Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The loss of inflectional categories is often thought of as a type of simplification. In this paper we present a survey of phenomena involving the reduction of adjective agreement in Scandinavian, using examples from Norwegian, and discuss their diachronic origins, including a new account of the development of indeclinability in adjectives such as ‘proud’. These examples each involve lexically restricted non-canonical inflection – syncretism, defectiveness, overdifferentiation and periphrasis – in particular paradigm cells or syntactic environments. They show that the loss of inflection does not necessarily simplify grammar, and in some cases, can increase grammatical complexity by adding lexical exceptions to general rules. This excludes simplification as the motivation, even if it is the eventual result. We argue from these historical developments that speakers are liable to analyse idiosyncratic patterns of inflection as lexically specified, even where more general (but perhaps more abstract) alternatives are possible. Thus speakers do not always operate with a maximally elegant, reductionist approach to inflection classes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aasen, Ivar
    1864Norsk grammatik. Kristiania (=Oslo): Malling.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman, Farrell & Robert Malouf
    2013 Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language89(3): 429–464. 10.1353/lan.2013.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0054 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ackerman, Farrell, Greg T. Stump & Gert Webelhuth
    2011 Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology. InRobert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars (eds.), Non-transformational Theories of Grammar, 325–58. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albright, Adam
    2003 A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. InGina Garding & Mimu Tsujimura (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22, 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2009 Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. InCurt Rice & Sylvia Blaho (eds.), Modeling ungrammaticality in optimality theory, 117–164. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderwald, Lieselotte
    2007 ‘He rung the bell’ and ‘she drunk ale’ – Non-standard past tense forms in traditional British dialects and on the internet’. InMarianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web, 271–285. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789401203791_016
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203791_016 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2011 Are non-standard dialects more natural than the standard? A test case from English verb morphology. Journal of Linguistics47: 251–274. 10.1017/S0022226710000241
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000241 [Google Scholar]
  8. Anttila, Raimo
    1989Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd rev. edn.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Audring, Jenny
    2006 Pronominal gender in spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18(2): 85–116. 10.1017/S1470542706000043
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542706000043 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2017 Calibrating complexity: How complex is a gender system?Language Sciences60: 53–68. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2019 Canonical, complex, complicated?. InFrancesca Di Garbo, Bernhard Wälchli & Bruno Olsson (Eds.) Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity, 15–52. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baayen, R. Harald, Ton Dijkstra, and Robert Schreuder
    1997 Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual–route model. Journal of Memory and Language37(1): 94–117. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2509
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2509 [Google Scholar]
  13. Baayen, R. Harald, James M. McQueen, Ton Dijkstra & Robert Schreuder
    2003 Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. InHarald R. Baayen & Robert Schreuder (eds.), Morphological structure in language processing, 355–390. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110910186.355
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110910186.355 [Google Scholar]
  14. Baerman, Matthew
    2016 Seri verb classes: Morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language, 92(4): 792–823. 10.1353/lan.2016.0073
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0073 [Google Scholar]
  15. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, Dunstan & Greville G. Corbett
    2017Morphological complexity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316343074
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316343074 [Google Scholar]
  16. Barnes, Michael
    2008A new introduction to Old Norse. Part I: Grammar. 3rd edn.London: Viking Society for Northern Research, University College London.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Blanc, H.
    1970 Dual and Pseudo-Dual in the Arabic Dialects. Language46(1): 42–57. 10.2307/412406
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412406 [Google Scholar]
  18. Blevins, Juliette
    1996 The syllable in phonological theory. InJohn Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bond, Oliver, Helen Sims-Williams & Matthew Baerman
    . Forthcoming. Contact and linguistic typology. InRaymond Hickey ed. The handbook of language contact, 2nd edn.Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Booij, Geert
    1994 Against split morphology. InGeert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993, 27–49. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1995 Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. InJaap van Marle & Geert Booij (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bowern, Claire
    2009 Defining complexity: Historical reconstruction and Nyulnyulan subordination. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1. Houston: Rice University. https://hdl.handle.net/1911/21848
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bull, Tove
    1990 Målet i Troms og Finnmark. InErnst Håkon Jahr (ed.), Den store dialektboka, 157–178. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bybee, Joan L.
    1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bybee, Joan L., & Carol. L. Moder
    1983 Morphological classes as natural categories. Language59(2), 251–270. 10.2307/413574
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413574 [Google Scholar]
  26. Carstairs, Andrew
    1986 Macroclasses and paradigm economy in German nouns. STUF-Language Typology and Universals39(1–4): 3–11. 10.1524/stuf.1986.39.14.3
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1986.39.14.3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Carstairs, Andrew D.
