Variation and Change in the Tense Morphology of Heritage Norwegian in North America
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Alexander K. Lykke Variation and Change in the Tense Morphology of Heritage Norwegian in North America Thesis submitted for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies Faculty of Humanities 2020 © Alexander K. Lykke, 2020 Series of dissertations submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo ISSN ISSN All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. Cover: Hanne Baadsgaard Utigard. Print production: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo. Abstract This dissertation is a study of the tense morphology of American Norwegian, a heritage language spoken by minority language bilinguals. Inflectional morphology in heritage languages has been found to be changeable, but tense morphology is, reportedly, highly stable (Benmamoun, Montrul & Polinsky 2013). This claim is revised somewhat. The study draws its data from the spontaneous speech of the Corpus of American Nordic Speech (Johannessen, 2015b), which is supplemented by a translation elicitation. The analysis uses a Distributed Morphology framework (Halle & Marantz, 1993), paired with the Tolerance Principle approach (Yang, 2016). American Norwegian is compared with homeland Norwegian dialects. It turns out that the tense morphology of American Norwegian is predominantly stable. Norwegian has significant dialectal variation, and this variation is continued in America. Furthermore, there are signs of dialect contact. There are also tendencies of variation and (intralinguistic) change in American Norwegian. Overgeneralization of the regular classes of inflection is most common. In stable change, the overgeneralization mirrors tendencies variation and change in homeland Norwegian. However, there are also more unexpected trends of change. Firstly, there is overgeneralization of a regular class of inflection that is overgeneralized most commonly by Norwegian children around age 4. Secondly, there is change in the morphosyntactic distribution of forms, so that e.g. present tense forms are used in preterit contexts. The less expected trends are only found with a specific group of three speakers. Two such speakers have had an earlier onset of bilingualism than others have. The remaining speaker has received heterogeneous Norwegian dialect input. It is argued that the unexpected trends of change are related to particularly decreased exposure to a homogeneous system of Norwegian tense inflection. This indicates that heterogeneous dialect input mayhave the same effect as early bilingualism with heritage speakers. Sammendrag på norsk Denne avhandlinga er en studie av tempusmorfologien i amerikanorsk, som er et nedarvingsspråk, altså talt av tospråklige minoritetsspråkstalere. Tidligere forskning viser at bøyingsmorfologi er endringsutsatt i nedarv- ingsspråk, mens tempusmorfologi angivelig er stabilt (Benmamoun, Mon- trul & Polinsky 2013). Dette synet revideres delvis. Dataene til studien er spontantale fra Corpus of American Nordic Speech (Johannessen, 2015b), supplert med data fra et oversettelseseksper- iment. Dataene analyseres i et distribuert morfologi-rammeverk (Halle & Marantz, 1993), kombinert med Yangs (2016) toleranseprinsipp-teori. amerikanorsk sammenlignes med norske dialekter fra Norge. Tempusmor- fologien i amerikanorsk er hovedsakelig uendra. Som kjent har norsk mye dialektal variasjon, og denne variasjonen gjenfinnes i Amerika. Videre er det tegn til dialektkontakt. I tillegg fins det variasjon og (indre motivert) endring i tempusmor- fologien i amerikanorsk. Overgeneralisering av regulær bøying er vanligst. De stabile endringene som blir påvist, følger samme mønster som vari- asjon og endring i hjemlandsnorsk. På den annen side fins også mer uventa endringstendenser. For det første forekommer overgeneralisering av den samme regulære klassen som overgeneraliseres mest av norske barn i fireårsalderen. For det andre kan endring i den morfosyntaktiske dis- tribusjonen av bøyingsformer observeres. F.eks. forekommer presensformer i preteritumskontekster. De mer uventa endringene finnes kun hos en spesifikk gruppe på tre talere. To av disse opplevde tospråklighet fra særlig ung alder (før skolestart). Den tredje taleren med uventa endringer har hatt et særlig heterogent innlæringsgrunnlag, i form av forskjellige norske dialekter. Følgelig kan man hevde at de uventa endringene hos denne talergruppa skyldes særlig lav tilgang til et homogent norsk tempusbøyingssystem. Disse funnene antyder at et heterogent innlæringsgrunnlag kan ha samme innvirkning på språket til nedarvingstalere som tidlig tospråklighet. ii Preface What a journey this has been. During the course of my doctoral work, I have read my fair share of prefaces and acknowledgements, and it often left me with the feeling that everything was so settled and easy for all the candidates who had managed to finish their dissertations; like they had had everything figured out from their first day, and had