Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:34:06.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological borrowing from English to Norwegian: The enigmatic non-possessive -s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Gisle Andersen  and
Anne-Line Graedler
Gisle Andersen*
Affiliation:
NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, NO-5045 Bergen, Norway
Anne-Line Graedler*
Affiliation:
Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 400, NO-2418 Elverum, Norway
*
Emails for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]
Emails for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

With increased lexical influence and general English competence among Norwegian language users, the association of the suffix -s with the category of plural appears to be expanding. This article explores the occurrence and productivity of non-possessive -s in contemporary Norwegian, a feature which incorporates several phenomena. Our aim is to chart the lexico-grammatical categories instantiated by this morpho-phonological segment in light of the previous literature on Anglicisms in Norwegian and on the basis of empirical evidence from present-day language use. The article presents a corpus-based survey of categories where non-possessive -s occurs (i) as the plural marker of Anglicisms, e.g. drinks; (ii) in colloquialisms such as dritings ‘dead drunk’ – a combination of a domestic noun and English (or Norwegian) -ing + non-possessive -s reanalysed into an adjectival stem; (iii) in nouns like en caps ‘a (baseball) cap’, where it has lost its plurality marking function and become part of the lexical stem; and (iv) sporadically as a plurality marker of domestic or non-English words, e.g. temas. The variability in presence vs. absence of -s is further explored in four case studies dedicated to different stages of borrowing.

Keywords

Anglicismborrowingcorpusloan wordmorphologyNorwegianplural
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , May 2020 , pp. 3 - 31
Copyright
© Nordic Association of Linguistics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, Gisle. 2012a. A corpus-based study of the adaptation of English import words in Norwegian. In Andersen (ed.), 157–192.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle (ed.). 2012b. Exploring Newspaper Language: Using the Web to Create and Investigate a Large Corpus of Modern Norwegian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2015. Pseudo-borrowings as cases of pragmatic borrowing: Focus on Anglicisms in Norwegian. In Furiassi, Cristiano & Gottlieb, Henrik (eds.), Pseudo-English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe, 123–144. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2017. A corpus study of pragmatic adaptation: The case of the Anglicism [jobb] in Norwegian. Journal of Pragmatics 113, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle & Hofland, Knut. 2012. Building a large monitor corpus based on newspapers on the web. In Andersen (ed.), 1–28.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2012. Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination. In Johanson, Lars & Robbeets, Martine (eds.), Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, 71–97. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
González, Félix Rodríguez. 2017. El plural de los anglicismos en español actual. Panorama y revisión crítica [The plural of anglicisms in present-day Spanish: Panorama and critical review]. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 97(315), 299–329.Google Scholar
Graedler, Anne-Line. 1998. Morphological, Semantic and Functional Aspects of English Lexical Borrowings in Norwegian. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Graedler, Anne-Line. 2012. The collection of Anglicisms: Methodological issues in connection with impact studies in Norway. In Furiassi, Cristiano, Pulcini, Virginia & González, Félix Rodríguez (eds.), The Anglicization of European Lexis, 91–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maurits M. 1842. Fremmed-Ordbog eller Forklaring over de i det norske Skrift- og Omgangs-Sprog almindeligst forekommende fremmede Ord og Talemaader [Foreign dictionary or commonly occurring Norwegian foreign words and speech patterns in written and conversational language]. Christiania: Guldberg & Dzwonkowski.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1953/1969. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1902. Engelsk og nordisk: En Afhandling om Låneord [English and Nordic: A dissertation on borrowed words]. Nordisk tidsskrift för vetenskap, konst och industri, 500–514.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Robbeets, Martine (eds.). 2012. Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig & Graedler, Anne-Line. 2002. Rocka, hipt og snacksy. Om engelsk i norsk språk og samfunn [Rocka, hipt and snacksy: On English in Norwegian language and society]. Oslo: Høyskoleforlaget.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore & Sandøy, Helge. 2010. Introduction. The linguistic consequences of globalization: the Nordic laboratory. In Tore Kristiansen & Helge Sandøy (eds.), The Linguistic Consequences of Globalization: The Nordic Countries, special issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language 204, 1–7.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F., Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard & Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onysko, Alexander. 2007. Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, Lexical Productivity, and Written Codeswitching. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøy, Helge. 2009. Moderne importord i språka i Norden (MIN). Ei orientering [Modern loanwords in the Nordic languages (MIN): An orientation]. Sprog i Norden 2009, 85–94.Google Scholar
Saugera, Valérie. 2012. How English-origin nouns (do not) pluralize in French. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 35(1), 120–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saugera, Valérie. 2017. Remade in France: Anglicisms in the Lexicon and Morphology of French. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Kari Anne Rand. 1982. The adaptation of English loanwords in Norwegian. In Filipovic, Rudolf (ed.), The English Element in European Languages, vol. 2, 338–377. Zagreb: University of Zagreb.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, Donald. 2002. Underspecification and noun inflection: Default hierarchies for gender and plural. Handout from Workshop on Corpus and Variation, Oslo, 15 June 2002.Google Scholar
Stene, Aasta. 1945. English Loan-words in Modern Norwegian: A Study of Linguistic Borrowing in the Process. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sunde, Anne Mette. 2018. A typology of English borrowings in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of English Studies 17(2), 71–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunde, Anne Mette. 2019. Skjult påvirkning. Tre studier av engelskpåvirkning i norsk [Hidden influence: Three studies of English influence on Norwegian]. Ph.D. dissertation, NTNU.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sara Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna Maria. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Goldbach, Maria & Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives From Romance Inflectional Morphology, 358–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulvestad, Bjarne. 1985 [1955]. The Norwegian masculines with the suffix -ert. In Jahr, Ernst Håkon & Lorentz, Ove (eds.), Morfologi/Morphology (Studies in Norwegian Linguistics 3), 49–54. Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar