In this article, we describe and explain patterns of variation in acceptance of amn’t in varieties of Scots, drawing upon data from the Scots Syntax Atlas. Partly in line with findings from Bresnan (2001), we show that amn’t is much more widely accepted in inversion environments (amn’t I?) than in declaratives (I amn’t), but nevertheless, amn’t in declaratives is still accepted in certain regions of Scotland. We combine the productivity-based explanation of the amn’t gap in Yang (2016, 2017) with new insights into the syntax of Scots negation from Thoms et al. (2023) to provide a predictive account of the attested variation.

The Estonian indefinite pronouns keegi ‘someone’ and miski ‘something’ are distinguished by being able to refer to animate or inanimate entities, respectively. However, in certain Estonian dialects, keegi is used to refer to inanimate entities as well. The aim of this paper is to describe the functions and use of keegi based on the data in the Corpus of Estonian Dialects. We used statistical analyses to determine which dialects typically use keegi to refer to inanimate entities and which variables (polarity, function, position in the clause, case marking) contribute most to this variation. The results show that there are significant differences between the dialects: keegi is mostly used to refer to inanimate entities in the northern dialects (most frequently in the Western, Mid, and Eastern dialects), but this phenomenon is rare or non-existent in the southern dialects. All of the variables studied contribute to this variation: keegi is most likely to refer to an inanimate being when it is in the partitive case, functions as an object, a partitive subject, or a negative polarity item, and is positioned at the end of a negative clause.

By means of the first comprehensive apparent-time study of Austria’s traditional dialects, this paper explores the use of adnominal syntactic constructions of expressing the semantic relation of possession. The article focuses on both the geographical variation and the interplay of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The analyses are based on data from direct recordings of 162 speakers from forty villages and on written questionnaire data from 103 of these speakers from thirty-seven villages. The analyses reveal clear geographical patterns for those constructions in which the possessor phrase precedes the possessum phrase within the entire construction. We propose to focus on the discursive-pragmatic properties of the possessor phrase to explain the fact that each of the observed dialects allows the possessor to precede the possessum. We provide evidence that referential anchoring, combined with the concept of accessibility, is the key to explaining the syntactic order within the used constructions.

This article explores intraindividual microvariation in dialect syntax. We argue that in many cases the speaker has internalized a different (sub)grammar for each dialectal variety, in line with the hypothesis of universal bilingualism and parallel grammars argued for by Roeper (1999 et seq.). We discuss the question of how we can distinguish parallel grammars from optionality within one grammar, suggesting that the identification of correlating contextual factors might be a promising criterion. However, we also explore a more subtle type of variation, namely cases where a standard variety influences a potentially more vulnerable non-standard variety in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult for the language user and even for a trained linguist to discern what is what. We discuss whether or not these properties should be analysed as properties of another subgrammar (the standard grammar) or as fully integrated (albeit acquired) properties of the non-standard dialect.

The article contributes new data and findings to the growing field of corpus-based dialect syntax research. The focus of the paper is on variation in ‘need’-constructions (tarvis/vaja olema + nominal complement/infinitive ‘need to’) based on the corpus of Estonian dialects. Our purpose was to demonstrate the complex nature of syntactic variation, constrained geographically, individually or by language-internal factors. The study takes a corpus-based quantitative approach to observing the geographical spread of linguistic units. We apply conditional inference tree and random forests models to capture the (co)varying parts of the construction studied. Our results show that variation in different parts of constructions is influenced by different factors, both geographical and language-internal. Lexical variation (adverb tarvis ‘need’ or vaja ‘need’) and omission of the copula are clearly geographically distributed, while omission of the experiencer is determined mainly by language-internal factors. However, the study has also found extensive inter-individual differences.

This article investigates the morphosyntactic status of dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese. We hypothesize that these three languages represent three diachronic stages signalled synchronically by the degree of preservation or non-preservation of dative under movement. Thus, we explore the synchronic status of dative under passive movement and topicalization in the three languages, while simultaneously paying attention to the larger questions of diachronic preservation and non-preservation of dative. We suggest that our findings have interesting ramifications for the categorization of case as structural and non-structural in generative grammar.

A central objective of this paper is to show how much variation there is across Scandinavian with respect to the morphosyntactic form of interrogative noun phrases. The present paper focuses on three main types of such DPs: (i) phrases involving a cognate of English which, (ii) phrases involving the same element as manner ‘how’ (which is morphologically complex and distinct from degree ‘how’), and (iii) phrases involving ‘what’ with or without an overt kind noun. With respect to all of these different types of noun-phrase-internal wh-expressions an interesting pattern seems to emerge: there are reasons to hold that adnominal wh-expressions start out as modifiers, yielding kind-querying noun phrases, and then develop into determiners, yielding token-querying noun phrases. Although further investigations will have to determine whether such a developmental path (or cycle) is quite general in nature, it can be made perfect sense of with reference to grammaticalization triggered by wh-movement which operates on a DP-structure that distinguishes modification from determination in such a way that the locus of determination is higher than modification.