Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development
Edited by Bernhard Brehmer and Jeanine Treffers-Daller
[Studies in Bilingualism 59] 2020
► pp. 99–124

Word order variation in heritage languages

Subject shift and object shift in Norwegian

 | The Arctic University of Norway
 | The Arctic University of Norway | Norwegian University of Science and Technology
This study investigates two word order phenomena in Norwegian heritage language spoken in the US, subject shift (SS) and object shift (OS). SS and OS occur in syntactic environments where (pronominal) subjects and objects may either precede or follow negation. This paper explores to what extent these two phenomena in Heritage Norwegian are affected by the factors frequency and structural similarity/difference. As subjects are frequently shifted, while objects are not, SS is expected to be robust and OS vulnerable. There is generally no structural overlap between English and Norwegian in these cases; thus, cross-linguistic similarity or difference should not play a role, except in one context: questions with auxiliaries or be, in which the two languages allow both orders (is he not/isn’t he), but have opposite preferences. The results show that OS is somewhat vulnerable, but SS is also affected, in that both proficient and less proficient speakers seem to overuse the word order preferred in English. We thus speculate that all heritage speakers may be affected by cross-linguistic influence in situations with complete structural overlap.
Keywords: incomplete/differential acquisition, attrition, frequency, complexity, structural overlap, cross-linguistic influence, cross-linguistic overcorrection, syntactic movement, verb second
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The structures
    • 2.2Structural similarity/difference – Norwegian vs. English
    • 2.3SS and OS in L1 acquisition
    • 2.4Previous research on heritage Norwegian
  • 3.Research questions and predictions
  • 4.Participants
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Subject shift in heritage Norwegian
    • 5.2Object shift in heritage Norwegian
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.59.04and
References (63)
References
Anderssen, M. & Bentzen, K. 2012. Norwegian object shift as IP-internal topicalization. Nordlyd 39.1: The Grammar of Objects, 1–23.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M. & Westergaard, M. 2010. Frequency and economy in the acquisition of variable word order. Lingua 120: 2569–2588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., Lundquist, B. & Westergaard, M. 2018. Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in bilingual acquisition and attrition: Possessives and double definiteness in Norwegian heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(4): 748–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K. & Rodina, Y. 2012. Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of Norwegian object shift. Language Acquisition 19(1): 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K., Rodina, Y. & Westergaard, M. 2010. The acquisition of apparent optionality: The word order of subject and object shift constructions in Norwegian. In Variation in the Input: Studies in the Acquisition of Word Order, M. Anderssen, K. Bentzen & M. Westergaard (eds), 241–270. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., Rodina, Y., Mykhaylyk, R. & Fikkert, P. 2014. The acquisition of the dative alternation in Norwegian. Language Acquisition 21: 72–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M. 2006. The Acquisition of Compositional Definiteness in Norwegian. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Andréasson, M. 2008. Not all objects are born alike – accessibility as a key to pronominal object shift in Swedish and Danish. In Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, M. Butt & T. Halloway King (eds), 26–45. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2010. Object shift or object placement in general. In Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, M. Butt & T. Halloway King (eds), 26–42. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K. 2009. Subject positions and their interaction with verb movement. Studia Linguistica 63(3): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Object shift. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) 1: 332–343.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K., Anderssen, M. & Waldmann, Ch. 2013. Object shift in Mainland Scandinavian: A corpus study of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 115–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, L. Rizzi (ed.), 115–165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 2005. Sound patterns of syntax: Object shift. Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2): 47–94.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J. & Veltkamp, E. 2004. Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15(6): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America. A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55(1): 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2015. The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS). In Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, NODALIDA 2015, B. Megyesi (ed.), 297–300. Linköping: University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. & Laake, S. 2017. Norwegian in the American Midwest: A common dialect? Journal of Language Contact 10: 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. & Lake, S. 2012. Østnorsk som fellesdialect i Midtvesten. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 30(2): 365–380.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. & Salmons, J. 2015. The study of Germanic heritage languages in the Americas. In Germanic Heritage Languages in North America [Studies in Language Variation 18], J. B. Johannessen & J. Salmons (eds), 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, G. 2010. Object shift and optionality: An intricate interplay between syntax, prosody and information structure. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 86: 1–24.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, A. & Los, B. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In The Handbook of the History of English, A. van Kemenade & B. Los (eds), 224–248. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köpke, B. & Schmid, M. 2004. Language attrition: The next phase. In First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues [Studies in Bilingualism 28], M. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (eds), 1–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2013. A new term for a better distinction? A view from the higher end of the proficiency scale. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3–4): 203–214.Google Scholar
