Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity
in Norwegian
Marta Velni´c1, Roumyana Slabakova2
,
3, Anne Dahl1
,
3and
Kjersti Faldet Listhaug1
1Department of Language and Literature, NTNU –Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Edvard
Bulls veg 1, 7048 Trondheim, Norway, 2Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, The University of
Southampton, Avenue Campus 65/3029, Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK and 3Department of Language and
Culture, UiT –The Arctic University of Norway, Hansine Hansens veg 18, 9019 Tromsø, Norway
Corresponding author: Marta Velni´c; Email: marta.velnic@ntnu.no
(Received 29 January 2024; revised 13 December 2024; accepted 16 December 2024)
Abstract
This paper explores the capacity of singular noun phrases (NPs) to express genericity in
Norwegian, examining how definite, indefinite, and bare singular forms map onto generic
meanings. A timed acceptability judgment task was used to investigate how each form
correlates with generic expressions, delving into the subtleties of their usage in native
language. Thirty-three Norwegian native speakers completed the study. Our results
indicate that all three NP forms can convey some type of generic meaning, but there are
preferences in their application. The definite singular is well-suited for kind and
characterizing generics, whereas the indefinite singular, though less favored, is still
acceptable in characterizing and type-denoting contexts. The bare singular shows a strong
inclination toward type-denoting meanings, possibly due to its intrinsic emphasis on types
over individuals. We discuss the multifunctionality of Norwegian singular NPs and the
implications of individual variation among native speakers for learners of Norwegian.
Keywords: genericity; Norwegian; form-to-meaning mapping; kind; type-denoting; characterizing
1. Introduction
This article presents an empirical study investigating the form-to-meaning mapping
of singular noun phrases in generic statements in Norwegian. Norwegian singular
noun phrases offer an interesting case study, as all three forms, the definite,
indefinite, and bare form, can express some form of generic meaning. The current
body of literature reflects disagreement, and these form–meaning mappings have
not been investigated experimentally so far across the different generic contexts.
This is the goal of the present study.
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nordic Association of Linguists. This is
an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the
original article is properly cited.
Nordic Journal of Linguistics (2025), page 1 of 31
doi:10.1017/S0332586524000258
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
The article is structured as follows: first we outline the various types of genericity
and their accounts discussed in the semantics literature; next we describe our
experimental design and findings. The statistical analyses are oriented to address
our research questions. Finally, we present our discussion and conclusions.
1.1 Types of generic meanings
Generic statements impart generalizations about the world and reflect how humans
categorize objects and events (Carlson & Pelletier 1995, Krifka et al. 1995, Mari,
Beyssade & Del Prete 2012). More precisely, genericity is the phenomenon in which
a linguistic expression (e.g. a sentence or a phrase) is used to generalize over kinds of
individuals or over events. The ability to express generic meanings allows us to
establish an efficient relationship with the environment by describing regular events
or properties of objects. To our knowledge, all natural languages are capable of
expressing genericity without resorting to dedicated overt linguistic devices in their
grammars (Carlson 2011).
Two main forms of genericity are recognized and widely discussed in the
semantics literature:
KIND
and
CHARACTERIZING
generics. The first type of generic
expression describes a kind as an abstract individual (Krifka et al. 1995, Mari et al.
2012). Consider examples (1a) and (1b), where the NP the rabbit/kaninen refers not
to a specific rabbit but to the species Oryctolagus cuniculus. Here, genericity is
conveyed at the NP level and is associated with verbs referring to the totality of the
members constituting a kind. Predicates such as
TO BE EXTINCT
or
TO BE
WIDESPREAD
force the NP to denote a kind, given that individual entities or groups
cannot possess the quality of being extinct (Ionin, Montrul, Kim & Philippov 2011).
KIND
genericity also encompasses what is referred to as
TAXONOMIC REFERENCE
(1c)
(Krifka et al. 1995). In example (1c), the noun with a
KIND
reading refers to a sub-
kind of the species, not to the whole species. However, we are not taking taxonomic
reference into consideration in the current study.
(1) a. The rabbit reached Britain in the 11th century.
ENGLISH
b. Kanin-en kom til Storbritannia på 1000-tall-et.
NORWEGIAN
Rabbit-
DEF
came to Great_Britain at 1000-number-
DEF
‘The rabbit reached Britain in the 11th century.’
c. A lion, namely the Berber lion, was declared endangered.
ENGLISH
The second type of generic sentences,
CHARACTERIZING
ones, draw general-
izations over the prototypical representative of a class, such as in (2). Unlike
transient properties, these represent normative or intrinsic attributes of the
described NP (Krifka et al. 1995:13). Such statements do not have to be true of a
hundred percent of referents/objects. For instance, the veracity of a characterizing
statement as in (2c) remains intact even though only adult male lions have a mane.
Characterizing sentences predominantly possess a stative nature since they manifest
a property rather than relay a particular event (Krifka et al. 1995:17).
2 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(2) a. A giraffe has a purple tongue.
ENGLISH
b. En sjiraff har lilla tunge.
NORWEGIAN
‘A giraffe has purple tongue’
c. A lion has a mane.
ENGLISH
d. En løve har manke.
NORWEGIAN
‘A lion has mane’
Generic meanings are similar, indeed universal, across languages as they abstract
away from individual objects and events. However, languages show crucial
differences in how these meanings are expressed.
The field of genericity enjoys a vast body of theoretical analyses concerning the
form-to-meaning mapping in English (Krifka et al. 1995) and beyond (Dayal 2004).
