DOCSLIB.ORG

Long-Distance Reflexives in Norwegian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long-Distance Reflexives in Norwegian Long-Distance Reflexives in Norwegian Tania E. Strahan Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2001 Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics The University of Melbourne Australia Abstract Despite the work of linguists such as Thrainsson, Sigurðsson, Pollard, Sag, Popowich and Kuno, among others, the analysis and explanation of long-distance reflexives (LDRs) continues to be carried out primarily in the field of syntax. A major goal of this thesis is to show that, in Norwegian, both reflexives with local antecedents and reflexives with non-local antecedents obey the same general constraints. These constraints are based upon a confluence of factors including the semantic features of reflexives as opposed to pronouns, syntactic features such as clause structure, prosodic features such as intonation, discourse features such as perspective and pragmatic information such as conversational implicature. A review of the literature on long-distance reflexives reveals several problems with syntactic approaches, the greatest problem being that they are based upon typological tendencies. Because of this, there are exceptions to nearly every analysis. The notions of finite tense, perspective, factivity and logophoricity are relevant to the description and generation of long-distance reflexives in Norwegian, but not exhaustively so. A major contribution of this thesis to the body of literature available on long-distance reflexives is the presentation of new data. Grammaticality judgements were collected from 180 native speakers of Norwegian on sentence frames which are often used as the basis for arguments in the LDR literature. In addition, 27 speakers completed an oral elicitation exercise, where 6 speakers used LDR. Despite the fact that people disagree on the level of acceptability an LDR construction has, this disagreement is regular, and describable in terms of the Extended Reference Point Proposal, which incorporates information derived from semantics, syntax, prosody, discourse and pragmatics. i Declaration I declare that this thesis has been composed by myself and that the research reported herein is my own unless otherwise indicated. This thesis complies with all the regulations for the degree of PhD at the University of Melbourne, and falls below the requisite word limit of 100,000 words. Tania E. Strahan September 2001 ii Acknowledgments There are literally hundreds of people who have worked with me to make this thesis possible – I wish I could personally thank each and every one. Failing that, here is a (partial) list of people whose efforts I must acknowledge. Firstly, my supervisors. In more or less chronological order, these are: Dominique Estival, for helping me through my first year as a PhD student, and for learning about the world of LDR with me! Then came Lesley Stirling, who seemed to have a strange passion for anaphora, and who opened up the world of discourse analysis to me. Next came Nick Evans and Peter Austin, who had both been on my committee from the start. Their apprehension about the scale of this undertaking was duly noted, and I am pleased to be able to add this data now to the general linguistic corpus. And I have to thank Nick Evans for seeing this project through in its final stages. All and any faults that remain in this thesis are not for want of supervisory advice! There is one person who has been a constant throughout this thesis apart from myself, and that is Nick Nicholas. While he did abscond to America several years ago, he has returned occasionally, and he has remained in email contact throughout. I remain indebted to him and his grumpy-bum comments on several thousand drafts ;-) . To Sam Carter, who proved himself invaluable in quickly learning Norwegian and entering data for me, tuuusen takk! To all of my informants, and linguists with whom I had the pleasure of discussing my research in Norway, tusen takk skal Dykk ha! And thanks must go to my basketball team, the Eltham Wildcats ABA team, because without the physical exertion of playing basketball, I most certainly would have gone mad. Congratulations to the majority of my team who can recite the title of my thesis, and even explain what it means!! And finally, thanks to my family and friends (some of whom can confidently recite my topic, too!), in particular Lucien Boland and Leslie Layne (I knew it wasn’t syntax!) iii Table of contents PART I Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION TO LDR......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Structure of thesis .........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 LDR.................................................................................................................................................................3 1.2.