    1987Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
    1994 Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language70(4): 737–788. 10.2307/416326
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416326 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2000 Article 65: Inflection classes. InGeert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, vol.1, 630–638. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Corbett, Greville G.
    1979 The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics15(2): 203–224. 10.1017/S0022226700016352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016352 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2006Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2009 Canonical inflectional classes. InFabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dahl, Östen
    2004The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.71 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009 Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: The case of Elfdalian and Swedish. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 50–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dammel, Antje & Kürschner, Sebastian
    2018 The diachrony of inflectional classes in four Germanic languages. What happens after transparency is lost?InWilliam B. McGregor & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The diachrony of classification systems, 283–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.342.10dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.342.10dam [Google Scholar]
  36. Dammel, Antje & Damaris Nübling
    2006 The superstable marker as an indicator of categorial weakness?Folia LinguisticaXL: 97–114. 10.1515/flin.40.1part2.97
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.40.1part2.97 [Google Scholar]
  37. Daniels, Don Roger
    2015 A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Enger, Hans-Olav
    2004 On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language28(1): 51–82. 10.1075/sl.28.1.03eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.1.03eng [Google Scholar]
  39. 2007 The No Blur Principle meets Norwegian dialects. Studia Linguistica61(3): 278–309. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2007.00139.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00139.x [Google Scholar]
  40. 2013 Inflectional change, ‘sound laws’ and the autonomy of morphology. Diachronica30(1): 1–26. 10.1075/dia.30.1.01eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.1.01eng [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014 Reinforcement in inflection classes: Two cues may be better than one. Word Structure7(2): 153–181. 10.3366/word.2014.0064
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2014.0064 [Google Scholar]
  42. Enger, Hans-Olav & Phillipp Conzett
    2016 Kapittel 3: Morfologi. InHelge Sandøy (ed.), Norsk språkhistorie I: Mønster, 213–317. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Enger, Hans-Olav & Greville G. Corbett
    2012 Definiteness, gender, and hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian Dialects. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 24(4): 287–324. 10.1017/S1470542712000098
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542712000098 [Google Scholar]
  44. Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo
    1997Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Falk, Hjalmar & Alf Torp
    1900Dansk-norskens syntax i historisk fremstilling. Kristiania (=Oslo): H. Aschehoug & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Fertig, David
    2013Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Fleischer, Jürg & Horst Simon
    2011 What are exceptions? And what can be done about them?InJürg Fleischer & Horst Simon (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (TiL, SaM 216), 3–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gardani, Francesco
    2008Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑04373‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04373-0 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft
    2011Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. 3volumesCopenhagen: Det danske sprog- og litteraturselskab (/Syddansk universitetsforlag).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Haspelmath, Martin
    2000 Article 68: Periphrasis. InGeert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology: A handbook on inflection and word formation, vol.1. 654–664. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Haugen, Odd Einar
    2002Grunnbok i norrønt språk. Oslo: Gyldendal.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hay, Jennifer
    2001 Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?Linguistics39(6): 1041–1070. 10.1515/ling.2001.041
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [Google Scholar]
  53. Holmes, Philip & Hans-Olav Enger
    2018Norwegian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Jackendoff, Ray & Audring, Jenny
    2019 Relational morphology in the parallel architecture. InJenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 390–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Josefsson, Gunlög
    2014 Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Language Sciences43: 62–76. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  56. Joseph, Brian
    2011 A localistic approach to universals and variation. InPeter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 404–425. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kaplan, Abby
    2015 The evidence for homophony avoidance in language change: Reply to Sampson (2013). Diachronica32(2): 268–276. 10.1075/dia.32.2.04kap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.2.04kap [Google Scholar]
  58. Kristoffersen, Gjert & Arne Torp
    2016 Fonologi. InNorsk språkhistorie I: Mønster, 101–213. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kulbrandstad, Lars Anders & Torodd Kinn
    2016Språkets mønstre, 4th edn. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kürschner, Sebastian
    2016 Die Interaktion von Genus und Deklinationsklasse in oberdeutschen Dialekten. InAndreas Bittner & Constanze Spieß (eds.) Formen und Funktionen. Morphosemantik und grammatische Konstruktion, 35–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110478976‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110478976-004 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kusters, Wouter
    2003 Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Losiewicz, Beth L.