Genericity has been discussed from a theoretical perspective in several languages
including German (Barton, Kolb & Kupisch 2015), Spanish (Borik & Espinal 2015),
Greek (Chatzigoga, Katsos & Stockall 2017), and Russian (Seres 2020).
From an empirical point of view, the investigations that have been conducted
(Leslie, Khemlani & Glucksberg 2011, Khemlani, Leslie & Glucksberg 2012, Barton
et al. 2015, Chatzigoga et al. 2017) mostly focus on the exact interpretation of
generic statements. Empirical investigations on genericity span other subfields of
linguistics such as child language acquisition (Hollander, Gelman & Star 2002,
Gelman & Raman 2003) and natural language processing (Reiter & Frank 2010).
There is also a vast body of research on the acquisition of genericity in second and
third language acquisition (Snape, García Mayo & Gürel 2009, Ionin, Montrul, Kim
& Philippov 2011, Ionin, Montrul & Santos 2011, Park 2013, Snape, Mayo & Gürel
2013, Snape, Hirakawa, Hirakawa, Hosoi & Matthews 2014, Ionin, Grolla, Santos &
Montrul 2015, Hermas 2020); these studies base their predictions for additional
language acquisition on the observations made for native speakers of the relevant
target language.
Genericity in Norwegian has been addressed in extensive work on the nominal
system (Borthen 2003, Halmøy 2016), including investigations of Norwegian
corpora (Rosén & Borthen 2017, Skrzypek & Kurek 2018). Empirical surveys have
been conducted by Kurek-Przybilski (2021) and by Skrzypek, Kurek-Przybilski &
Piotrowska (2022). Kurek-Przybilski (2021) investigated the use of NPs across a
variety of generic references, and found bare singulars, indefinite singulars, and bare
plurals to account for the majority of count nouns in the task; the definite singular
was represented in around 16% of the instances (Kurek-Przybilski 2022:97).
Skrzypek et al. (2022) tested which forms can be used as generic NPs in the
languages of Mainland Scandinavian. They established similarities between Swedish
and Norwegian, as the participants accepted more than one form in the generic
context, indicating a versatile use of NP forms.
Genericity in Norwegian can be expressed both with singular and plural
expressions. Skrzypek et al. (2022) found that, within the plural forms, the definite
had a very low acceptance rate, whereas the indefinite plural was preferred to denote
genericity. In this work, we limit ourselves to describing singular forms because the
bare singular is not common for count nouns across languages with articles, and
thus interesting to study, as it has a non-negligible use in Norwegian. Secondly, the
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
reported task is part of a larger study in which plural forms were tested with another
task. In the name of research ecology, we presented our participants with only one
NP per test item. Including the plural forms would have increased the test length,
leading to attention overload.
In the following sections, we outline how each singular nominal relates to some
type of expression of genericity in Norwegian. This line of inquiry warrants
attention because all three singular NP forms seem to have the potential to express
some form of genericity.
1.2 Norwegian singular noun phrases
In Norwegian, a singular NP can manifest in three distinct forms: indefinite singular
(
EN KATT
-‘a cat’), bare singular (
KATT
-‘cat’), and the definite singular (
KATTEN
- cat-
DEF
‘the cat’); note that the definite marker is realized as a suffix on the noun. This
section offers a comprehensive review of the extant literature on the capability of
these forms to express genericity in Norwegian. Complementing this, later we
present new empirical data sourced from native Norwegian speakers, delving into
the association between the three forms and distinct generic connotations.
Alongside
KIND
and
CHARACTERIZING
meanings, we explore the notion of
TYPE
-
DENOTING
genericity.1Mass nouns are excluded from the current study as their
distribution with regard to generics is different from count nouns and would add
too much variation.
1.2.1 The definite singular
The definite singular can have a
KIND
reading in Norwegian as exemplified by (1b)
above. However, it cannot have a
KIND
reading with super-kinds (Halmøy 2010)as
in (3), as there are many sub-species of dinosaurs and they are all extinct.
(3) a. #Dinosaur-en er utryddet.
NORWEGIAN
dinosaur-
DEF
is extinct
‘The dinosaur is extinct.’
The definite singular can also have a
CHARACTERIZING
generic reading, as
exemplified in (4).
(4) a. Sjiraff-en har lilla tunge.
NORWEGIAN
giraffe-
DEF
has purple tongue
‘The giraffe has a purple tongue.’
b. Løv-en har manke.
NORWEGIAN
lion-
DEF
has mane
‘The lion has a mane.’
The definite singular can of course denote meanings related to definiteness, such
as anaphoric mention (5b) or uniqueness (5a), and thus take a range of non-generic
meanings.
4 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(5) a. Etter sin lange tur, er sjiraff-en trøtt.
NORWEGIAN
After its long walk is giraffe-
DEF
tired.
‘After its long walk, the giraffe is tired.’
b. Denne flokk-en har fire løvinner og
this pack-
DEF
has four lionesses and
en hannløve.
one male-lion
Hann-løv-en ligger i tre-et.
NORWEGIAN
Male-lion-
DEF
lying in tree-
DEF
‘This pack has four lionesses and one lion.
The lion is lying in the tree.’
1.2.2 The indefinite singular
The indefinite singular can signal
CHARACTERIZING
genericity (6a) but cannot refer
to
KIND
readings. An example of the latter from Halmøy (2016) is provided in (6b).
