were the case. If we can accept this as a tentative account of the facts, then we have some way of explaining how it is the ‘sar’ marking exclusively requires a proper noun possessor, but also a means of accounting for the ‘clitic-like’ behaviour that it demonstrates. While other Germanic languages, such as English, and Danish, it has been conjectured that the ‘s’ genitive is the result of levelling and generalisation of the ‘s’ genitive paradigm and that

226

in each case it has developed into a phrasal marker/ phrasal inflection, as a direct result of morphological attrition, I believe the situation, as has been highlighted in the previous sections, is different for Faroese. At the stage when the ‘sar’ form was developing, it is likely that Faroese still had a full inflectional system and that factors such as agreement within the nominal phrase were still the norm.

6.4 Synthetic To Analyic Marking: Evidence from Faroese Clause Structure In the following section, data will be presented, which relate key differences between Faroese and Icelandic/Older Norse at a deeper level of clause structure than is observable from a survey of surface morphological markers. The data itself is taken from Thráinsson et al. (2004) primarily, as well as Faarlund (2004) and Haugan (2010), with one or two examples from my own corpus; the conclusion drawn from the data are my own. In Old Norse, it was possible to have non-nominative subjects in particular syntactic contexts. These are (1) if the verb was a verb of perception, thus the subject had the semantic role of experiencer rather than and (2) a passive subject.

(459) Eigi mun þér skilizk hafa Not may you.DAT understood have ‘You may not have understood’ (Faarlund,2004:127) (460) Þorgilsi hafði gefin verið öxi góð Thorgils.DAT had given been axe good ‘Thorgils had been given a good axe’ (Haugan 2010)

These facts do not pertain to Modern Faroese, but do represent a broadly similar pattern as modern Icelandic. While Icelandic must retain the case from of the active clause, when it becomes the subject of a passive, Faroese does not allow this. The data at (461-466) are taken from Thráinsson et. al. ( 2004:234)

227

(461) Genturnar eru kaldar (Faroese) Girl.NOM.PL are cold. ‘The girls are cold’

(462) Stelpunum er kalt (Icelandic) Girl.DAT.PL is cold ‘The girls are cold’

Dative subjects can sometimes be preserved in Faroese during passivisation, but only if pronominal. Full NPs subjects in passive clauses take . (Data from Thráinsson et. al, 2004:266-7)

(463) Teir dugnaðu honum (Faroese) They helped him.DAT ‘They helped him’

(464) Honum var dugnað (Faroese) Him.DAT was helped. ‘He was helped’

(465) Lastbilurin koyrdi seyðin yvir (Faroese) Truck-NOM drove sheep.ACC over ‘The truck ran the sheep over’

(466) Seyðurin varð yvirkoyrdur av lastbilinum (Faroese) Sheep.NOM was overdriven by truck.DAT ‘the sheep was run over by the truck’

This again differs from Icelandic which does maintain dative and accusative case markings during passivisation for all NPs.

For ditransitive structures in both Icelandic and Faroese, the most common pattern of case marking for the complementation pattern IO followed by DO is Nominative-verb- Dative-Accusative. This was a very common pattern in Old Norse too, but this was not the only option. It was also possible to have the pattern Nominative-verb-Dative-Dative, or for the indirect object to follow the direct object, giving the pattern Nominative-verb-

228

Accusative-Dative. Broadly equivalent patterns were available with a genitive rather than an accusative direct object, if the verb was genitive governing. This would give the additional patterns Nominative-verb-Dative-Genitive, or Nominative-verb-Accusative- Genitive. In modern Faroese, as in English, if the indirect object follows the direct object, it is now the norm for the indirect object to take the form of an oblique complement/prepositional phrase. The accusative replaces the genitive marked objects in genitive governing ditransitive verbs. This was not true of Old Norse, which would retain dative marking on the indirect object, even if it followed the direct object.

(467) Þá matt þú nú mikið lið veita Njáli Then may you now much help give Njál.DAT ‘In that case you may now give much help to Njál’

6.5 Summary of Findings There is evidence at the level of both nominal and clausal syntax that demonstrates that Faroese is moving towards analytic marking. Icelandic and Faroese differ more profoundly at the level of morphosyntax than is initially conveyed. Faroese has not lost these case forms; they are used productively in everyday sentences, but they appear to be a direct encoding of grammatical status, rather than a marker of theta roles. Verbal relations which indicate direction towards went to, speak to, wish for no longer require a case which encodes this relation; rather they require a direct object marking (accusative). A grammatical subject whether active (thus agentive) or passive (thus patientive) will take the nominative case form to mark them as the subject of the sentence.