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................................................3 1.3 The problem in more technical terms ........................................................................................................4 1.4 Main features of LDR...................................................................................................................................6 1.4.1 Monomorphemicity..............................................................................................................................6 1.4.2 Subjecthood condition on antecedent ...............................................................................................9 1.4.3 Complementarity effects ...................................................................................................................14 1.4.4 Tensed S barrier..................................................................................................................................16 1.4.5 Subjunctive mood...............................................................................................................................18 1.5 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................20 2 INTRODUCTION TO NORWEGIAN .................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Overview of Scandinavian.........................................................................................................................21 2.2 Norwegian ....................................................................................................................................................22 2.2.1 Nynorsk................................................................................................................................................22 2.2.2 Bokmål..................................................................................................................................................23 2.2.3 Typological description of Norwegian ...........................................................................................24 2.3 Dialectal variation.......................................................................................................................................31 2.3.1 Trøndersk (Tr).....................................................................................................................................33 2.3.2 Midlandsk (ML) ..................................................................................................................................34 2.3.3 Nordvestlandsk (NV) .........................................................................................................................34 2.3.4 Sørlandsk (S) .......................................................................................................................................35 2.3.5 Nordnorsk (NN)..................................................................................................................................35 2.3.6 Østlandsk (Ø).......................................................................................................................................35 2.3.7 Vestlandsk (V).....................................................................................................................................36 2.3.8 Barriers and connections between regions.....................................................................................36 2.3.9 Summary ..............................................................................................................................................37 2.4 Reflexives in Norwegian............................................................................................................................37 PART II Long-Distance Reflexives 3 INTRODUCTION TO SYNTACTIC ACCOUNTS OF LDR .................................................................................. 41 3.1 Some hypotheses implicit in the Binding Conditions...........................................................................42 3.2 Reinhart and Reuland’s account of Reflexivity .....................................................................................44 3.2.1 Anaphoric expressions ......................................................................................................................44 3.2.2 Condition B..........................................................................................................................................49
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norway Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources, 2002
    Norway Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources, 2002 Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources Editor: Nina H. Sæther Norway Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources, 2002 ISBN 82-996668-1-3 Published by: The Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources (Genressursutvalget for husdyr), 2003 Editor: Nina H. Sæther Layout: Spekter Reklamebyrå AS, www spekter.com Print: Østfold trykkeri Distribution: Norsk Landbruksmuseum, N-1432 Ås, www.nlm.nlh.no NORWAY COUNTRY REPORT ON FARM ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES, 2002 Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources Edited by Nina H. Sæther Norway Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 6 The Scope of the Report ................................................................................................................... 7 1 Norwegian Livestock Farming and Aquaculture ........................................................................ 9 1.1 Natural Conditions and Regulatory Framework for Agriculture and the Fish Farming Industry .... 9 1.1.1 Natural Conditions ....................................................................................................... 9 1.1.2 Regulatory Framework for Agriculture and the Fish Farming Industry ........................... 9 1.1.3 Distinctive Features of Norwegian Farm Animal Production and Aquaculture .............. 11 1.1.4 Distinctive Features of Norwegian Animal Breeding ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (PDF) Available
