So far we have considered the relative word order of negation, inverted subjects and (unstressed) pronominal objects in main clauses, and the relative order of negation and subjects in embedded (V3) clauses. The dialect grammars (recall that a dialect grammar is understood as the abstracted system at the group level, cf. chapter 1) are summarised in Table 46. Full DP subjects are not included here, because the corpus-data containing this element are very sparse. Neither have I have included the distribution of adverbs, which follow (pronominal) subjects in both main and embedded clauses.
Table 46: The North Germanic dialect grammars
Dialect ±SS ±OS across adv compl > neg > subjpron
Tr.lag1 (Stokkøya) + –(?)
Tr.lag2 (Bjugn) ± ±(?)
Tr.lag3 (Skaugdalen) − +(?)
Tr.lag4 (Oppdal) − −
Senja1 + −
Senja2 + ± −
Stryn − −
Bergen ± ±
Traditional Övdalian + − ±
Classical Övdalian +
Northern Ostrobothnia ± −/± ±
The ‘+’-es indicate that the given pattern is a part of the dialect grammar, whereas the ‘−‘-es indicate that the given pattern is not a part of it. The ‘(?)’-es indicate uncertainty with respect to the pattern.
The ‘±’-es reflect the fact that the data show a great deal of optionality. Whether or not optionality is a part of the dialect grammar, is open. But when the data do not show any clear tendencies in the one or the other direction, it is difficult to give clear statements about the dialect grammar, although one can have an impression of what the system must look like.
In Table 46 there are seven distinct pattern when we just consider the columns for ‘SS’ and
‘compl > neg > subjpron’. These are marked with light grey in the table. Of these, I regard the patterns exemplified by Tr.lag2, Tr.lag4, Senja1 and Älvdalen as the basic ones.94 Except for Tr.lag2 the systems contain no optionality, whereas in Tr.lag2 the system shows optionality for both variables.
The system in Senja1 is identical to the one of the Oslo dialect (see chapter 3 and 4), and I-languages associated with this pattern can presumably be analysed in the same way.
94 One of the instances is categorised as both subj > neg and neg > subj, since the subject occurs in both positions.
(i) så va æ jo på nå annlegg eller no sånnt no itj sannt å [EC nå so was I mod on any project or something such something not true and when de itj de varrt nå mer arrbei da] så tokk du båt ijenn
EXPL. not EXPL. become any more work then so took you boat again
’I was on a project, you know, and when it wasn’t any more work, you started with boat again’
The embedded wh-clause has two spell-outs of the expletive subject det around the negation, and it is pronounced smooth and naturally. It in fact resembles the phenomenon of multiple subjects in Övdalian (cf.
Rosenkvist 2007, 2010; Garbacz 2010). By hypothesis the subjects surface in two subject positions floating around NegP (cf. Holmberg and Platzack 2005 on Floating Subjects). Which copy to be spelled out, determines the word order. This example may be a production error, but it might also be a reflex of a possible (cf.
Övdalian), but not socially accepted structure of the informant’s I-language.
With regard to I-languages associated with the pattern exemplified by Tr.lag2, I will analyse these as if the negative marker at PF optionally changes position depending on the phonological context, which make the term PF-clitic suitable for the negative markers in these varieties (cf. chapter 1). This means that the negative markers are XPs and behave as XPs within the core syntax, but I assume that they can change position at PF. Such analyses are exemplified for the Oslo-dialect in chapter 3 and 4, and I refer to the pages 69ff and 118ff where such analyses are illustrated. The analyses presented below, follow the same reasoning and technicalities as the ones in chapter 3 and 4.
We are then left with the dialect grammars of Tr.lag4 and Övdalian. I start with the pattern in Tr.lag4 (which covers for instance the dialects of Oppdal and Nordfjord), which can be straightforwardly accounted for if we assume that the negative marker is a head (in associated I-languages). As stated in chapter 1, I assume Platzack’s (2010) account of head movement. In short, he proposes that the verb establishes Agree-relations with the relevant heads in the structure in the syntax, but that it is determined at PF which head to be spelled out – in main clauses this will usually be in the highest head. I furthermore assume that the verb is spelled out together with the features of the heads it has created Agree-relations with, so that when the negative marker is an expression of the head of NegP, it is spelled out together with the finite verb in the head of CP. Consider the tree structures in (47) and (48) (non-relevant projections are omitted):
(47) CP Main clause with
I suggest, as we see in (47), that the negative marker incorporates to the verb in the head of NegP and comes along with the finite verb to the head of CP. This analysis accounts for the characteristics of the negative marker as a verbal clitic, and for the observation that it is not sensitive to the phonological form of the verb in order to precede a pronoun. If the emphasised negation occurs, I assume that it is analysed as a regular XP and hence it will follow pronouns. In embedded clauses illustrated in (48), there is no verb movement. The negative marker then remains in situ below the subject and is spelled out after the subject.
The head movement account given in (47) is in some respect very similar to the PF-clitic analysis I have proposed, since both apply at PF. I suggest however that this analysis predicts that this word order regularly applies. As previously stated (cf. chapter 1), I assume that PF-cliticisation applies
irregularly, and as such it is (syntactically) unpredictable. Alternatively, one can view this proposal as a technical elaboration of the PF-clitic analysis.