In this sense the case endings would seem rather superficial in the average unmarked clause, since they replicate information which is already captured by syntactic position. In the case of marked clauses involving topicalisation, the case forms could be seen to be the sole indicators of grammatical role, unless of course the position after the finite verb

229

was seen as the subject slot in topicalisation structures, a fact which could be captured theoretically with relative ease.

The same is not true of Icelandic. The subject will carry the case form which indicates its thematic role with respect to the verb, irrespective of its grammatical status of subject, which is indicated also by syntactic position. A further development has been that both Faroese and Icelandic have gained a prepositional possessive construction, which is being used with increased regularity. In Faroese, this construction has largely taken over the function of possessive marking to the detriment of the genitive case. It was also demonstrated that Faroese has become more syntactic in number of other ways. Despite these changes, both languages have retained a full system of case forms, and this runs counter to the widely held belief that it is loss of case which results in an increased reliance on structure and syntactic circumlocution. From the evidence presented, I conjecture that, in the case of Faroese, it is the rigidification of syntactic position and the increased reliance on syntactic circumlocutions which has led to the decline in the use of particular case forms, such as the genitive and dative/accusative experiencer subjects in Faroese. A common theme of the discussions in this chapter is the issue of Faroese becoming more syntactic. As with the discussions in other chapters, the conclusions reached here again argue for the position that Faroese shows evidence of a preference for a syntactic means of encoding, not as the result of morphological attrition, but as a result of the Germanic propensity for using prepositional constructions instead of morphological forms. It is often said of the too that the function carried out by the genitive case is gradually being over taken by various other possessive constructions, including a prepositional alternative. In both languages, it would seem that this shift in usage patterns predates the loss in forms. The phrasal nature of the recently developed sa- possessive and the implied movement away from individual word level inflections which show agreement with each other is further evidence of a more far reaching change to the way the language operates.

230

Chapter 7 Conclusions This thesis has provided an empirically motivated theoretical account of definiteness marking from Old Norse to Modern Faroese, with the various changes to the distribution of definiteness markers being understood within the context of the changing structure of the noun phrase. Comprehensive synchronic accounts for Old Norse and the various historical stages of Faroese have provided the input for an exploration of definiteness marking in diachrony. Evidence of the growth of syntactic structure has been provided for two key periods of the language. Firstly, in Old Norse, at a stage when the noun phrase was still an NP, there is evidence of the development of a functional FOCUS slot at the left edge of the phrase. A second independent, but related, change is the development of a DP projection in Faroese. This second development, in and of itself, could be seen to represent the widely attested change which follows from the grammaticalisation of a determiner from a one-time demonstrative. In many earlier accounts of this particular grammaticalisation pathway, the discussion centres on the process as a lexical development, not a development within the context of the syntactic unit or construction in which this change took place. Instead, in this thesis, all change is understood within its syntactic context. The growth of structure itself is considered an instance of grammaticalisation, as argued in Börjars, Harries and Vincent (forthcoming). The change from demonstrative to definite marker runs parallel to the development of a determiner category and a syntactic D slot in modern Faroese. The development of the DP also forms part of the larger narrative of a shift from synthesis to analysis and is seen to be concomitant on the earlier development of the FOCUS phrase. It was this earlier development which enabled the reanalysis of the prenominal domain from a focus domain to one in which specifiers of the noun more generally are to be housed; this ultimately led to the development of a DP projection in Modern Faroese. This account of the development of definite markers is at variance with the ones often found in the literature for English and Scandinavian, which look to case loss as the most likely motivation for this type of change. However, an account based on case does not work well for Faroese, since Faroese is a language which still has much of its case system intact.