    1992 The effect of frequency on linguistic morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Löwenadler, John
    2010 Restrictions on productivity: Defectiveness in Swedish adjective paradigms. Morphology20(1): 71–107. 10.1007/s11525‑009‑9145‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-009-9145-6 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lundskær-Nielsen, Tom & Philip Holmes
    2010Danish: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Maiden, Martin
    2018The Romance verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199660216.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199660216.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  66. Marchese, Lynnel
    1988 Noun classes and agreement systems in Kru: A historical approach. InMichael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural languages: Approaches, theory, descriptions, 323–341. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Milin, Petar, Victor Kuperman, Aleksandar Kostic & R. Harald Baayen
    2009 Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. InJames P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 214–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  68. Nesse, Agnete
    2002Språkkontakt mellom norsk og tysk i hansatidens Bergen. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse, Skrifter og avhandlinger nr. 2). Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Nichols, Johanna
    2009 Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. InSampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Noreen, Adolf
    1970 [1923]Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre)…Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111610580
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111610580 [Google Scholar]
  71. Nübling, Damaris
    2008 Was tun mit Flexionsklassen?Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und LinguistikLXXV, 282–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nygaard, Marius
    1905Norrøn syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Refsum, Helge
    1954Romeriksmål. Oslo: Fellestrykk.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Riad, Tomas
    1999 «Allting ryms i varje frö»: Om suffixet -(i)sk. Språk och Stil9: 35–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Ridge, Eleanor
    2019 Variation in Vatlongos verbal morphosyntax: Speaker communities in Southeast Ambrym and Mele Maat. PhD dissertation, SOAS.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Sampson, Geoffrey
    2013 A counterexample to homophony avoidance. Diachronica30: 579–591. 10.1075/dia.30.4.05sam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.4.05sam [Google Scholar]
  77. Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill
    2009Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sandøy, Helge
    1988 Samsvarbøying av adjektiv og perfektum partisipp i norske dialektar. InAndreas Bjørkum & Arve Borg (eds.), Nordiske studiar: Innlegg frå den tredje nordiske dialektologkonferansen, 85–118. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Schulte, Michael
    2005 Article 122: Phonological developments from Old Nordic to Early Modern Nordic I: West Scandinavian. InOskar Bandle et al (eds.), The Nordic languages, vol.2, 1081–1097. HSK 22. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sims, Andrea D.
    2015Inflectional defectiveness. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107053854
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107053854 [Google Scholar]
  81. Skautrup, Peter
    1968Det danske sprogs historie, Første bind: Fra guldhornene til Jydske lov. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sornicola, Rosanna
    2011 Romance linguistics and historical linguistics: Reflections on synchrony and diachrony. InMartin Maiden, J. C. Smith & Adam Ledgeway, (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Spilling, Eivor Finset
    2012 Gradbøying i norsk: en korpusbasert undersøkelse av talespråk. MA thesis, University of Oslo.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Spilling, Eivor Finset & Tor Arne Haugen
    2013 Gradbøying i norsk: en bruksbasert tilnærming. Maal og Minne 2013/2: 1–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Sturtevant, Edgar H.
    1947An introduction to linguistic science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Taft, Marcus
    1979 Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition7(4): 263–272. 10.3758/BF03197599
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197599 [Google Scholar]
  87. Thomas, George
    1983 A comparison of the morphological adaptation of loanwords ending in a vowel in contemporary Czech, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 25(1): 180–205. 10.1080/00085006.1983.11091734
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.1983.11091734 [Google Scholar]
  88. Torp, Arne
    1998Nordiske språk i nordisk og germansk perspektiv. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Trudgill, Peter
    2012 Gender reduction in Bergen Norwegian: A North-Sea perspective. InLennart Elmevik and Ernst Håkon Jahr (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the late Middle Ages, 57–75. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Unbegaun, B. O.
    1947 Les substantifs indéclinables en russe. Revue des études slaves, 23(1/4): 130–145. 10.3406/slave.1947.1454
    https://doi.org/10.3406/slave.1947.1454 [Google Scholar]
  91. Vindenes, Urd & Hans-Olav Enger
    2020 Det umulige er mulig. Forthcoming. InJanne B. Johannessen (ed.), Leksikografi og korpus. Special issue of Oslo Studies in Language. 10.5617/osla.8168
    https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8168 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wessén, Elias
    1992a [1969]Svensk språkhistoria I: Ljudlära och ordböjningslära. Åttonde upplagan. Nytryck i nordiska språk 4. Edsbruk: Akademitryck.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 1992bSvensk språkhistoria II: Ordbildningslära. Femte upplagan. Nytryck I nordiska språk 5. Edsbruk: Akademitryck.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Wetås, Åse
    2008 Kasusbortfallet i mellomnorsk [PhD dissertation, Univ. of Oslo]. Oslo: Unipub.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error