    Doktoravhandlinger ved NTNU, 2016:311 Rikk Rikke van Ommeren e van Ommeren e van Den flerstemmige oravhandling språkbrukeren Dokt En sosiolingvistisk studie av norske bidialektale ISBN 978-82-326-1960-3 (trykt utg.) ISBN 978-82-326-1961-0 (elektr. utg.) ISSN 1503-8181 Dokt oravhandlinger ved NTNU, 2016:311 ved oravhandlinger NTNU philosophiae doctor philosophiae Avhandling for graden for Avhandling Det humanistiske fakultet Det humanistiske Institutt for språk og litteratur for Institutt ges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet ges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige Nor Rikke van Ommeren Den flerstemmige språkbrukeren En sosiolingvistisk studie av norske bidialektale Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor Trondheim, november 2016 Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet Det humanistiske fakultet Institutt for språk og litteratur NTNU Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor Det humanistiske fakultet Institutt for språk og litteratur © Rikke van Ommeren ISBN 978-82-326-1960-3 (trykt utg.) ISBN 978-82-326-1961-0 (elektr. utg.) ISSN 1503-8181 Doktoravhandlinger ved NTNU, 2016:311 Trykket av NTNU Grafisk senter Til de flerstemmige, for tilliten og inspirasjonen 2 Innhold Innhold ....................................................................................................................................................................... i Oversyn – tabeller, illustrasjoner og kart ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Grimstaddialekten
    Grimstaddialekten En undersøkelse av holdninger til egen dialekt blant unge i Grimstad kommune GRETE RESVIK KALVEHAGEN VEILEDER Elin Gunleifsen Universitetet i Agder, 2017 Fakultet for humaniora og pedagogikk Institutt for nordisk og mediefag 1 FORORD Denne masteravhandlingen markerer avslutningen på en lang utdannelse. Det har vært en lærerik og spennende prosess, og jeg har flere jeg ønsker å takke. Først og fremst ønsker jeg å takke min veileder ved Universitetet i Agder, Elin Gunleifsen, som gjennom prosessen har gitt meg fornuftige, lærerike og konstruktive tilbakemeldinger. Videre vil jeg rette en stor takk til informantene som gjorde denne undersøkelsen mulig å gjennomføre, fordi de stilte opp til min undersøkelse. Takk til norsklæreren ved Dahlske videregående skole, som både var imøtekommende og gjorde undersøkelsen lett å gjennomføre. Jeg ønsker også å takke venner og familie som har vært tålmodige og støttende, særlig min søster Signe Malene Kalvehagen Gusdal. Uten henne hadde masteravhandlingen vært mye vanskeligere å fullføre. Og til sist, men ikke minst, skylder jeg en takk til min kjære samboer Per-Helge Aldersjøen Silseth, for forståelse og tålmodighet når jeg har stresset som verst. Grimstad, mai 2017 Grete Resvik Kalvehagen 2 INNHOLD FORORD ................................................................................................................................................. 2 INNHOLD ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vestlandsk Raudkolle ...I Gammal Og Ny Tid
    Vestlandsk Raudkolle ...i gammal og ny tid... “ Nr 17 Desember ” 2010 årgang 8 1 Forsiden: Kviga Piaf får frokost. STYRET Fjellfroskvatn, øverst i Målselvdalen i Indre Troms Foto: Alf Pedersen Leiar: INNHOLD: Olav Svoen 6817 Naustdal Leiaren har ordet Side 3 Tlf. 57 81 81 76 [email protected] URFE AS søker flere medarbeidere Side 4 Storfeets betydning og verdi Side 6 10-12 år med gamle raser Side 8 Årsmøtet på Jæren Side 10 Nestleiar: Gunnar Skadberg 4370 Egersund Avisutklipp Side 12 Tlf. 979 89 142 Gardsbesøk hos Arnt Otto Grødem Side 14 Ulla som brudepike Side 16 Verdens nordligste raudkoller Side 17 Styremedlem: Semin Side 18 Kirsti Ueland 4360 Varhaug Spekemat og rømmegraut i Lom Side 19 Tlf. 988 23 132 Info om årsmøtet Side 20 Styremedlem: Agnes Varhaug Siqveland 4360 Varhaug Tlf. 954 21 214 LIVDYRFORMIDLING: Ta kontakt med en av oss i styret enten du har dyr for salg, eller ønsker å kjøpe dyr. 1.vara: Marianne S. Engebø Holmeset 6817 Naustdal Tlf. 976 53 752 2 Vestlandsk Raudkolle nr. 17 - Desember 2010 Årgang 8 LEIAREN HAR ORDET URFE , då alle oksekalvane våre etter nokre år utan aktivitet. I vert fora fram til om lag 120 kg eldre møtereferat frå det gamle før slakting. laget syner det seg at Sigmund alt i 1993 var engasjert i lagsarbeid . Dette året har vi registrert ei veksande interesse for livdyr av Sigmund har vore ein raudkolle. Her i Sogn og Fjordane ressursperson som vi i styret kjem har 3 nye brukarar for første gang til å sakna, ikkje minst for hans fått raudkolle inn i sin besetning, glødande interesse for gamle Problemet for oss har vore, og er norske kurasar, men også for hans framleis, å skaffe nok livdyr av omsut for dyr og dyrevelferd , rasen.