231

The very idea that syntactic structure can grow and develop is perfectly compatible with the literature on the growth of language complexity, as presented in works, such as Van Gelderen, 2007; Dahl, 2004; and Sampson, Gil and Trudgill (2009). Growth of syntactic structure is not, however, compatible with many generative theories of syntax, which seek to establish universality at the level of structure. Lexical Functional Grammar is an exception to this general trend. Taking uniformity/universality across languages to be present at the level of f-structure rather than surface c-structure, Lexical Functional Grammar has provided the ideal framework within which to explore the idea of growth of syntactic structure and capture the exact nature of the changes which this particular branch of Insular Scandinavian has undergone. The theory is monotonic, thus does not posit an underlying or deep structure to language. Instead it adheres to a principle of economy which states that branches ought to be present only if there is overt evidence of such structure. Growth of c-structure can be posited while maintaining the same features at f-structure. A consequence of this approach to language is that changes to the surface syntax need not necessarily change the features which are represented at f-structure. For an adequate descriptive and explanatory account of Faroese definiteness marking, this division of labour between c-structure and f-structure was essential. As a direct consequence of the growth of structure in both Old Norse and Modern Faroese, it was demonstrated that features of an earlier grammar adapt and develop also, as a means of avoiding redundancy. If the purpose and function of such elements were not reanalysed, they would be in danger of being ultimately dropped from the language altogether. This process is in evidence at all stages of Insular Scandinavian. For instance, it was demonstrated that the weak adjective was standardly used to mark the phrase as having specific reference. This strategy was attested in a number of ancient Germanic languages and is still attested in a number of modern Baltic and Slavic languages. After having developed the definite marker hinn at some period between Runic Old Norse and literary Old Norse, specificity marking from the adjectives co-exists alongside marking on the noun. Then at some point in the history of Insular Scandinavian, , the noun becomes the locus of definite marking in Faroese and Icelandic, leaving the specific/non-specific marking contributed by the adjective to be reanalysed as markers of restrictive/non-

232

restrictive modification. A further example of this process comes with the development of the syntactic definite marker in Modern Faroese, which resulted in the reanalysis of the morphological marker of definiteness as a semantic marker of specificity. The history of definiteness marking is a narrative of the growth of structure and the subsequent reanalysis of features represented in the noun phrase. From a theoretical perspective, a number of analyses have been provided which incorporate detail of structure and function and which utilize multiple correspondence architecture to capture the ways in which morphosyntax develops and changes. In the Old Norse chapters, I argue that there was no unified grammatical category [DEF], but that there were various means by which the language could indicate a known referent. Not only were there multiple strategies- such as the role of the phrase within information structure, the use of definite and indefinite adjectives, and the use of demonstratives-, but Old Norse also lacked a designated syntactic slot for definiteness markers. It was, therefore, argued that the Old Norse noun phrase should be analysed as NP. Mention was also made of the syntactic status of the syntactic and the bound definiteness markers and evidence was presented that these were not reflexes of the same feature, but that one was a nominal marker of anaphoricity, while the other was a marker of specificity and belonged to the AP. The various word ordering possibilities suggested that the structure of the nominal phrase was largely non-configurational and to the postulation of a FOCUS slot within the noun phrase. The idea of a FOCUS phrase within the nominal domain is not, in itself, new, since FOCUS is often posited among the various functional projections of both the noun phrase and the clause within the minimalist works. However, this work is the first to posit a FOCUS phrase for Old Norse in the case of Old Norse and to provide both a descriptive a theoretical account of the facts within an LFG architecture. It was argued that the FOCUS phrase in Old Norse housed elements which carried pragmatic contrast. In the case of adjectives, this resulted in an adjective which signalled restrictive modification, introducing a pragmatic contrast between the group singled out by the adjective and the remainder of the set indicated by the denotatum of the noun. Pronominal and adnominal demonstratives and possessive elements were also seen to carry contrastive focus if they

233 were housed in the FOCUS slot. In terms of an analysis, this results in a FOC slot to the left of the noun phrase at f-structure, and possible accentuation at prosodic structure. Since the focus slot is linked to identifiability of the referent in question, and is of significance the syntactic structure and semantic interpretation of the unit, I argue that this aspect of the Old Norse grammar must also be represented at f-structure. It was shown that there was a comlex sitting for highlighting switch reference and for indicating contrastive rather than co-reference. It is this FOCUS domain which comes to be associated with definiteness: that is, of specifying or identifying the noun. The development of the FOCUS domain was a bridge between Runic Old Norse and Medieval Old Norse, and it ensured that specifiers and modfiers of the noun which would have been postnominal in Runic Old Norse began to occupy the prenomial domain. The function of identifying the noun also becomes inextricably linked to the prenominal domain. These developments pave the way for the structure of the modern Scandinavian noun phrase and the association of definiteness with the left edge of the phrase. While the narrative here is about Faroese, it is clear, due to the dates in question and what is known of the structure of other Scandinavian languages, that these details have a wider ramifications. In reference to Faroese, I conjecture a development from NP to DP structure as discussed above. Faroese’s status as a double definite language was also explored. The distribution of definiteness markers was explained as a distinction between a syntactic and fully syntacisized marker of definiteness, which contributed the function [+DEF] to f-structure and a morphological marker of semantic specificity, which contributed the feature [+SPEC] at f-structure. It was argued that in the initial stages of the development of a syntactic D category, both the syntactic and morphological markers of would have represented dual exponence of the same feature with both contributing the feature [+DEF] to f-structure. The re-analysis of the morphological marker to a semantic marker of specificity is a natural consequence of the redundancy which resulted from the development of the syntactic marker. Double definiteness was accounted for in Faroese via the development of the two types of definiteness (±SPEC) and (±DEF), the syntactic one encoding (±DEF) only, and the bound one beign associated with both (±SPEC) and

