The Nordic Languages and Typology

Nor Jnl Ling 34.2, 75–82 C Nordic Association of Linguists 2011 doi:10.1017/S0332586511000187

Eriksen, Pal˚ Kristian & Camilla Wide. 2011. Introduction: The Nordic languages and typology. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(2), 75–82.

Introduction: The Nordic languages and typology

Pal˚ Kristian Eriksen & Camilla Wide

Pal˚ Kristian Eriksen, Agnefestveien Rosfjord, 4580 Lyngdal, Norway. [email protected] Camilla Wide, Scandinavian Languages, School of Languages and Translation Studies, 20014 University of Turku, Finland. camilla.wide@utu.ﬁ

1. THE NORDIC COUNTRIES AND THEIR LANGUAGES

The theme of this special issue is the languages of the Nordic countries and linguistic typology. By ‘the Nordic countries’ we refer to the five countries of Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Genetically, the Nordic languages are divided between the Uralic and the Indo-European language families. The Indo-European languages are represented through the North Germanic branch, and conversely the ‘homeland’ of the North Germanic branch is more or less exclusively located within the borders of the Nordic countries.1 The Uralic languages are represented through most of the languages of the Sami branch (from Southwest to Northeast: South Sami, Ume Sami, Pite Sami, Lule Sami, North Sami, Inari Sami and Skolt Sami; the remaining two Sami languages, Kildin and Ter Sami, are both spoken on the Kola peninsula in Russia), and the Finnic branch, with the four closely related varieties Finnish, Karelian (Eastern Finland), Kven (Northern Norway) and Meankieli¨ (Northern Sweden). Of the six papers in this special issue, five deal with Scandinavian languages and one with Finnish. The Germanic and Uralic languages are thus the main focus of this volume. However, to give a full overview of the language flora in the Nordic countries a few other language groups must be mentioned. First of all, a number of local varieties of Romani are spoken by groups of Romani people who have migrated to the area. Secondly, local types of sign languages are spoken in all five Nordic countries. Thirdly, Greenland, belonging to the Nordic countries politically, although in terms of physical geography a part of the North American continent, has a number of varieties of Inuit languages/dialects, with West Greenlandic being the most prominent. Finally, a large number of other languages are spoken by modern immigrant communities in all countries. There is variation in the distribution of language areas across the Nordic countries. For some language types, the entire region, or most of it, forms a language

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. 76 P AL˚ KRISTIAN ERIKSEN & CAMILLA WIDE

area. Others are neatly divided between the Uralic languages and the North Germanic languages. Yet others may have more ﬁne-grained distributions. (For an extensive survey of an area partially overlapping with the Nordic countries, see Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, and for the typological development of Scandinavian languages, see Bandle et al. 2002, 2005, especially Askedal 2005). The Nordic language area is also characterized by a large array of dialects within the individual languages. At the same time, Nordic languages are themselves to a large degree mutually intelligible (e.g. Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are mutually intelligible, and so are Finnish, Meankieli¨ and Kven). To some extent, one may therefore think of the Nordic language area as consisting of huge dialect continuums.

2. A META-TYPOLOGY OF LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY

The connection between Nordic languages and linguistic typology can be understood in several ways, and this is reﬂected in the different approaches adopted in the papers of this issue of the Nordic Journal of Linguistics. This follows from the fact that the term ‘typology’ in itself is ambiguous and is used in a variety of ways among linguists, as well as within individual linguists’ vocabularies. We will not promote any prescriptive norm for what counts as the proper meaning of ‘typology’ but we will make an attempt at mapping the various concepts covered by and related to the term ‘typology’, and propose a tentative meta-typology that classiﬁes various uses of the term.2 This meta-typology is given in the list below.

(i) A TYPOLOGY OF SEMANTIC/FUNCTIONAL ENTITIES. A given semantic/functional domain may be divided into types, e.g. the domain of tense may be subdivided into present tense, past tense, future tense, perfect tense, past perfect, etc. (ii) A TYPOLOGY OF FORMAL LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS. A semantic/functional domain as in (i) may be realized formally in a number of ways, and a typology of these may be given, e.g. the domain of negation may be realized through a particle, a clitic, bound morphology, an auxiliary, etc. (iii) A TYPOLOGY OF ABSTRACTIONS OVER LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS. Functional and formal phenomena as those outlined in (i) and (ii) are surface realizations. Beyond this, however, one may draw generalizations and abstractions across the surface forms and extract a more abstract but linguistically more telling typology, e.g. different word order parameters lead to the postulation of the more abstract and encompassing head–dependent type and the dependent–head type. Also implicational universals (if a language has X, then it has Y; if a language does not have X, it does not have Y) constitute typologies of this kind, as it follows that each setting of the implication (e.g. +X or –X) constitutes a linguistic type.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. THE NORDIC LANGUAGES AND TYPOLOGY 77