met few obstacles at all. So, if you who are reading this are working on your doctoral dissertation, or something else that is a long, lonesome and demanding journey, I would like to say that this has not been easy all the time, and that many things which may seem settled and easy in hindsight, took a long time to figure out. I first decided to take up the study of American Norwegian in the fall of 2015, but in reality my relationship with this language, and its speakers, began in 2013 when I started work with transcription and transliteration for the Corpus of American Nordic Speech (CANS). As an undergraduate and master’s student, I was most preoccupied with historical stages of language. I am now very glad, however, that my experiences after finishing my master’s thesis and quitting work at the University of Oslo led me back to doctoral studies and American Norwegian in particular. The material that I have had the privilege to work with, is immeasurably rich, and contains so many oddities, quirks and wondrous things that I could have studied it for a lifetime. For now, I have written a doctoral dissertation about it. And, there is a host of people without whom this would not have been possible. First, and foremost, I am greatly indebted to my two advisors, Ida Larsson and Janne Bondi Johannessen. I could not have asked for advisors more involved in my project, and more invested in seeing it to its end. Ida has a way of giving criticism which makes you feel intelligent and capable of effectuating the necessary change. Every meeting starts with “How are you doing, Alexander?”, inquiring for my well-being, and every meeting ends with: “Do you know what you are going to do now?” Ida sees the structure in things in a way which I have seen no other do. And, Janne, I almost do not know where to start. She was my employer in my first and possibly most formative academic linguist job, starting iii as a research assistant back in 2009 on the Nordic Dialect Corpus. She was the one who first introduced me to American Norwegian. Janne also brought all of us on the adventure of a field work trip to the US in 2016. Those two weeks driving across the Midwest, rigging up our recording equipment in churches, schools (and a small woodland sawmill!), I will never forget. Also, through Janne’s vast network, I have been introduced to so many other wonderful linguists. I am fortunate to have had two advisors who are so knowledgeable, and who can see straight to the heart of such a diverse range of problems. It is said the only constant in life is change. And, in the few months which have passed since I originally wrote this preface, change has come again. And this time, it was for the worse. In this short space of time, Janne has left us, way too young. Janne and I may not always have agreed on everything, but we shared the same passion for language. She was an exceptionally skilled linguist, without whom much of my career would not have been possible. Her loss will be felt keenly, for a long time, and by many. I think mine was the last dissertation on which she served as an advisor. I hope you were proud of what we achieved together, Janne. I am thankful for the sage advice of Erik Petzell, who served as external reader on my midway evaluation in 2018. The discussions with Erik, Ida and Janne on that day provided the frame for my finished dissertation. Erik also read and commented on the next-to-last draft of my chapter about change. As such, his contribution has significantly affected my work. At the end, I especially appreciated his comments about what parts of my analysis he liked, in addition to what could be better. I hope our paths cross again before too long. Moving on, I have shared a special relationship with two of my peers throughout this journey: Yvonne van Baal and Julian Lysvik. In some ways, put together, they are my third advisor. Yvonne knows my project almost as well as my advisors do. She has been my office mate for over three years, and frequent sparring partner for ideas. Our discussions have ranged from the intricacies of LATEX to grammatical theory and formalisms, to the differences, and similarities, between Dutch and Norwegian history, society, and language. And, of course, the current progression of Ajax in the Champions League. Yvonne was also my partner in crime on the translation experiment and the wonderful, though sometimes strenuous, adventure in the Midwest in 2016. And Julian and I, we discuss life, the universe, and everything. He has also been really handy to have around when I needed to discuss generative formalisms, and exoskeletal grammatical theory. And, through a mere coincidence, we suddenly came to enjoy iv success together, with our dissemination work with the TV show Beforeigners. Here’s to more in the future; both linguistic research and dissemination! Having Yvonne and Julian around has doubtlessly made both my life and my dissertation better. Many people at the Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian studies furthermore deserve my thanks.