234

(±DEF). By considering double definiteness from the perspective of feature distribution, it was possible to neatly account for the distributional facts in Faroese. As a consequence of the development of the syntactic definiteness marker, adjectives could no longer independently contribute [±RES] to f-structure. In addition to capturing the idea of growth of structure, I have demonstrated that the multiple correspondence architecture of Lexical Functional Grammar enabled me to capture subtle diachronic change in the form lexical splits, changes to subcategorizational requirements and changes to function quite neatly, without suggesting change of structure. In the final chapter, attention shifted from noun phrase internal change to the issue of wholesale systemic change, arguing that Faroese has undergone, or is undergoing, a shift from synthesis to analysis. While chapters 2-5 concentrated centrally on understanding definiteness marking within the context of the changing structure to the noun phrase, chapter 6 considered the changes to the structure of the noun phrase within the context of the move towards an analytic system. The chapter considered a number of structures, which in addition to the development of a DP in Faroese, point to a preference for analytic marking. The use of prepositional periphrasis at the expense of the adnominal genitive, and the development of a prepositional partitive structure to replace the traditional bare partitives are two instantiations of such a change at the level of nominal structure. In addition to this, the movement towards a phrasal possessive marker goes hand in hand with the development of a syntactic definiteness marker and shows a preference for edge marking, which is a characteristic of analytic/phrase focused languages. In addition to this, a number of clause level constructions were considered to build a picture of a language which is shifting towards stricter word order and a preference for analytic marking despite the fact that the case system is still largely intact. Since there is some degree of variation in usage, it has been argued that Faroese represents a case of change in progress with respect to the change from synthesis to analysis. The data presented support the view that syntactic rigidification happens before morphological loss, thus offers insight into the vexed question of precedence in the debate on morphosyntactic change.

235

Bibliographical References Abraham, W. (2007) ‘The discourse-functional crystallization of DP from the original demonstrative’, in Stark, E., Leiss, E. and Abraham W. (eds.) Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241-256. Abraham, W. and Leiss, E. (2007) 'On the interfaces between (double) definiteness, aspect, and word order in Old and Modern Scandinavian'. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, pp. 17–44. Adger, D., de Cat, C. and Tsoulas, G. (2004) Peripheries: syntactic edges and their effects. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Allan, R., Holmes R. and Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (1995) Danish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Allen, C. (2008) Genitives in Early English: Typology and evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, C. (2010) 'Substantival adjectives in the and the nature of syntactic change', in Hendery, R. and Hendriks, J. (eds.), Grammatical Change: theory and description, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp.9-25. Alexiadou, A. and Wilder. C. (1998) Adjectival modification and multiple determiners. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (eds.) Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the DP. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 303-332. Alexiadou, A., Haegemon, L. and Stavrou, M. (2007) Noun phrases in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. Antonsen, E. H. (2002) Runes and Germanic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Armoskaite, S. and Gillon, C. (2013) ‘50 shades of Definiteness’. http://www.academia.edu/4912294/50_SHADES_OF_DEFINITENESS_ Barnes, M. and Weyhe, E. (1994) ‘Faroese’, in König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 190–218. Barnes, M. (2002) ‘Head+modifier or modifier+head?’, in Johansen, A., Svabo Hansen, Z., í Lon Jacobsen, J. and Marnersdóttir, M. (eds.) Einvindarmál, Heiðursrit til Eivind Weyhe a séksti ára degi hansara. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag, pp. 59-66. Barnes, M. (2004) A New Introduction to Old Norse part 1: Grammar. (2nd edition). University College London: The Viking Society for Northern Research. Behaghel, . (1923-1932) Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche darstellung. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Bendiksson, .G. (1963) ‘Review of Chapman 1962: Icelandic-Norwegian Linguistic Relationships’. Lingua Islandica-Íslenzk Tunga 4, pp. 152-162. Birkman, T. (1995) Von Agedal bis Malt. Berlin Börjars, K. (1994) ‘Swedish double determination in European typological perpsective’. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17, pp. 219-252. Börjars, K. (1998) Feature Distribution in Swedish Noun Phrases. Oxford: Blackwell. Börjars, K., and Donohue, M. (2000) ‘Much ado about nothing; features and zeros in Germanic noun phrases’. Studia Linguisitica 54, pp. 309-353.