(6) a. En potet inneholder C-vitamin
CHARACTERIZING
A potato contains C vitamin
‘A potato contains vitamin C’
b. ??En potet komme opprinnelig fra Peru.
KIND
a potato comes originally from Peru
‘A potato comes originally from Peru.’
The
KIND
reading is available under the
TAXONOMIC
interpretation of en potet:if
we were referring to a particular sub-kind of potatoes (e.g. En potet, nemlig Beate,
kommer opprinnelig fra Peru). The indefinite singular denotes, of course, a wide
range of non-generic meanings such as the existential readings in (7).
(7) a. En potet trillet ut av pos-en.
NORWEGIAN
A potato rolled out of bag-
DEF
‘A potato rolled out of the bag.’
However, the indefinite singular has been described as dis-preferred in subject
position: Søfteland (2014) investigated the realization of subjects in vernacular
spoken Norwegian and found that indefinite subjects are quite rare. This dis-
preference for indefinite subjects (with the indefinite article) in Norwegian may be
related to the fact that Norwegian exhibits a more frequent use of constructions with
expletive subjects (e.g. the cleft construction) compared to English (see e.g. Gundel
et al. 2002).
1.2.3 The bare singular
In this study, we follow Borthen’s definition of the bare singular form: ‘A bare
singular is a nominal constituent that is countable, singular, and indefinite, and that
does not have a phonetically realized determiner’(Borthen 2003:10). There has been
ample discussion regarding the Norwegian bare singular; for a detailed overview see
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Borthen (2003) and Rosén & Borthen (2017). The form is morphologically singular;
however, its semantic reference is often number-neutral, as defined in Dobrovie-
Sorin & de Oliveira (2008), Espinal (2010), and Espinal & McNally (2011).
Halmøy (2016:45) defines the bare singular as marked for general number. Let us
examine more closely one of our test examples in (8). The NP dog refers to any
number and subspecies of dogs. If the example were with the indefinite or with the
bare plural, it would mean that it is healthy to have a single dog or more than one
dog, respectively.
(8) a. Det er sunt å ha hund.
NORWEGIAN
it is healthy to have dog
‘It is healthy to have a dog.’
Crucial for the present study is that Norwegian bare singulars are
TYPE
-
EMPHASIZING
, rather than token-emphasizing; they refer to an abstract entity, unlike
tokens, which refer to an individual or an instance. Take the example in (9) from
Borthen (2003): svart sykkel is non-referential and cannot point to a specific black
bike. The specific reading, however, is readily available with the indefinite singular
(i.e. Jeg ønsker meg en svart sykkel).
(9) a. Jeg ønsker meg svart sykkel.
NORWEGIAN
I want 1st.
REFL
black bike
‘I want a black bicycle (for myself).’
Halmøy (2016:99) describes sentences such (10) as acceptable. According to her,
the bare noun can receive both the
CHARACTERIZING
(10a) and the
KIND
(10b)
interpretation.
(10) a. Elg er et stort partået klovdyr.
NORWEGIAN
moose is a big pair.toed cloven.animal
‘Moose are big two-toed cloven-footed animals.’
b. Elg står i fare for å bli utryddet.
NORWEGIAN
moose stand in danger for to become extinct
‘Moose are in danger of extinction.’
On the other hand, Borthen (2003) considers some bare singulars to be ill-
formed in more prototypical
KIND
(11a) and
CHARACTERIZING
(11b) readings.
(11) a. *Løve står i fare for å bli utryddet.
NORWEGIAN
lion stands in danger for to become extinct
‘The lion can become extinct.’
b. *Katt har lang hale.
NORWEGIAN
cat has long tail
‘A cat has a long tail.’
This apparent contradiction of the acceptability of example (10) but the
unacceptability of (11) underscores the ‘unstable’interpretation of the bare singular
6 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
construction. Borthen (personal communication) explains that there is something
about Norwegian moose that makes the bare form particularly likely: they live in
groups (which may be considered ‘masses of plurals’) and they are often eaten as
meat, which means that the noun elg ‘moose’is often used as a mass noun and thus
appears without a determiner. Thus, it might be possible that there is some kind of
mass interpretation making the examples in (10) acceptable, which would not fit
Borthen’s(2003) interpretation of a bare singular (see definition above). Discussions
with native Norwegian speakers suggest that animals native to Norway have an
overall higher chance of being interpreted as mass. Therefore, our test items feature
African and Asian animals, as there is more consensus on their linguistic regularity
as count entities.
In summary, all three singular NP forms can express
KIND
and
CHARACTERIZING
generic readings, albeit in different alignments. The literature describes the definites
as best suited to expressing
KIND
readings, while the indefinites are more germane to
CHARACTERIZING
and
TAXONOMIC KIND
readings (the latter not included in our
study). The bare singular can also denote genericity in Norwegian, but its mapping
onto generic meanings is much more complicated than for the other singulars, as
outlined above. The bare form, in particular, deserves further experimental research.
2. The current study
In the current study we empirically test the observations made in the literature
regarding the distributions and interpretations of the forms in relation to the
different generic nuances. We posed the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the form-to-meaning mappings in Norwegian singular generic
expressions? Which form best expresses each generic meaning?
RQ2. How exclusively is an NP form used in a particular generic context?
RQ3. Are the same forms accepted across generic and non-generic contexts?