(iv) A TYPOLOGY OF GRAMMATICALIZATION. Point (iii) above refers to a level of abstraction across points (i) and (ii). Another way in which one may generalize across (i) and (ii) is to do research on how (ii) (the formal expressions) develop from (i) (the functional categories) – i.e. what is known as grammaticalization. One may thus also establish typologies of sources or processes of grammaticalization of a particular grammatical phenomenon. For example, perfects may be distinguished into types according to whether they have developed from dedicated resultative constructions (‘be’-perfects), possessive constructions (‘have’-perfects) or constructions involving words such as ‘already’ or ‘finish’ (Dahl & Velupillai 2005:271). (v) A TYPOLOGY OF LANGUAGES. The typologies in (i)–(iv) reflect different steps in the typologist’s work on a linguistic phenomenon, from selecting a domain to work upon to reaching abstract generalizations across this domain. We may refer to all four as TYPOLOGIES OF LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA or PHENOMENON TYPOLOGIES. Each of these four meta-types of typologies may in turn be reflected in TYPOLOGIES OF LANGUAGES. As a typology of a linguistic phenomenon consists of a set of types, one might categorize languages according to which of these types a given language displays. This correlation of phenomenon typology and language typology may be found for all four points in (i)–(iv). From a typology of past tense (point (i)) may be extracted a typology of languages with or without past tense, or languages with or without perfect tense, etc. From a typology of negation (point (ii)) may be extracted a typology of languages with particle negation vs. languages with affixal negation, etc. From point (iii) may likewise be extracted a typology of languages with head–dependent order vs. languages with dependent–head order, etc., and from point (iv) a typology of languages where perfects have developed from X vs. languages where they have developed from Y. It should be added that a typology of a linguistic phenomenon need not necessarily lead to a typology of languages. It is not always the case that the types of a given phenomenon typology tend to exclude each other within languages, or that languages tend to favour one particular phenomenon type. A typology of functional categories, i.e. point (i) above, may reach the extreme point in which the types a priori are expected to exist in all languages, e.g. Vendler’s (1957) typology of event types (activities, accomplishments, achievements and states). (vi) A TYPOLOGY OF LANGUAGE AREAS. For each typology of languages in (v), one may check whether the typology corresponds to sets of geographical areas, each of which display a clustering of languages belonging to one of the types in (v), e.g. languages with compulsory past tense marking tend to cluster in the non-Oriental Eurasia, Northern Africa, Australia and Northern South America, while languages without past tense marking tend to cluster in North America, Southern South America, Oriental Asia, etc. However, a typology of languages

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. 78 P AL˚ KRISTIAN ERIKSEN & CAMILLA WIDE

need not lead to a typology of language areas, i.e. one could imagine the situation that a given phenomenon type is favoured by individual languages, but that these languages would not necessarily be clustered together in language areas. We do not have any examples of such a case though, and leave the veriﬁcation of its existence for future research.

In addition to the above list, the interpretation of ‘typology’ as a term in a given linguistic discussion also depends on whether it refers to MACRO-TYPOLOGY or MICRO- TYPOLOGY. Macro-typology is the classical understanding of linguistic typology, in which the global set of languages is used as the working domain, i.e. where data for research are provided through a statistically representative sample of languages from the entire world. Micro-typology uses the same working methods as macro-typology (e.g. steps (i)–(vi) above), but applies them on a restricted geographical area. Micro- typology is therefore only a short step away from DIALECTOLOGY. In recent years, micro-typological research on dialects has been carried out in a number of projects and studies (see e.g. Kortmann 2004). When a dialectologist works on comparing dialects and mapping dialect variation, micro-typological research is being carried out as well. The relationship between these three ﬁelds will be relevant when talking about Nordic languages in a micro-typological perspective.