236

Börjars, K. and Harries, P. (2008) ‘The clitic-affix distinction, historical change and Scandinavian bound definiteness marking’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics Volume 20 (4), pp. 289-350. Börjars, K. and Payne, J. (2013) ‘Dimensions of variation in the expression of functional features: modelling definiteness in LFG’. LFG 13 Proceedings. CSLI Publications. Borsley, R.D. and Börjars, K. (2011) Non-transformational theories of syntax: formal and explicit models of grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Bresnan, J. (2000) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brøndum-Nielsen, J. (1928) Gammeldansk Grammatik I sproghistorisk fremstilling I: inledning, tekstkildernes lydbetegnelse, vokalisme. København: J.H. Schultz Forlag. Braunmüller, K. (1982) Syntaxtypologische studien zum Germanischen.Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Brunner, K. (1962) Die Englische sprache: Ihre geschichtliche entwicklung. Volume 2. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Butt, M. and King, T.H (1996). Structural Topic and Focus without Movement, in Proceedings of the First Annual LFG Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/1/butt.ps. Butt, M. and Holloway King, T. (eds.) (2001) Time Over Matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Chafe, W. L. (1976) ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics’, in Li, C.N. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25-55. Choi H. (1999) Optimizing Structure in Context: scrambling and information structure. (Dissertations in Linguistics) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Christoffersen, M. (1980) ‘Marked and unmarked word order in Old Norse’, in Traugott, E.C. et al. (eds.) Papers form the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115-21. Cook, P. and Payne, J. (2006) Information Structure and Scope in German. CSLI publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu. Curme, G. O. (1910) ‘The origin and growth of the adjective declension in Germanic’. The Journal of English and 9, pp. 439-482. Dahl, J. (1909) Føroysk mállæra til skúlabrúks. Tórshavn. Dahl, Ö. (2004) The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dahl, Ö. (2007) ‘Definite articles in Scandinavian: competing grammaticalisation processes in standard and non-standard varieties’, in Kortman, B. Dialectology meets typology. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 147-80. Dahl, Ö. (2010) Grammaticalisation in the North: noun phrase morphosyntax in Scandinavian vernaculars. Online publication. Dalrymple, M. (1990) Syntax and Semantics 34: Lexical Functional Grammar. NewYork: Academic Press. Delbrück, B. (1911) Germanische syntax III. Leipzig: Teubner.

237

Delsing, L. (1993) The internal structure of the noun phrase in the Scandinavian languages: a comparative study. PhD Thesis. The department of Scandinavian languages. Lund: University of Lund. Delsing, L. (1994) ‘Hans sjukt ben’ — Om starka och svaga adjektiv i fornsvenskan’, in Språkbruk grammatik och språkförändring: En festskrift till Ulf Teleman. Jörgensen, N., Platzak, C. and Svensen, J. (eds.) Lund: Lund University, pp. 99–108. Delsing, L. (1998) ‘Possession in Germanic’, in Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.) Possessors and predicates in the determiner phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Devine, A.M. and Stephens, L.O. (2006) Latin word order: structure, meaning and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diderichsen, P. (1941) Sætningsbygningen í Skanske Lor. : Einar Munksgaard. Dryer, M. (2005) 'Definite Articles and Indefinite Articles’, in Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Giland, D. and Comrie, B. (eds.) World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.154–161. Dyvik, H.J.J. (1979) ‘Omfring framveksten av artiklene I norsk. Språklig markering av referensielle forutsetninger’ [On the Emergence of Article in Norwegian. Linguistic Encoding of Referential Presuppositions.] Maal of Minne 1 (2), pp. 40- 78. Einarsson, S. (1945) Icelandic. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Enç, M. (1991) ‘The Semantics of Specificity’. Linguistic Inquiry. 22, pp. 1-25. Engdahl, E. and Valldiví, E. (1995) ‘Information packaging and grammar architechture: a constraint-based approach’ Online publication: www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/external/clmt/papers/hpsg/arch-dist.. Faarlund, J. T. (1994) ‘Old and Middle Scandinavian’, in König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 190–218. Faarlund, J. T. (2001) ‘The Notion of Oblique Subject and its status in the ’, in Faarlund, J.T. (ed) Grammatical relations in change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99-135. Faarlund, J.T. (2004) The syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faarlund, J.T. (2005) ‘Syntactic developments from Old Nordic to Modern Nordic’, in Bandle, O., Braunmuller, K. and Jahr, E.H. (eds.) The Nordic language: an international handbook of the Vol. 2. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.1149-1161. Faarlund, J.T. (2007) ‘From clitic to affix: the Norwegian definite article’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79, pp. 21-46. Faarlund, J.T. (2009) ‘On the history of definiteness marking in Scandinavian’. Journal of Linguistics.45 (3), pp. 617-639. Falk, Y. (2001) Lexical-Functional Grammar: an introduction to parallel constraint based syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Fillmore, C. J. (1982) ‘Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis’, in Robert Jarvella, R.J and Klein, W. (eds.) Speech, Place, and Action. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 31–59.

