No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Attributive clauses in Danish – and the relative irrelevance of relative clauses
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2014
Abstract
This paper discusses criteria for distinguishing attributive (also known as adjectival) clauses and relative clauses, and argues that traditional approaches to these subclause categories and their interrelation lack consistency as well as empirical justification, from a modern Scandinavian perspective. Relative clauses are traditionally and in current Scandinavian reference grammars treated as a formally defined clause type with the attributive function as their prototypical, but not their only, constituent function. In this paper it is argued that the traditional criteria for identifying relative clauses, especially in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, are essentially not formal but functional criteria, more or less identical to those applied to identify attributive clauses. Indeed, the modern Scandinavian languages, it is argued, hardly offer the empirical basis for a coherent category of relative clauses to be consistently distinguished on formal criteria. Rather, to account for the heterogeneous inventory of subclauses traditionally associated with relative clauses, a general outline of the functional category of attributive clauses in Danish is proposed, based on authentic spoken and written Danish discourse. Traditional definitions of attributive clauses are discussed and refined, and are shown to apply to a different and wider range of Danish subclause forms than has traditionally been recognised.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2014
References
REFERENCES
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn., 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker-Christensen, Christian. 2010. Dansk syntaks. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1, 59–86.Google Scholar
De Vries, Mark. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1957[1946]. Elementær dansk grammatik, 2nd edn. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997a. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, second, revised edition, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997b. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Derived and Complex Structures, second, revised edition, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Fortescue, Michael David, Harder, Peter, Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster (eds.). 1996. Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Fortescue, Michael David, Harder, Peter, Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster (eds.). 2005. Dansk funktionel lingvistik: En helhedsforståelse af forholdet mellem sprogstruktur, sprogbrug og kognition. København & Roskilde: Københavns Universitet/Handelshøjskolen i København & Roskilde Universitetscenter.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Diessel, Holger (eds.). 2012. Clause Linkage in Cross-linguistic Perspective: Data-driven Approaches to Cross-clausal Syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, rev. edn., 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the left periphery. In Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Héctor, Herburger, Elena & Portner, Paul (eds.), Cross-linguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture, 27–52. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1967. Moderne dansk 3. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab/Grafisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 1998. Kriterier for inddeling af ledsætninger. In Colliander, Peter & Korzen, Iørn (eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik 5: Sophienbergsymposiet, 7–22. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. København & Odense: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab/Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Content clauses and reported speech. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 947–1030.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.et al. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 1031–1096.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part III. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1939–40. Ledsætningernes (bisætningernes) systematik. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 14, 65–74.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Kr. 1911. Dansk ordföjningslære: Med sproghistoriske tillæg. Håndbog for viderekomne og lærere. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg. 2006. Temporale konjunktioner i dansk. MA thesis, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg. 2011a. A distributional approach to functional Danish subclause classification. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 43 (2), 127–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg. 2011b. Problemer og udveje i dansk ledsætningsklassifikation. In Durst-Andersen, Per & Müller, Henrik Høeg (eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik 18, 225–247. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg. 2013. Klassifikation af ledsætninger i dansk. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Karen Margrethe. 2011. Relativt som i grammatisk, historisk og geografisk belysning. 13. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, 225–235. Aarhus: Institut for Æstetik og Kommunikation, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Preisler, Bent. 1997. A Handbook of English Grammar on Functional Principles, 2nd edn. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Preliminaries. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 1–41.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999a. Svenska Akademiens grammatik 1: Indledning: Register. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999b. Svenska Akademiens grammatik 4: Satser och meningar. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999c. Svenska Akademiens grammatik 4: Fraser. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Theilgaard, Liisa. 2009. Prædikatsrelativsætninger i dansk: En empirisk undersøgelse af hvad- og hvilket-relativsætninger. MA thesis, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Togeby, Ole. 2003. Fungerer denne sætning? Funktionel dansk sproglære. København: Gads Forlag.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate–Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar