Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang
Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang
Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
10 Letizia Vezzosi<br />
North Germanic languages, such as Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, have a<br />
two-gender system, i.e., uter gender – historically derived <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> syncretism of<br />
Old Germanic feminine and masculine – vs. neuter gender. Their distribution<br />
is formally ruled. However, <strong>the</strong>y can alternate in special circumstances, as is clear<br />
in (17).<br />
(17) a. Är färsk sill gott? [Swedish]<br />
is fresh herring [uter] good [neuter]?<br />
“is fresh herring good?”<br />
b. Nyfångad sill är särskilt god [Swedish]<br />
new-caught herring [uter] is specially good [uter]<br />
“<strong>the</strong> herring, recently caught, is good in a special way”<br />
Here, as in Present Day English varieties and dialects, <strong>the</strong> difference in gender<br />
appears to correspond to a difference in perspectivisation. If a noun is<br />
[+ individuated], <strong>the</strong>n uter agreement is favoured. This also holds true in o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Germanic languages, such as Dutch: if ‘toothpaste’, which grammatically is of<br />
common gender, is conceptualised as mass noun, <strong>the</strong> specific-gender pronoun is<br />
neuter, but when ‘toothpaste’ is individuated it becomes of common gender (18).<br />
(18) a. Is de tandpasta op? ja, het is op. [Dutch]<br />
is <strong>the</strong>.common toothpaste up? yes, Pron-Neut. is up<br />
“Is toothpaste finished’ Yes, it is”<br />
b. Is de tube tandpasta leeg? Ja, hij (common) is leeg [Dutch]<br />
Is <strong>the</strong>.common toothpaste empty? Yes, Pron.Common is empty<br />
“Is <strong>the</strong> toothpaste tube finished’ Yes, it is”<br />
To conclude, gender is traditionally described as a sort of ‘secondary grammatical<br />
category’ of <strong>the</strong> noun (Ibrahim 1973: 26), because unlike o<strong>the</strong>r grammatical categories<br />
it allows no choice and has no ‘au<strong>the</strong>ntic relation’ to conceptual categories.<br />
Thus gender is given a special status. From <strong>the</strong> analysis of Old English data and<br />
comparison with Germanic and cross-linguistic data, it clearly appears that gender<br />
is ei<strong>the</strong>r primarily or secondarily linked to some semantic or pragmatic factors,<br />
in any gender assignment systems. Accordingly, if one thinks gender essentially<br />
underlies <strong>the</strong> concept of [± individuality], <strong>the</strong>n its function is no longer reduced<br />
to agreement, but becomes a meaningful feature of <strong>the</strong> noun: among <strong>the</strong> nominal<br />
grammatical categories, <strong>the</strong> function of gender can be categorised as ‘nominal<br />
aspect’ or ‘perspectivisation’ of <strong>the</strong> noun.<br />
Consequently, in periods such as Old English, gender deviance in no way signals<br />
<strong>the</strong> disintegration of <strong>the</strong> category, but represents a special circumstance in<br />
which <strong>the</strong> basic function of gender marking becomes more visible, thanks to a<br />
weakening of <strong>the</strong> formal nominal inflectional system.