238

Fischer, O. (2000) ‘The Position of the adjective in Old English’, in Bermúdez-Otero, R., Denison, D., Hogg, R.M and McCully, C.B. (eds.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 153-181. Fischer, O. (2001) ‘The position of the adjective in (Old) English from an iconic perspective’, in Fischer, O. and Nänny, M. (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 249-276. Giurgea, I. (2013) ‘On the Evolution of articles into agreement markers in Romanian and Albanian’. Bucharest working papers in linguistics 15, 1. pp 23-34. Giusti, G. (2002) ‘The functional structure of noun phrases: a bare phrase structure approach’, in Cinque, G. (ed.) Functional Structure in DP and IP. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 54-90. Gordon, E.V. (1957) An introduction to Old Norse (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gundel, J. (1974) The role of topic comment in linguistic theory. Doctoral Thesis. University of Austin. Texas. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993) ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse’. Language 69 (2), pp. 274-307. Haberland H. (1994) ‘Danish’, in König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds). The Germanic languages. London: Routledge. pp. 313-348. Hammershaimb (1854) Færøsk sproglare annaler for Nordisk old kyndighed og historie, pp. 233-316. Hammershaimb (1891) Færøsk anthologi 1-11. Bókargarður. Tórshavn.

Hamre, H. (1961) ‘The Use of the Genitive in Modern Faroese’. Scandinavian Studies 33, pp. 231-246. Hankammer, J. & Mikkelsen L.H. (2002) ‘A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, pp. 137-175. Harbert, W. (2007) The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haugan, J. (2000) Old Norse Word Order and Information Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Trondheim. Online publication. Haumann, D. (2003) ‘The postnominal ‘and adjective’ construction in Old English’. and Linguistics 7(1), pp. 57-83. Hellan, L. (1985) ‘The headedness of NPs in Norwegian’, in Muysken, P. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) Features and Projections. Dordrecht. Foris, pp. 89-122 Henrikson, J. (1998) ‘Hvørsfall’. Málting 23, pp. 31-33. Herring, S. C. (1990) ‘Information Structure as a Consequence of Word order type’, in Proceedings of the Berkley Linguistics Society, pp. 163-174. Himmelmann, N.P. (1996). ‘Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses’, in Fox (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam and Philidelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 205–254. Holmberg, A. (1992) ‘The Position of Faroese in Scandinavian Syntax’, in Holmberg, A, (ed.) Papers from the Workshop on Scandinavian Noun Phrase.University of Umeå, Report 32. Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. (1995) The Role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 239

Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G.K. (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Irurtzun, A. and Madariaga, N. (2010) ‘On the syntax and semantics of DP internal scrambling in Russian’, in Zybatow, G., Dudchuk, P. and Pshehotskaya, E. (ed.) Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics 25, pp. 287-303. Jakobson, J. (1907) Diplomatarium Færense. Føroskt fodnabrævasavn. Miðaldar brøvupp til trúbótarskeiðid. Víð søguligum. Tórshavn: Emil Thompsen. Julien, M. (2003) ‘Double definiteness in Scandinavian’, in Dahl, A., Bentzen, K. and Svenonius, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian conference in Linguistics 31(1), pp. 230:244. Julien, M. (2005) Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Katz, J. and Selkirk, E. (2011) ‘Contrastive focus versus discourse new: new evidence from phonetic prominence in English’, in Language 87 (4), pp. 771-816. King, T.H. (1997) ‘Focus domains and information structure’, in Proceedings of the LFG 97 conference. Stanford CA: CSLI publications. Kiparsky, P. (1995) ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Roberts, I.G. and Battye, A. (eds.) Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–167. Kock, A. (1919) ‘Fornnordiska böjningsformer’, in Arkiv för nordisk filogi 35, pp. 55- 99. Kroch, A. (2000) ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) The handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 629-739. La Cara, N. (2011) ‘A definite problem: the morphosyntax of double definiteness in Swedish’ http://escholarship.org/uc/item/90m74985 Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lander, E.T. and Haegeman, L. (2014) ‘Old Norse as an NP language: observations on the common Norse and runic inscriptions’. Transactions of the Philological Society. 112, 3, pp. 279-318. Larm, K. (1936) ‘Den bestämda artikeln i äldere fornsvenska’, en historisksyntaktisk studie. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Boktryckeri. Lehman, C. (1985) ‘Grammaticalisation: synchronic variation and diachronic change’. Lingua e stile 20 (3), pp. 308-318. Leiss, E. (2007) ‘Covert patterns of definiteness/indefiniteness and aspectuality in Old Icelandic, Gothic, and ’, in Stark, E., Leiss, E. and Abraham, W. (eds.) Nominal Determination. Amsterdam: John Benjaminspp. 73–102. Lenerz J. (2001) ‘Scrambling and Reference in German’. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 23, pp. 129-139. Lockwood, W. B. (1977) An introduction to modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur. Lohndal, T. (2007) ‘On the structure and development of nominal phrases in Norwegian’, in Stark, E., Leiss, E. and Abraham W. (eds.) Nominal

