The semantics of Scandinavian pancake constructions

Abstract

A classical topic in the syntax of the mainland Scandinavian languages is so-called pancake clauses where there seemingly is disagreement between the subject and the predicative adjective, as in Pannekaker er godt ‘Pancakes(f):indf:pl be:prs good:n:sg’; the subject is in the plural, whereas the predicative adjective is in the neuter singular. According to one of the several approaches, these clauses display a type of semantic agreement. Recently, it has also been argued that there are at least four different types of pancake constructions. In this article, the semantic relationship between the different constructions is investigated further. It is argued that, diachronically, pancake agreement started with subjects interpreted as virtual, ungrounded processes, and that the absence of grounding has been reinterpreted as absence of spatial boundedness in the latest kind of pancake construction. The analysis is supported by a diachronic corpus investigation. The emphasis on virtual reference is a new feature with the current paper, and it enables us to set aside an objection against the semantic agreement analysis. The diachronic corpus investigation enables us to revise, empirically, earlier suggestions as to when the pancake constructions originated: They are well attested from the mid-1800s, in both Swedish and Norwegian Nynorsk.

The Agreement Hierarchy and (generalized) semantic agreement

“…The importance of "pancake sentences" for the argument was discussed in §3.2.2. Key references include Enger (2004), which has careful discussion of semantic agreement in this construction, Enger (2013) and Haugen & Enger (2019); Corbett (2006: 223-224) makes the link to the Agreement Hierarchy, while Corbett (2022b) provides references to other languages with the construction. For a survey of the literature, see Åkerblom (2020).…”

Untitled

“…En viser til en tenkt versjon av referenten. Haugen & Enger (2019) argumenterer som nevnt for at virtuell referanse ligger bakom bruken av nøytrum i kanoniske pannekakesetninger, som (3)-( 5). Vi får altså en sammenheng mellom pannekakesetningene i ( 3)-( 5) og konstruksjonene med nøytrum i ( 16)-( 18).…”

“…MedHaugen & Enger (2019) er ellers analyse A noe endret. 'Lav individueringsgrad' blir nå relatert også til 'virtuell referanse', altså referanse til det tenkte, sånn at lav grad av individuering/animathet ikke lenger er framstilt som eneste årsak til nøytrum i pannekakesetningene.…”

Defaultkongruens eller semantisk kongruens i pannekakesetninger?

“…Med Haugen & Enger (2019) 21), men NRG tar likevel ikke helt feil. Det er en tydelig skilnad mellom ( 16)-( 18) på den ene sida og ( 19)-( 21) på den andre; det er utelukkende intetkjønn som blir valgt i eksempler som ( 16)-( 18), mens det altså er variasjon i språkbruken for ( 19)-( 21).…”