Since genericity is a phenomenon at the syntax–semantics and syntax–
pragmatics interface and responsive to many variables such as context and lexicon,
we expected to see tendencies rather than strong categorical distinctions. We
included the non-generic uses of the three NP forms in our investigation, in a
parallel fashion. We developed an Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT) in which the
target sentences were preceded by a context that helped participants interpret the
sentence as generic or non-generic.
3. Methodology
We designed a timed AJT in OpenSesameWeb (Mathôt, Schreij & Theeuwes 2012)
and distributed it through a JATOS server (Lange, Kühn & Filevich 2015). The task
was part of a larger study which comprised a total of three tasks, the AJT being the
second one administered to the participants.
Genericity has been tested by means of AJTs and/or Truth Value Judgment Tasks
in English, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese (Ionin, Montrul, Kim & Philippov 2011),
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
in Greek (Lazaridou-Chatzigoga & Alexiadou 2019), and in Danish, Swedish, and
Norwegian (Skrzypek et al. 2022). In these studies, the generic contexts were
followed by the target sentences appearing with all the NP forms possible in the
target language. Our task used a binary choice scale instead of a finer-grained Likert
scale, to avoid participants favoring the middle value and reducing item variation.
This binary approach forced a choice between GOOD and BAD, clarifying the
analysis by making judgments categorical. Although we anticipated gradience in
these judgments, which the binary scale still revealed as items were variably accepted
or rejected, we also measured reaction times (RT) to further analyze the gradience in
acceptability. It is important to note that this task was originally designed to test the
acquisition of genericity in Norwegian as an additional language (L2 and L3), which
affected some methodological choices.
3.1 Materials
The task contained a total of 72 test items preceded by context, to ensure that the
test sentences were interpreted with the intended meaning. The task tested three
generic meanings (
KIND
,
CHARACTERIZING
, and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
) and three non-
generic meanings (
SPECIFIC
,
EXISTENTIAL
, and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
). The non-generic
conditions were chosen as counterparts of the generic ones. The
SPECIFIC
condition
included contexts that would determine the nominal as definite, identifiable, and
specific, that is, the opposite of the
KIND
meaning. Our
EXISTENTIAL
contexts are best
described as specific and indefinite, meaning situations in which an identifiable
object is introduced for the first time. Finally, the contexts for bare singular
nominals were either generic or concrete, ongoing, episodic situations. In the
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
conditions, we tested all forms in subject and object position
separately, in order to check whether the meaning applies in the same way
regardless of syntactic function. This array gives us a total of eight conditions. An
example of each condition is provided in Table 1; the full list of test items is provided
in the supplementary material, available online.
The same NPs (e.g. tiger,peach) appeared in a pair of conditions, as shown in
Table 2. The color shading indicates that the same NPs were used in those
conditions.
Each condition (n=8) contained six test items, for a total of 48 test items. For
each item, participants evaluated one of the three singular forms: definite, indefinite,
and bare. The participants saw each context only once, which is why three lists were
created to test the full array of conditions and forms. The lists were created in such a
way that the same NPs did not appear in the same form in the same list; that is, in
list A the noun potato appeared in the bare form in the
KIND
-
SUBJECT
condition, but
it was expressed with the indefinite form in the
CHARACTERIZING
condition.
There was a total of 24 fillers, equally divided between grammatical and
ungrammatical sentences. The ungrammaticality involved a V2 violation. All three
lists contained the same fillers. They had the same format as the target test items: a
context followed by a test sentence as in (12).
8 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Table 1. Overview of the test conditions with example contexts and test items
Condition Context Test item Generic
Kind in subject
position
I biologitimene snakker vi om opprinnelsen
til forskjellige typer frukt og grønnsaker.
Jeg har akkurat lært at
poteten / en potet /
potet kommer fra
Amerika
yes
In biology class we discussed the origin of
various fruits and vegetables. I have just
learnt that
the potato / a
potato / potato
comes from
America.
Kind in object
position
Jeg er interessert i religionene fra antikken.
Mange av dem tilba dyr.
De gamle egypterne
tilba katten / en
katt / katt.
yes
I am interested in religions from the
ancient world. Many of them worshiped
animals.
The Ancient
Egyptians
worshiped the
cat / a cat / cat
Characterizing På skolen i dag lærte vi noen ganske
ukjente fakta om dyreriket. Et eksempel
er at
sjiraffen / en sjiraff /
sjiraff har lilla
tunge.
yes
Today at school we learnt some unknown
facts of the animal kingdom. For
example,
the giraffe / a
giraffe / giraffe has
a purple tongue.
Type-denoting
(generic,
characterizing)
Pål og Janet bor utenfor byen og det går
ikke buss i helgene.
Det er nødvendig å
ha bilen / en bil /
bil der de bor.
yes
Paul and Jenna live out in the suburbs and
have no bus service on the weekends.
It is necessary to
have the car / a
car / car where
they live.
Specific–subject Jeg liker å se på afrikanske dyr i
dyrehagen. De har mange sebraer og en
sjiraff. I går løp noen sebraer rundt mens
sjiraffen / en sjiraff /
sjiraff nøt solen.
no
I like looking at African animals at the zoo.
They have a lot of zebras and one
giraffe. Yesterday the zebras were
running around while
the giraffe / a
giraffe / giraffe
was enjoying the
sun.
Specific–object I går forsøkte en katt å stjele fisk fra
middagsbordet vårt. Vi var glade for at
hunden vår jagde
bort katten / en
katt / katt.
no
Yesterday a cat tried to steal a fish from
our dinner table. We were happy that
the dog chased away
the cat / a cat /
cat.