3. TYPOLOGY WITHIN GEOGRAPHICAL CONFINES

If we are to apply typology to a restricted geographical area like the Nordic countries, micro-typology and dialectology might seem like the natural choice, but macro- typology is not excluded either. The choice between the various types of typological viewpoints mostly depends on our theoretical or empirical point of departure, and it will also influence which meta-types of typology from the list above we will emphasize in our research. With a macro-typological perspective, a specific language area would typically be of particular interest at points (v) and (vi) above, i.e. at a stage secondary to the establishing of phenomenon typologies. The research process to establish phenomenon typologies takes the universal set of languages as its domain, but subsequent to this one may examine how specific languages in a particular area correspond to the global trends. For example, one may ask which language types (point (v)) are represented in the area? Does the area constitute a language area (point (vi)) in respect of this? Or do two (or more) language areas meet or converge in this area? Or is the geographical area just a part of a geographically larger language area? After describing a geographical area in terms of how it relates to language type distribution and language areas, the subsequent step is to explain this distribution. Are genetic factors relevant? That is, if the entire area constitutes a monolithic language

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. THE NORDIC LANGUAGES AND TYPOLOGY 79

area for a phenomenon type, does this follow from close genetic connection between the languages in the area? Or, if the geographical area is split between two language areas, does this correlate with a split between two genetic groups of languages? Apart from genetic factors, are sociological factors relevant? Does a language area correlate with a political area? Or does it correlate with a naturally secluded geographical area, like an island or a lowland area surrounded by highlands, where social contact would be closer in the interior? Finally, apart from genetic and sociological factors, are other typological factors relevant? Does a language area for one phenomenon type correlate with the language area of a different phenomenon type? If there is a universal tendency for this, it would indicate some implicational relationship between the two typologies, and the language area data would then serve as input for point (iii) in the list of phenomenon typologies, i.e. as a generalization across other phenomenon typologies, and a more abstract phenomenon typology could emerge as a result. The macro-typological perspective mainly places a language area at the outcome end of the research process, although it might occasionally feed into the research process again, e.g. as described above. In a micro-typological perspective, however, a language area may stand at the input end of the research process. Using language data from a restricted geographical area, the linguist may establish various phenomenon types that exist within that area, (i.e. points (i)–(iv) from the list above,) and categorize languages or dialects within the given area as belonging to various language types depending on the established phenomenon types (point (v)). If clusterings are observed, the area can then be divided into language sub-areas (point (vi)). Micro-typological research may be quite differently motivated from macro- typological research and serve quite different purposes. As stated above, ‘classical’ Greenbergian typological research is often associated with macro-typological research, in which insights into universal qualities of language are obtained inductively by generalizing across the universal set of languages. In micro-typological research, however, a theoretical conception or model of how the phenomenon functions universally is often already at hand. The micro-typological research may then serve to investigate the model on a more detailed level, or it may serve as a typological ‘lab experiment’ of the model, in order to investigate how it acts in practice within a restricted area, where the researcher may have a more fully developed overview over many factors that could affect the phenomenon, than he or she would if the universal set of languages were to be used as ‘laboratory’ for the experiment. This is not to say that Greenbergian functional typologists only use a macro- typological perspective, or that, say, theoretical syntacticians and other theoreticians only use a micro-typological perspective. A functional typologist may very well use a micro-typological perspective subsequent to having elaborated a universal typology through a macro-typological perspective in order to verify and elaborate his results on a more detailed and more fully controlled level, as outlined above. Likewise, a

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. 80 P AL˚ KRISTIAN ERIKSEN & CAMILLA WIDE

theoretical syntactician may use a macro-typological investigation to test theoretical assumptions about universality.

4. TYPOLOGICAL APPROACHES IN THIS VOLUME

The six papers presented in this volume all have varied approaches to the concept of typology. In light of the meta-typology outlined in Section 2 above, they can thus be given quite different meta-typological classifications, often relating to several meta-types. In addition, the papers vary as to whether they themselves present new typologies, or are reactions to or tests of existing typologies, or both. MATTI MIESTAMO’s article, ‘A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects’, contributes to bringing together typology and dialectology in the way laid out in e.g. Kortmann (2004). By focusing on dialect variation, Miestamo widens the typological analysis of a point (ii) phenomenon (formal linguistic expressions) to cover variation within languages. The viewpoint is micro-typological, but comparisons to macro-typological variation are made throughout the paper. KARIN BEIJERING’s article, ‘Semantic change and grammaticalization: The development of modal and postmodal meanings in Mainland Scandinavian ma˚, matte˚ and maste˚ ’, investigates a typical point (iv) phenomenon: the frequency and meaning of verbs which have grammaticalized into auxiliaries. The viewpoint is micro-typological. By analyzing random samples of sentences in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish collected from on-line corpora consisting mainly of newspaper texts, Beijering shows how the modal verbs ma˚, matte˚ ‘may’ and maste˚ ‘must’ have reached different stages of grammaticalization in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish. TANIA STRAHAN’s paper, ‘A typology of non-local reflexives in the Scandinavian languages’, is a good case of micro-typology as a ‘testing lab’ for macro-typological assumptions. It studies long-distance reflexives in a variety of Scandinavian languages, and shows that the resulting point (ii) micro-typology (i.e. a typology of reflexive constructions in the local area) can be used against the macro- typological assumptions made by Binding Conditions (i.e. point (iii) generalizations) in generative grammar. The paper lends more support for Dalrymple’s (1993) LFG-based typology of anaphora, while also providing a necessary extension to Dalrymple’s work. EVA ENGELS’s article, ‘Microvariation in object positions: Negative Shift in Scandinavian’, takes a micro-typological look at negative objects in Scandinavian languages. Like the long-distance reflexives in Strahan’s paper, this point (ii) phenomenon has often been investigated in a more general sense, but Engels’s paper discusses the variation of syntactic positions that negative objects may fill in Scandinavian languages and offers an explanation for this variation. KRISTIN MELUM EIDE’s article, ‘Norwegian (non-V2) declaratives, resumptive elements, and the Wackernagel position’, is an analysis of the occurrence of different