The Tr.lag3 dialect can be analysed in a similar way. This will account for the word order vfin > neg
> pron in main clauses. In embedded clauses the observed optionality can be explained if one assumes that the negative head can undergo PF-cliticisation. This raises however the question whether it is reasonable to analyse the negative marker as a head in the first place, and whether it is likely that a head can change position at PF (i.e. be a PF-clitic). On the assumption that head movement is a part of the Syntax proper (which is a debated issue within Generative Grammar since Chomsky 1995), and given that affix-orderings are rigid, I think it is less likely that a head shift at PF than an XP. Thus it might be that a better analysis of this variety would be to assume that the negative marker is a PF-clitic, in which there is a very high frequency of PF-cliticisation in main clauses. Support for this analysis is the elicitated main clause data from Skaugdalen, which open up for the negative marker being something else than a head.
In Övdalian, the pattern in main clauses indicates that the negative marker is an XP. In embedded clauses in Classical Övdalian, the negative marker precedes the subject when it does not follow the verb. In Traditional Övdalian, there is optionality in this matter, which may indicate that there is an ongoing change, as discussed above. I also hypothesised above that the embedded V3 order in Classical Övdalian is a marked order, and I suggest that it is derived by movement of the negative marker to a marked position, for instance FocP:
(49) [SubP compl [FocP int [FinP subjectpron …Vfin… [NegP int [TP ...Vfin…]]]]] (Classical Övdalian) Such an analysis of the word order compl > int > subj is superior to for instance a clitic-analysis. On this analysis one can maintain the analysis of verb movement in embedded clauses in Classical Övdalian also in these cases (see the next section, which is devoted this issue for Övdalian). If the negative marker raises high, verb movement is not visible, as indicated in (49). Although the finite verb has raised to a position above the base-position for negation, this will not show when the negative marker int is raised to FocP. Such an analysis is furthermore supported by the form of the negative marker, which preferably in these cases have the form int, and not the short form it, which one perhaps would expect if cliticisation were involved.
As we saw above, not only the negative marker but also negative indefinites (NIs) could precede subjects in Classical Övdalian, and this is accounted for if we assume that they raise to Spec,FocP. On the assumption that negation in Classical Övdalian is phonologically reduced when it follows the finite verb, we can furthermore hypothesise that all strong expression of negation (int and NIs) must be displaced to Spec,FocP.95
The presence of such a position in North Germanic embedded clauses is for instance supported by the works of Jensen (1995), who shows that focalised adverbs in Danish may be fronted in embedded clauses (cf. chapter 4). Recall also that emphasised negation precedes the subject in the Oppdal dialect (cf. example (51) in chapter 4), and this can also be analysed as movement of negation to Spec,FocP. This analysis predicts that also other elements should be able to appear in
95 At some earlier stage of Övdalian it is likely that the finite verb could precede such forms as well.
the pre-subject position, but this is hard to corroborate because of the lack of data in Levander (1909).
Garbacz (2010) takes the patterns in embedded clauses in Övdalian as expressions of two distinct NegPs in the clausal spine, where the uppermost NegP is located above the subject position. When negation precedes the subject in embedded clauses, Garbacz (2010: 102) suggests that negation sits in the highest NegP, illustrated in (50), where irrelevant projections are omitted (cf. also Weiß 2002 on Bavarian; and Barbiers 2002 on Dutch, who also propose several NegPs).
(50) ....[HighNegP (int) [TP subject [LowNegP (it)...]]] (Övdalian)
In my opinion, one problem with this analysis in (50), is that it appears as a mystery why negation cannot precede unstressed pronouns in main clauses. Another potential problem is how to determine in a principled manner which NegP to be used. The analysis in (49) above predicts however that the order neg > subj > vfin is a marked structure, and furthermore, it is possible to maintain the assumption of one, fixed position of NegP in the clausal structure.
Traditional Övdalian exhibits variation in embedded clauses, and we also saw above that negative indefinites no longer can precede an embedded subject, but must follow the subject (and precede the finite verb). The loss of verb movement in embedded clauses (cf. Garbacz 2010), can explain the optionality of the orders neg > subj > vfin and subj > neg > vfin and the loss of fronted NIs. If the verb does not move across negation, the negative marker will follow the subject by remaining in the base position. The strong forms can remain inside NegP, when the verb does not move. As a consequence, the strong forms do not need to be displaced, and the evidence for the (former) displacement disappears.
The occurrences of the order neg > subjpron > vfin in embedded V3 clauses, can be treated as remnants of Classical Övdalian, and can for instance be analysed as PF-cliticisation to the complementiser, as illustrated in (51). This analysis would not predict any regularity for the order neg > subj > vfin in embedded V3 clauses, and the embedded structure of modern Övdalian can be analysed on a par with the other varieties of North Germanic.
(51) [SubP compl [FinP subjectpron … *NegP int [TP ... Vfin PF:
A similar analysis can account for the embedded V3 orders in Northern Ostrobothnian. Kaiser (2006) analyses the same word order in Finnish by assuming movement of the Finnish negative marker to a Polarity projection PolP. If we assume that there is a PolP within the CP-domain, this would predict that negation regularly precedes the embedded subject, as the judgement data indicates.
As for the dialects that exhibit no OS (across negation and adverbs), I assume that the pronominal object remains structurally low, and as such this structure is not related to negation.
The hypothesised status of negative markers in the dialects are summarised in Table 47. These dialect grammars are also shown in the maps on the following pages.