Existential Jeg var på vei hjem fra butikken i går da
jeg gled og mistet handleposen.
Poteten / en potet /
potet trillet ut av
posen.
no
Yesterday I was coming home from the
store when I slipped and dropped my
shopping bag.
The potato / a
potato / potato
rolled out of the
bag.
(Continued)
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(12) Context: Trond har alltid drømt å spille i et band. Han dro
på en opptaksprøve forrige helg.
Trond has always dreamt of playing in a band. He went for
an audition last weekend.
Filler: Dessverre likte ikke band-et Trond.
Unfortunately liked not band-
DEF
Trond
*Dessverre ikke likte band-et Trond.
Unfortunately not liked band-
DEF
Trond
‘Unfortunately, the band didn’t like Trond.’
The inclusion of ungrammatical fillers had two reasons. First, clear exclusion
criteria were needed to check if the participants were following the task. Participants
who accepted a high number of ungrammatical items would have been excluded
from the task; fortunately, this was not necessary. Secondly, grammatical fillers were
relevant to assess the Norwegian proficiency of other participants in the larger
study, who were L2/L3 speakers of Norwegian. At the same time, the choice of
ungrammatical fillers may be considered a limitation for the native speaker
experiment we present in this article. That is because the native speakers may have
considered the V2-violation in examples such as the one in (12) a more critical
mistake (as it is truly ungrammatical), compared to the infelicitous sentences which
are our targeted test items.
Table 1. (Continued )
Condition Context Test item Generic
Type-denoting
(non-generic,
episodic)
A: Jeg liker det ikke når fortauet er smalt,
jeg må gå på veien for å snakke med
noen.
B: Flytt deg,
det kommer bilen /
en bil / bil.
no
A: I don’t like it when the sidewalk is
narrow, I have to walk on the street to
talk to someone.
B: well, now you have to move:
the car / a car / car
is coming.
Table 2. Overview of NP distribution per condition
Generic conditions Non-generic conditions
Kind–subject Specific–subject
Kind–object Specific–object
Characterizing Existential
Type-denoting Type-denoting
10 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
3.2 Procedure
The participants were instructed to place their left index finger on the letter E, their
right index finger on the letter O, and both thumbs on the space bar. The letter keys
were used to judge the sentences, whereas the space bar was used to progress in the
task. The instructions were presented both in written and spoken form. The
participant could not progress to the next screen before the audio instruction had
finished, to ensure that they heard the full instructions. There was a practice trial
before they started the task.
The task proceeded as follows: a blue dot appeared in the center of the screen for
500 ms, after which a context sentence appeared. The participants were instructed to
read that sentence carefully as it was the context according to which they would
judge the following sentence. After they had read the context, they pressed the space
bar for the test sentence to appear. They would then judge it as GOOD by pressing
the letter E, or BAD by pressing the letter O. Reaction times (RTs) were measured
from the appearance of the test sentence on screen.
3.3 Participants
A total of 33 Norwegian native speakers completed the task. Two of the participants
declared they had been raised in a bilingual environment, with Norwegian as one of
their native languages (along with English and Dutch). We decided not to exclude
these two participants, as Norwegian was in fact (one of) their native language, and
we do not believe they have diminished competence in it. While it is true that the
languages of a bilingual may exert influence onto one another, the L1 can be also
influenced by any additional language acquired at a later stage. All the participants
declared that they spoke additional languages, so none of them were monolingual at
the time of testing. Influence from another language is thus possible for the entire
cohort, and thus the simultaneous bilinguals are retained in the study.
The participants were recruited through sign-up links on social media and flyers
with QR-codes distributed on campuses of Norwegian universities. Participants
were asked to input their email and to generate a unique ID following the provided
instructions. They then received two links, one for the background questionnaire
and one for the task. They received a 200 NOK (approx. 20 Euros) gift card upon
completion of the experiment.
The participants were between 18 and 77 years old, with a mean age of 29.1 years;
26 females and 7 males. Their education level varied from elementary school
(n=1) to a doctoral degree (n=1); fourteen participants had completed high
school, nine participants had a BA level degree, and eight had an MA level degree.
The participants were residing in bigger Norwegian cities at the time of testing and
declared that they spoke a variety of Norwegian dialects.
4. Results
4.1 Exclusion of items and participants
Three test items were excluded: two in the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
non-generic condition
(one due to a grammatical mistake in the test item and another due to a prime NP
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
present in the context). We also excluded an item from the specific object condition
as the context did not have as clear a specific reading as the rest of the examples in
this condition. The generic test conditions retained six items each.
4.2 Fillers
We analyzed the responses to the fillers and found that the participants paid
attention to the task. A linear mixed effects model was fitted with response (B
AD
vs.
G
OOD
coded as 0 and 1 respectively) as the dependent variable and type of item
(grammatical vs. ungrammatical) as the independent variable. Participant and test
item were set as random effects. The model revealed that there were significantly
more G
OOD
responses to the grammatical fillers and significantly more B
AD
responses to the ungrammatical fillers, which is something we would expect from
participants engaged in and responsive to the task.
4.3 Generic items
An overview of the responses is displayed in Figure 1. The graphical representation
suggests that an item’s acceptability within a context emerges as a gradient
preference rather than as a clear-cut distinction. The data also exhibit some
variability, contingent on the nature of genericity in question. The standard error
(SE) whiskers are relatively small, which gives us confidence that the means of the
response for each NP form and condition are estimated with high precision. We will
discuss speaker variation in more detail in the section on individual results.