240

determination: Typology, context constraints and historical emergence. Amstadam: John Benjamins, pp. 287-310. Lohndal, T. & van Gelderen, E. (2008) ‘The position of adjectives and double definiteness’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 82, pp. 1-22. Longobardi, G. (1994) ‘Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form’. Linguistic Inquiry 25, pp. 609-665. Lunt, H. (2001) Old Church Slavonic (7th edition) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lyons, C. (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maling, J. (1986) ‘Clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic’, in Hellan, L. and Christensen, K.K. (eds.)Topics in Scandinavian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. pp.53-63. Maling, J. and Zaenen, A. (eds.) (1990) Syntax and semantics: modern Icelandic syntax. London: Academic Press. Marold, E. (1984) ‘Überlegungen zur entwicklung der substantiv-flexion in den skandinavischen Sprachen’, Gschwantler, O., et al. Linguistica und philologia. Gendenkschrift für Björn Collinder. Wien, pp. 307-330. Matras, C. (1941) Den Færøske sprog-og folkebevægelse. Sv. Grunvig, V.U Hammershaimb og deres forsættere. Nordisk I tusund aar. Copenhagen. pp. 207-222. Matras, C. (1973) Evangelium Sankta Mateussar. Prentða týðing Shrøters 1823. Vol 1. Ljósmyndað útgáva av prentaðu bókini. Tórhavn: Émil Thompsen. Moltmann, F. (1990) Scrambling in German and Specificity Effect. MS, MIT. Mycock, L. and Lowe, J. J. (2013) ‘Prosodic marking in Discourse Functions’, in Butt, M. and King, K.T. (eds.) Proceedings of LFG13 Conference. CSLI Publications. Neckel, G. (1924) Die Entwicklung von schwachtonigem altnordischem u (o) vor m aus helleren Vokalen und der altnordische Substantivartikel. Festschrift für E. Mogk. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer. Neeleman A. (1994) ‘Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon’, in Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) Studies on Scrambling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 387-429. Neeleman, A. and Reinhart, T. (1998) ‘Scrambling at the PF interface’, in Butt, M. and Gueder, W.(eds) The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309-353. Norde, M. (1997) The history of the genitive in Swedish: A case study in degrammaticalization. Vakgroep Skandinavische taal-en letterkunde: The University of Amsterdam. Nygaard, Marius. (1905) Norrøn Syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug. Perridon, Harry. (1989) Reference, definiteness and the noun phrase in Swedish, University of Amsterdam: Ph.D. thesis. Perridon, Harry. ‘Language Contact and Grammatical Change: the case of ’, in Tijdschrift voor Skandinavistiek 24 (4), pp.235-256. Petersen, H. P. (2008) ‘The borrowing scale and Danish in Faroese’. Fróðskaparrit, 56, pp. 97–115. Petersen, Hjalmar.P and Jonathan Adams. (2009) Faroese: a language course for beginners. Stiðin: Tórshavn.