    [Show full text]
  • NORSKRIFT Redaksjon
    N O R S K R I F T Redaksjon: Bernt FossestØl, rom C236, Wergelands hus Gudleiv BØ, C316, Asfrid Svensen C318, Kjell Ivar Vannebo, C230, Manuskripter kan leveres direkte til disse eller sendes til: NORSKRIFT Institutt for nordisk språk og litteratur Postboks 1013, Blindern OSLO 3 Manuskriptene bØr være skrevet på maskin i A4-format, med linjeavstand 1%, marg ca. 4 cm. og med reine typer på et godt fargeband. NORSKRIFT er et arbeidsskrift og er følgelig beregnet på artikler av forelØpig karakter. Ved eventuelle henvis­ ninger til disse bør det derfor på en eller annen måte markeres at det dreier seg om utkast. Artiklene kan heller ikke mangfoldiggjøres uten tillatelse fra forfatter~e. "THE DECLINE l\..ND RISE OF THE N!NTH VOWEL" og NOEN BE'I'RAKTNINGER OM R-LYDENS VESEN, VANSKJEBNE OG UVESEN I ENKELTE FORMER AV SØRLIG SKANDINAVISK Av Arne Torp Innledning side Emne og disposisjon o.. o.. o.......... o.................... 1 Terminologi ••...........•.. oo .. o.............. o. 3 A. FREMRE VOKALER OG R-PÅV!RKNING O. Historisk bakgrunn 5 1-3. Svensk riksspråk (SR) . • . • . • . • . 5 1o1 .......................... ., ............ .,............ 6 L2 7 1 . 3 7 2. SR - ei oppsummering . • . 7 3. Fonemisering av <æ:> og <æ:> i SR ••..•.. ... ... ........ 8 4-5. Oslo-mål (01•1) ........................ o.............. 8 4.1. Tradisjonelt OM . • . • . • . • • . • . 8 4 • 2 • Moderne OM ........•...... o •••• o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 5. O~l - ei Ol)l)SUlluner ing . • . 1 O 6 - 8. Kystmål i Aust-Agder (K~lA) 12 7. Kort og lang <æ> i KMA og r-vokalisering ............•. 13 7. 1 . Risør-dis·triktet . • . • . 14 7.2. Tvedestrands- og Arendals-distriktet .•.•.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phonetic Study of the Status of Three Mergers in the Trøndersk Dialect Of
    APHONETIC STUDY OF THE STATUS OF THREE MERGERS IN THE TRØNDERSK DIALECT OF NORWEGIAN by ANNA SCHOLTZ Professor Nathan Sanders, Advisor A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Linguistics WILLIAMS COLLEGE Willliamstown, Massachusetts May 2009 Table of Contents Table of Contentsi List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract vi Acknowledgements viii 1 Introduction1 1.1 Norwegian . .2 1.2 Basic phonology of Standard Østlandsk . .3 1.3 The Norwegian retroflexes . .5 1.4 Dialects of Norwegian . .9 1.5 Mergers examined in the present study . 16 2 Methods 21 2.1 Pilot experiment . 21 2.2 Follow-up experiment . 22 2.3 Measurements . 24 3 The /í/ – /l/ merger 32 3.1 Pilot experiment results . 33 3.2 Follow-up experiment results . 34 3.3 Discussion . 39 4 The /ù/ – /S/ merger 42 4.1 Pilot experiment results . 42 4.2 Follow-up experiment results . 44 4.3 Discussion . 46 5 The /S/ – /ç/ merger 49 5.1 Results . 49 5.2 Discussion . 51 5.3 Excursus on variables used for fricative analysis . 52 6 Conclusion 56 Appendix A 60 Appendix B 62 Appendix C 68 References 70 ii List of Tables 1.1 Consonants of Standard Østlandsk. .4 1.2 Vowels of Standard Østlandsk. .4 1.3 Consonants of Trøndersk. 15 3.1 Average values (in Hz) of F2 and F3 for postvocalic /í/, postvocalic /l/, word- initial /l/, and /l/ in a word-initial sl-cluster for Speakers P1 and P2. 33 3.2 MANOVA results for testing for /í/ – /l/ merger for Speakers P1 and P2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Measuring Norwegian Dialect Distances
    Chapter 8 Measuring Norwegian dialect distances In Chapter 7 a range of computational comparison methods was validated. The method with the highest score is a variant of the Levenshtein distance, where (i) segment distances are found on the basis of the Barkfilter representation, (ii) four length gradations are used, (iii) diphthongs are represented as a sequence of two segments, and (iv) logarithmic segment distances are used (Section 7.5.1). This method was applied to a small set of 15 Norwegian dialects (Section 7.5.2). In this chapter we apply the same method to a larger set of 55 Norwegian varieties. Results will be compared to the dialect map of Skjekkeland (1997). In Section 8.1 the set of 55 varieties will be discussed. On the basis of the Levenshtein distances we will perform cluster analysis and multidimensional scal- ing. In Section 8.2 results of cluster analysis are presented, and in Section 8.3 the results of multidimensional scaling. The discussion of the results should be considered as an initial impetus. Further analysis of the results may be useful future work. In Section 8.4 we draw some conclusions. 