Overall, we found that the definite form is preferred in
KIND
as well as
CHARACTERIZING
readings. No pronounced discrepancies were discovered between
KIND
subjects and
KIND
objects. The indefinite form does not seem to be accepted in
Figure 1. Overview of the responses in the generic conditions.
12 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
KIND
readings, as it performed poorly both in the subject and object sub-conditions.
The indefinite forms are accepted in
CHARACTERIZING
conditions, but surprisingly,
the definite NPs are accepted more strongly. As for
TYPE
-
DENOTING
contexts, the
indefinite displays high acceptability rates, paralleling the bare form, as argued by
Borthen (2003). Nevertheless, it is imperative to emphasize the nuanced semantic
divergence between the bare and indefinite forms. The former adheres more closely
to the intended generic interpretation, exemplified in (13).
(13) Context: Under pandemien var mange mennesker
ensomme. Forskning har vist at
A lot of people became lonely during the pandemic.
Research has shown that
Target: det er sunt å ha hund / en hund.
it is healthy to have dog / a dog
The bare noun choice indicates that it is healthy to own the type-NP dog which
may be any number of dogs, whereas with the indefinite form, a possible reading is
that it is healthy to have just one dog and not more. However, we did not test this
distinction in our experiment.
4.4 Statistical analysis of the generic conditions
The R software was used to run the analyses. Categorical responses were coded as 0
for B
AD
and 1 for G
OOD
.Glmer models from the lme4 package (Bates, Machler,
Bolker & Walker 2015) were run on each condition, with the response value as the
dependent variable and the NP form as the independent variable. Participant and
test item were set as random effects across all the glmer models.
We first describe the model set for the
KIND
conditions (Table 3). Here we have
an additional independent variable when compared to the rest of the statistical
models shown below, as syntactic position (subject vs. object) is included. The
definite form and subject position are set as the intercept. The model revealed that
the definite is the form best suited for expressing this type of generic meaning, as
both the indefinite and the bare form were accepted significantly less (p<.001).
There was no difference between subject and object
KIND
generics, which indicates
that the genericity semantics is not influenced by the syntactic position of the NP.
This holds for all forms, as there was no interaction between syntactic position and
item form: indefinite and bare NPs were less accepted in
KIND
readings regardless of
syntactic position. The large absolute values in the estimates and the small p-values
offer strong evidence that these NP forms are accepted to significantly different
degrees within the outlined condition.
The
CHARACTERIZING
model included only NP form as the dependent variable
(Table 4); the definite NP was set as the intercept. The model revealed that the
indefinite form is accepted significantly less than the definite (p<.05), whereas
there is a marginal difference of acceptance (p<.1) between the definite and the
bare form.
The
TYPE
-
DENOTING
model (Table 5) is set up in the same way as the
CHARACTERIZING
model in terms of variables, but we set the bare singular form as
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 13
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
the intercept, as this is where we would expect this form to be the most accepted
(Borthen 2003). The model indicates that the definite form is strongly rejected when
compared to the intercept (p<.001). There was no statistical difference (p=.2826)
in the acceptance of the indefinite when compared to the bare form, entailing that
both forms are acceptable with the proposed reading.
In summary, the results indicate that the definite form is the most appropriate
form for expressing
KIND
readings, be it in subject or object position; furthermore,
the definite form is not appropriate for expressing
TYPE
-
DENOTING
generics. The
indefinite form seems to be the least well accepted across the generic contexts tested
here, although it is well accepted in
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions. C
HARACTERIZING
generics allow for more variation, as there are high acceptance rates for all three
forms; still, the definite singular seems to be the most appropriate form in the
contexts that were tested. Our findings for
CHARACTERIZING
are in line with
Table 3. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of the
KIND
conditions
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.3133 0.5220 4.431 9.36e−06 ***
Object 0.8430 0.7881 1.070 0.2847 no
Indefinite −3.9698 0.7070 −5.615 1.97e−08 ***
Bare −2.3421 0.6424 −3.646 0.0002 ***
Object–indefinite −0.9045 1.005 −0.900 0.3681 no
Object–bare −1.5578 0.9725 −1.602 0.1091 no
Table 4. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of the
CHARACTERIZING
condition
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.899 1.184 2.449 0.0143 *
Indefinite −3.259 1.555 −2.096 0.0361 *
Bare −2.687 1.532 −1.754 0.0795 .
Table 5. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.3403 0.6268 3.734 0.0001 ***
Definite −4.4612 0.9143 −4.879 1.06e−06 ***
Indefinite −0.7240 0.6738 −1.074 0.2826 no
14 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
theoretical proposals (Krifka et al. 1995) and studies conducted on other languages
(English) that find this type of generic meaning most prone to variation in
expression. We elaborate on these results in the Discussion (Section 5).
4.5 Statistical analysis of NP forms
The next step in our analyses explored acceptability of NP forms (definite,
indefinite, and bare). This setup of statistical models sheds light on the dynamics
between different conditions and NP forms, and addresses RQ2 (How exclusively is
an NP form used in a particular generic context?). Models (glmer) were thus plotted
for the definite, indefinite, and bare form separately. The responses were once more
set as the dependent variable, and condition was set as the independent variable.
Again, participant and item were set as random effects.