241

Pfaff, Alexander. (2014) ‘Inside and Outside- Before and After: Weak and Strong Adjectives in Icelandic’, in Sleeman, P., van de Velde, F. and Perridon, H. (eds.) Adjectives in Germanic and Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217- 244. Philippi, Julia. (1997) ‘The rise of the article in the Germanic languages’, in van Kamenade, A and Vincent, N. (eds.) Parameters of morpho-syntactic change, pp. 62-93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poulsen, J., Hendrik W. and Zachariasen, U. (1971) Seyðabrævið. Tórshavn: Føroya fróðskaparfelag. (Michael Barnes, M. and Margolin, D.R. translators) Prince, E.F. (1981) Towards a taxonomy of given and new information, in Cole. P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp.223-255. Pysz Agnieszka. (2009) The syntax of prenominal and postnominal adjectives in Old English. Cambridge: Scholars Publishing. Rad, S.R. (2012) The syntax and semantics of of ellipsis in verb phrases in Persian. PhD Dissertation: The University of Manchester.

Reinhart, Tanja. (1982) Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. MS. : Distributed by The Indiana University Linguistics Club. Roberts, I and A. Roussou. (2003) Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. (1995) Old Icelandic: a non-configurational language? NOWELE 26, pp.3-29. Santelmann, Lynn. (1993) “The distribution of double definiteness in Swedish: den support in D.” Studia Linguistica 47, pp.154-176. Sampson, G., Gil, D. and Trudgill, P. (2004) Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sells, Peter. (2001) Structure, alignment and optimality in Swedish. Stanford. CSLI publications. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. (1993) ‘The Structure of the Icelandic NP’. Studia Linguistica 47, pp. 177-197. Sleeman, P., van de Velde, F. and Perridon, H. (eds.) (2014) Adjectives in Germanic and Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Staksberg, Marius. (1996) ‘Sa-possessiv’. Málting 18, pp.28-34. Stoltz Thomas and Sabine Gorseman. (2001) ‘Pronominal possession in Faroese and the parameters of alienability/inalienability’, in Studies in Language 25 (3), pp. 557-599. Stroh-Wollin, U. (2009) ‘On the development of definite markers in Scandinavian’, in Working Papers in Scandinavian syntax 83, pp.1-25. Stroh-Wollin, U. and Simke, R. (2014) ‘Strong and weak adjectives in Swedish’, in Sleeman, P., van de Velde, F. and Perridon, H. (eds.) Adjectives in Germanic and Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95-112. Strunk, J. (2004) The prepositional possessor construction. http://www.linguistics.rub.de/~strunk/mathesis.pdf Strunk, J. (2005) Pro-drop in Nominal possessive constructions. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/10/lfg05strunk.pdf

242

Svenonius, P. (1992a) The extended projection of N: identifying the head of the noun phrase. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49, pp.95-121. Svenonius, P. (1992b) ‘The distribution of definite marking’, in Holmberg, A. (ed.). Papers from the workshop on Scandianvain Noun Phrase. Department of General Linguistics, University of Umeå. Svenonius, P. (1993) ‘The location of the attributive adjectives’. West coast conference in formal linguistics 12, pp.438-454. Syrett, Martin. (2002) ‘Morphological Developments from Ancient Nordic to Old Nordic’, in Bandle et. al. (eds) The Nordic Languages. Vol. 1. pp. 719–727. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Szabolcsi, Anna (1987) ‘Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase’, in Kenesei, I. (ed.) Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 2: Theories and Analyses. Szeged: Jate, pp. 167– 189. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. (1990) ‘D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian’, in Mascarò, J. and Nespor, N. (eds). Grammar in Progress. Dordrecht: Fortis, pp. 419-431. Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H., í Lon Jacobsen, J. and Hansen, Z. S. (2004) Faroese: an overview and reference grammar: Foroya Frodskaparfelag. Thráinsson, H. (2007) The syntax of Icelandic: Cambridge syntax guides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toivonen, I. (2003) Non-projecting lexical words. Dordrect: Kluwer. Torp, A. (1982) Norsk og nordisk før og nå. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Vallfells, S. and Cathey, J.E. (1981) Old Icelandic: an introductory course. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vallduví, E. (1992) The Information Component. New York: Garland. Vallduví, E. (1993) Information packaging: a survey. Centre for Cognitive science and Human Communication. Vannebo, K. I. (1972) ‘Ein sterk ein prylert’. Maal og Minne. pp. 160-173 Van Gelderen (2007) ‘The definiteness cycle in Germanic’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19 (4), pp. 275-305. Van Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R, J. (1997) Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vincent, N. (1997) ‘The emergence of the D-system in Romance’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.) Parameters of Morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-169. Weerman, F. and de Wit, P. (1999) ‘The decline of the genitive in Dutch’. Linguistics 37, 6. pp. 1155-1192. Wessén, E. (1956) Svensk språkhistoria. III: Grundlinjer till en historisk syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Zwicky, A. (1985) ‘Heads’. Journal of Linguistics 21, pp.1-29.

243