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. THE NORDIC LANGUAGES AND TYPOLOGY 81

topic-marking particle-like entities in Wackernagel’s position in Norwegian. In terms of our meta-typology, Wackernagel’s position is a point (iii) typological phenomenon, originally discovered through generalizations across clitic and particle positions in Indo-European languages (and later also beyond those). Eide’s paper thus offers input into the existing general typological knowledge of Wackernagel’s position, and can also be seen as a comment on how Norwegian may be classified in a language typology based on the position. The final paper, ‘Syllable reduction and articulation rates in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish’, by NANNA HAUG HILTON,ANJA SCHUPPERT¨ &CHARLOTTE GOOSKENS, differs from the other five papers in that it deals with a typology of phonetic and phonological phenomena. The paper presents a comparative investigation of reduction and articulation speed in Mainland Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish). By comparing the features in two sets of data (recorded radio news broadcasts and sentences read aloud), the authors show that a clear difference can be found between Danish on the one hand and Swedish and Norwegian on the other hand, concerning a syllable deletion process which seems to take place in Danish, but not in the other two languages. This is thus an investigation of a point (ii) phenomenon (as phonetic and phonological phenomena are formal phenomena, we classify them under this point), involving a typology of syllable reduction and no syllable reduction that leads to a point (v) typology of Mainland Scandinavian languages.

5. CONCLUSION

The articles in this special issue offer a fascinating and varied picture of the different types of typologies used in modern linguistics, of the different ways in which typology may be applied to a restricted geographical area, and of how micro-typological surveys can be applied at various ends of a research process. As typology is such a widely encompassing concept, this introductory article has made an attempt to offer a meta-typology of the different concepts referred to as ‘typologies’, or which are in some way connected to that term, in modern linguistics. As this is but an introductory article, the meta-typology should not be perceived as anything more than a tentative hypothesis. We leave the job of doing a more thorough analysis of the topic for future research, and/or for other linguists.

NOTES

1. All extant North Germanic tongues, at least. Some extinct varieties, like Norn of Shetland and the Orkneys, and Estonia Swedish, were spoken outside of what we here deﬁne as the Nordic countries.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. 82 P AL˚ KRISTIAN ERIKSEN & CAMILLA WIDE

2. For other meta-discussions on linguistic typology, see Croft (2003:1–4) and various articles in the tenth-anniversary issue 11(1) of the journal Linguistic Typology (2007).

REFERENCES

Askedal, John Ole. 2005. The typological development of the Nordic Languages II: Morphology and syntax. In Bandle et al. (eds.), 1872–1886. Bandle, Oskar, Kurt Braunmuller,¨ Ernst Hakon˚ Jahr, Allan Karker, Hans-Peter Naumann, Ulf Teleman, Lennart Elmevik & Gun Widmark (eds). 2002. The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages,vol.1.Berlin: de Gruyter. Bandle, Oskar, Kurt Braunmuller,¨ Ernst Hakon˚ Jahr, Allan Karker, Hans-Peter Naumann, Ulf Teleman, Lennart Elmevik & Gun Widmark (eds.). 2005. The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages,vol.2.Berlin: de Gruyter. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Osten¨ & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 2001. Circum-Baltic Languages,2vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dahl, Osten¨ & Viveka Velupillai. 2005. Tense and aspect. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 266–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalrymple, Mary. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Kortmann, Bernd (ed.). 2004. Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 153). Berlin: de Gruyter. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2), 143–160.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 26 Sep 2021 at 08:03:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use.