2014. Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German-Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1): 222–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. & Rothman, J. 2018. Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5): 564–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, H. 2011. Norwegian possessive pronouns: Phrases, words or suffixes? In Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, M. Butt & T. Holloway King (eds), 383–403. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. & Westergaard, M. 2016. Grammatical gender in American Norwegian heritage language: Stability or attrition? Frontiers in Psychology 7.344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lovoll, O. S. 1999. The Promise of America: A History of the Norwegian-American People, revised edn. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Martin, C. D., Dering, B., Thomas, E. M. & Thierry, G. 2009. Brain potentials reveal semantic priming in both the ‘active’ and the ‘non-attended’ language of early bilinguals. NeuroImage 47(1): 326–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, L. 2011. On prosody and focus in object shift. Syntax 14(3): 230–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohr, S. 2005. Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions: Impersonal Constructions in the Germanic Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 88]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. 2002. Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5: 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor [Studies in Bilingualism 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Incomplete L1 acquisition. In The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (eds), 353–371. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. 2001. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, Ø. 1997. Adverbs and A-shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 59: 1–31.Google Scholar
NoTa – Norsk Talespråkskorpus, Oslodelen [Corpus of Spoken Norwegian, the Oslo part], Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, University of Oslo.
Polinsky, M. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14: 191–262.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. & Sánchez, L. 2013. What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(2): 478–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1992. The acquisition of the morphosyntax of finite verbs in English. In The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition, J. Meisel (ed.), 23–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. 1999. Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3): 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. What frequency can do and what it can’t. In Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept, I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina (eds), 23–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z. & Polinsky, M. 2015. Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, H. G. 1990. Barns fonologi: system og variasjon hos tre norske og et samoisk barn. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child Language: The Parametric Approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. In Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, P. Svenonius (ed.), 201–242. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Venås, K. 1971. Om posisjonen til neksusadverbialet ikkje. Maal og Minne 3–4: 124–173.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2006. Object shift. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol 3, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R. 2006. Weak function word shift. Linguistics 44(5): 1059–1097. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2008. Verb movement and subject placement in the acquisition of word order: pragmatics or structural economy? In First Language Acquisition of Morphology and Syntax: Perspectives across Languages and Learners [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 45] P. Guijarro-Fuentes, P. Larranaga & J. Clibbens (eds), 61–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a. Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 49–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. The Acquisition of Word Order: Micro-cues, Information Structure and Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Subject positions and information structure: The effect of frequency on acquisition and change. Studia Linguistica 3: 299–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Linguistic variation and micro-cues in first language acquisition. Linguistic Variation 14(1): 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. & Anderssen, M. 2015. Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: bilingual acquisition and attrition. In Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition, Attrition and Change [Studies in Language Variation 18], J. B. Johannessen & J. Salmons (eds), 21–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. & Bentzen, K. 2007. The (non-) effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept, I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina (eds), 271–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. & Lohndal, T. 2019. Verb second word order in Norwegian heritage language: Syntax and pragmatics. In Variable Properties in Language: Their Nature and Acquisition, D. Lightfoot & J. Havenhill (eds). 91–102 Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. [URL]. DOI logo
Westergaard, M., Vangsnes, Ø.A. & Lohndal, T. 2017. Variation and change in Norwegian wh-questions: The role of the complementizer som. Linguistic Variation 17(1): 8–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

van Lieburg, Rianne, Robert Hartsuiker & Sarah Bernolet
2023. The production preferences and priming effects of Dutch passives in Arabic/Berber–Dutch and Turkish–Dutch heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 26:4 ► pp. 695 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.