The model analyzing the definite form is displayed in Table 6. The
KIND
condition with the NP in subject position was set as the intercept. The model
indicates that the acceptance of the definite form is high for the
KIND
subject
position (intercept) and this does not change when the acceptance is compared to
the
KIND
object and
CHARACTERIZING
conditions. Thus, the definite form is broadly
accepted across diverse conditions. However, its acceptance is significantly
diminished in the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition (p<.001), an observation previously
underscored in condition-specific models.
The analysis pertaining to the indefinite form is presented in Table 7. Here we set
the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition as the intercept, as the indefinite is felicitous in this
condition, whereas, based on the results provided in the previous section, it is less
felicitous in the
CHARACTERIZING
condition. We indeed see that this NP form tends
to be accepted in the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition (indicated by the positive value in
the Estimate). In contrast, its acceptance significantly diminishes in all other
conditions: p<.05 for
KIND
subject and p<.001 for the
KIND
object and
CHARACTERIZING
comparisons. Overall, the indefinite does not seem to be the
preferred form in generic readings. A potential task effect cannot be excluded as the
subject position was tested more extensively in this task. Nevertheless, it is quite
clear that the indefinite form cannot denote
KIND
meanings, as indefinite subjects
were rejected as often as indefinite subjects in this condition.
The
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition was also set as the intercept for the model on the
bare form (Table 8). This model shows that, in comparison to the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition, the bare singular form registers significantly reduced acceptance across
Table 6. Generalized linear mixed-effect model for the definite NP form
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.1842 0.5145 4.245 2.18e−05 ***
Kind–object 0.8298 0.7702 1.077 0.281 no
Characterizing −0.4779 0.6429 −0.743 0.457 no
Type-denoting −3.9666 0.7454 −5.322 1.03e−07 ***
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 15
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
the other conditions, the difference being stronger for
KIND
–object (p<.01) than
for
KIND
–subject and
CHARACTERIZING
conditions (p<.05).
To summarize our observations and analyses, the models discussed in this
section suggest that the definite form is most applicable across the range of generic
contexts tested. In contrast, the indefinite and bare forms are most suitable in the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition. A comparison of Tables 7and 8reveals more significant
differences between the intercept and other conditions for the indefinite form than
for the bare form. The reader should remember that the intercept for both forms
was aligned with the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition, enabling direct comparison
between the models. This comparison suggests that the indefinite form is less
suitable than the bare form in the generic conditions we investigated. We will delve
deeper into this observation in the Discussion (Section 5).
4.6 Generic versus non-generic contexts
The study of generic form-to-meaning mapping is complex because all of these
forms can indeed denote non-generic statements. Therefore, it is essential to
juxtapose the acceptance rates of these forms against those in non-generic contexts.
Figure 2displays an overview of the responses in the non-generic conditions. Both
definite and indefinite nominals can be specific, so in principle both these forms
could be accepted in the specific conditions. As the contexts mentioned the specific
nominals (subject or object) and created anaphoric relations, we expected the
definite forms to be the most acceptable ones. This expectation was met in
the specific object condition. Indefinites were less highly accepted than definites in
the specific subject condition, but still not completely rejected. At present, we have
no good explanation for this finding. Since it is not an item effect, we leave it for
Table 7. Generalized linear mixed-effect model for the indefinite NP form
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 1.7668 0.6430 2.748 0.0060 **
Kind–subject −1.9630 0.8117 −2.418 0.0156 *
Kind–object −3.8651 0.9085 −4.255 2.09e−05 ***
Characterizing −3.8545 0.8907 −4.327 1.51e−05 ***
Table 8. Generalized linear mixed-effect model for the bare NP form
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.5385 0.8168 3.108 0.0018 **
Kind–subject −2.5559 1.0496 −2.435 0.0148 *
Kind–object −3.4213 1.0673 −3.206 0.0013 **
Characterizing −2.3390 1.0587 −2.209 0.0271 *
16 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
future research. As the reader can also ascertain from Table 11, the definite form was
not unacceptable in the
EXISTENTIAL
condition, because the context allowed for the
only potato in the bag, or one of the potatoes in the bag, to roll out. Thus, we submit
that our research participants were quite sensitive to the item-preceding context.
Most importantly, the bare form is ungrammatical in these conditions which is why
we do see a high rejection rate. We look at separate generic–non-generic
comparisons directly below.
In this analysis,
SPECIFIC
,
EXISTENTIAL
, and
TYPE
-
DENOTING NON
-
GENERIC
conditions were evaluated. This section presents a comparison of form acceptance
in paired generic and non-generic contexts. We plotted three models with such
pairings: the
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
model due to the presupposed similarity of the
acceptance of the definite, the
CHARACTERIZING
and
EXISTENTIAL
model due to how
the indefinite form should fare according to the literature, and a model comparing
the generic and non-generic
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition. We plotted a glmer model
for each generic and non-generic pair of conditions. The response was always set as
the dependent variable and NP form and condition as the independent variable;
participant and item were set as random effects.
For the
KIND
–
SPECIFIC
comparison, we ran the models separately for the subject
and object position. The
KIND
condition and the definite form were set as the
intercept. In the data analysis comparing the
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
conditions in
subject position, we plotted the comparison models with the definite and bare forms
only, due to the high acceptance of the indefinite form in the
SPECIFIC
conditions
(Figure 2). The comparison data is displayed in Figure 3. The model (Table 9)
reveals that the bare form is less accepted than the definite in
KIND
contexts
(p<.001), confirming our findings within the kind-model (Table 3). The
comparison between the generic and non-generic condition suggests that the
definite form is accepted to a similar degree, as there was no statistical difference
Figure 2. Responses in non-generic conditions.