8.1 Data source In Section 7.2 we described a database which contains recordings of different Norwegian varieties. The database was compiled by Jørn Almberg and Kristian Skarbø. For each variety a recording and a transcription is given of the fable `The North Wind and the Sun'. The text consists of 58 words which are given in Appendix B Table B.1. When the perception experiment was carried out (see Section 7.4.1), record- ings of only 15 varieties were available.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston University Graduate School the Social Ecology
    BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF HUMAN FERTILITY IN NORWAY 1970 by ERLING BERGE CAND. POLIT., THE UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN, 1973 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requiremants for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1981 Copyright by ERLING BERGE 1981 Approved by iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The present dissertation grew out of the problems encountered during my work at the Socio-Demographic Research Unit of the Central Bureau of Statistics. I am very much indebted to the director of the research unit at that time, now professor at the University of Copenhagen, Jan M. Hoem for tutoring me through the basics of the methods of demography. I appreciate especially that he set such high standards of research. I also want to thank my colleagues at that time, Olav Ljones, Bjorn L. Tennesen, and Arne Rideng, for discussions and incisive comments. During the academic year 1975-76 I attended classes at Boston University. The work there supplied new insights into how societies are constituted. I am deeply grateful to all my teachers. Of most importance for the present work were the classes of prof. Anthony Leeds, prof. S.M. Miller, prof. Irwin T. Sanders, and the tutoring of prof. John Mogey and prof. Frank L. Sweetser. Frank Sweetser really started his tutoring in 1970 when I, as an under- graduate at the University of Bergen, was employed by him as a reaearch assistant during his stay there. He gave roe the opportunity to learn high quality research by participating in its making. His continued interest iv in me and the dissertation work in particular and his kind prompting of me to continue as the research work threatened to grind to a halt, must bear the main respon- sibility for there being a disseration at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Jordbruksavtale 2019–2020
    JORDBRUKSAVTALE 2019–2020 Inngått mellom Staten, Norges Bondelag og Norsk Bonde- og Småbrukarlag 2 INNHOLD: 1. INNLEDNING .................................................................................................................. 4 2. PRISBESTEMMELSER ................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Produkter med målprisregulering ............................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Generelle bestemmelser ...................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Melk og melkeprodukter ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Svinekjøtt ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1.4 Korn ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.5 Grøntsektoren ...................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Produkter med planlagt gjennomsnittlig engrospris (Volummodellen) .................. 8 2.2.1 Generelle bestemmelser ...................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Storfekjøtt ............................................................................................................ 8 2.2.3 Sau og lam ........................................................................................................... 8
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences
    University of Groningen Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance Heeringa, Wilbert Jan IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2004 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Heeringa, W. J. (2004). Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 26-09-2021 Chapter 8 Measuring Norwegian dialect distances In Chapter 7 a range of computational comparison methods was validated. The method with the highest score is a variant of the Levenshtein distance, where (i) segment distances are found on the basis of the Barkfilter representation, (ii) four length gradations are used, (iii) diphthongs are represented as a sequence of two segments, and (iv) logarithmic segment distances are used (Section 7.5.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian Children's Acquisition of the Dialect Feature R
    RASK 49 SPRING 2019 Norwegian children’s acquisition of the dialect feature r MAGNHILD SELÅS1 & RANDI NETELAND2 1Institutt for nordisk og mediefag, Universitetet i Agder 2Institutt for språk, litteratur, matematikk og tolkning, Høgskulen på Vestlandet ABSTRACT The pronunciation of r is a central dialect feature of Norwegian. The main division is between a front and a back pronunciation. The back realization is acquired relatively early (around age 4), while the front realization is one of the most problematic sounds to acquire, and sub- stitution sounds are frequent. Using two data collection points, we show how four children learning Norwegian start by substituting rXVLQJGLȴHUHQWVWUDWHJLHVDQGJUDGXDOO\OHDUQWKH use of the r of their dialect area or idiolectal surroundings. The main argument of this article is that the r-development of kindergarten children is not only governed by rules on acquisition and development lines, but also by the sociolinguistic variation and use of r in the Norwegian speech community. KEYWORDS child language, acquisition of phonetic features, linguistic development, sociolinguistics 1. Introduction In Norwegian dialects, the pronunciation of r is a central linguistic feature. The main division is between the back (dorsal/uvular) r-pronunciation and the front (apical) r (Skjekkeland 1997: 89; Hansen 2010: 73).1 Previous research on children’s acquisition of r shows that children ac- quire the back r earlier than the front r (Fintoft et al. 1983: 41). In this article we are interested in the interplay between the acquisition of r and the acquisition of the local dialect. We will begin by giving a description of the distribution and use of the r-variants in the Norwegian speech community, as well as outlining previous research on the acquisition of r (section 1.1 and 1.2).
    [Show full text]
  • Namn Og Nemne Nr. 20
    namn og nemne 20/21 – 2003/04 Manuskript til Namn og Nemne Redaksjonen vil helst ha manus på diskett, eventuelt maskinskrive med dobbel lineavstand og brei venstre marg. Papirformatet bør vere A4. Mindre tillegg kan skrivast mellom linene (ikkje i margen). Lengre tillegg eller rettingar skal skrivast på eigne A4-ark. Ved retting i manus skal ikkje korrekturteikn nyttast. namn Sitat som er lengre enn tre maskinskrivne liner skal skiljast frå teksten ved innrykking. og nemne Fotnotar (merknader) bør brukast så lite som råd; dei bør oftast takast inn i teksten. Eventuelle fotnotar skal samlast i slutten av artikkelen. Nummertil- Tidsskrift for visingane i teksten skal ikkje ha parentes kring seg og dei skal plasserast etter norsk skiljeteikn. Litteraturtilvisingane skal om mogleg gjerast ved forfattarnamn og utgjev- namnegransking ingsår. Døme: ... (Indrebø 1924:98), eller: Gustav Indrebø (1924:98) meiner ..., eller: Som opplyst i Indrebø 1924:98, ... Arbeid som er fotografisk oppatt- prenta skal siterast etter originalutgåva (av forskingshistoriske grunnar), altså ikkje Olsen, M. 1978. Torp, A. 1963, Aasen, I. 1918 eller 1977. Allment kjende tidsskrift bør ha forkorta titlar (t.d. ANF, APhS, MM, NoB, SvLm); det same kan gjelde kjende seriar (t.d. DS [Danmarks Stednavne], NG [Norske Gaardnavne], men då med tilvising til forfattar eller utgjevar. Undertitlar og serieopplysningar trengst til vanleg ikkje. Døme: Hovda, P. 1966: Norske elvenamn. Oslo – Bergen. [Hovda, P.] 1978: Frå hav til hei. Oslo – Bergen – Tromsø. Indrebø, G. 1921: Stadnamni i ei fjellbygd. MM 1921.113–210. Indrebø, G 1924: Norske Innsjønamn. 1. Oslo. Indrebø, G 1936a: Hordaland – Hordafylke. Bidrag till nordisk filologi tillägnade Emil Olson den 9 juni 1936 72–77.
    [Show full text]