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 17
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(p=.8710). However, the model did find an interaction between form and
genericity, as the bare form was significantly less accepted in the
SPECIFIC
condition
(p<.01). This may be an indication that the bare form is only felicitous when it is
denoting some type of genericity.
We plotted the
KIND
–
SPECIFIC
comparison in the object position (Table 10) in the
same way as the subject model. In the current model, the indefinite was included, as
its acceptance aligned with expectations (Figure 4). K
IND
and definite were once
more set as the intercept. As confirmed in Section 4.4, the analysis indicated both
the bare and indefinite forms witnessing significantly lower acceptance in the
generic conditions (p<.001). The
SPECIFIC
condition is not significantly different
from the
KIND
condition (p=.583), entailing that the definite form is accepted to
the same degree in these generic and non-generic conditions. The model did not
find any interactions between the generic and non-generic conditions. This suggests
that the rejection rate of the indefinite and bare form remained the same across the
two conditions.
Figure 3. Overview of responses in
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
subject conditions.
Table 9. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
subject conditions
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.2845 0.5511 4.145 3.39e−05 ***
Specific −0.1159 0.7137 −0.162 0.8710 no
Bare −2.3145 0.6856 −3.376 0.0007 ***
Specific–bare −3.0031 1.0699 −2.807 0.005 **
18 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
The model juxtaposing the
CHARACTERIZING
and
EXISTENTIAL
conditions
(Figure 5, Table 11) was set the same way as the
KIND
–
SPECIFIC
object model
above. The
CHARACTERIZING
condition and definite form remained the intercept.
While the indefinite form is the more natural form for expressing the non-generic
EXISTENTIAL
condition, it seems to be the less felicitous for expressing
CHARACTERIZING
genericity. We therefore chose not to set it as the intercept.
The model showed a slight, albeit insignificant, decline in the acceptance of the
definite form, when comparing the generic and non-generic conditions (p=.5507).
Within the
CHARACTERIZING
condition, both the indefinite (p<.01) and the bare
form (p<.05) were accepted to a lesser degree when compared to the definite form.
This was already established in the previous section. Interactions between the
conditions highlight a significantly higher acceptance of the indefinite in
EXISTENTIAL
contexts (p<.01), while the difference for accepting the bare singular
is only marginally significant (p<.1).
Table 10. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
object conditions
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 3.3725 0.7434 4.536 5.72e−06 ***
Specific −0.5214 0.9493 −0.549 0.583 no
Indefinite −5.115 0.9247 −5.531 3.18e−08 ***
Bare −4.1318 0.8866 −4.660 3.16e−06 ***
Specific–indefinite 0.0360 1.2262 0.029 0.977 no
Specific–bare −0.2156 1.1996 −0.180 0.857 no
Figure 4. Overview of responses in
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
object conditions.
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 19
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lastly, we fitted a glmer comparing the acceptance ratios in the two
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions (Table 12). Response was the dependent variable with
genericity (generic vs. non-generic) and NP form set as the dependent variables.
Participant and test item remain the random effects. Here the bare form and generic
condition were set as the intercept. Figure 6illustrates a significant difference in the
acceptance of the bare form across our two distinct
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions; it was
less accepted in the non-generic condition (p<.05). As in the model in Section 4.4,
we see that the definite form is strongly rejected in the generic
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition (p<.01), whereas the indefinite and the bare form are equally acceptable
(p=.3332). There is no interaction per condition or the indefinite form, entailing
that the indefinite is accepted to the same degree across the two conditions under
investigation here. The interaction with the non-generic condition and definite form
indicates a higher acceptance of the definite in non-generic conditions (p<.001).
Figure 5. Overview of responses in
CHARACTERIZING
and
EXISTENTIAL
conditions.
Table 11. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of
CHARACTERIZING
and
EXISTENTIAL
conditions
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.1574 0.7044 3.063 0.0021 **
Existential –0.5435 0.9108 –0.597 0.5507 no
Indefinite –2.3843 0.9191 –2.594 0.0094 **
Bare –1.9833 0.9154 –2.167 0.0302 *
Existential–indefinite 4.2699 1.3925 3.066 0.0021 **
Existential–bare –2.2104 1.2912 –1.712 0.0869 .
20 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Having seen and statistically analyzed the responses in the full array of the tested
conditions, an interesting interplay between genericity and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions
emerges. The bare singular is highly accepted in the generic
TYPE
-
DENOTING
contexts,
but it also reaches a high degree of acceptance in the other generic conditions
(Figure 6), as it does in the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
non-generic condition.
We set a glmer (Table 13) with the response as the dependent variable, with
genericity (generic vs. non-generic) and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
(
NESS
)(
TYPE
-
DENOTING
vs.
not
TYPE
-
DENOTING
) as the independent variables. The task was not set to explicitly
address this, and thus the data sets are unbalanced, as there were only two
conditions that were labelled
TYPE
-
DENOTING
, and four which were not. Participant
and test item were set as random effects; the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
generic condition was
set as the intercept. The statistical analysis confirms what was observed in the
previous models: The bare form is accepted less across non-generic conditions
(p<.05); it is also accepted less in contexts which are not
TYPE
-
DENOTING
(p<.01).
Table 12. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions (generic and non-generic)
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.6379 0.7874 3.350 0.0008 ***
Non-generic −2.4940 1.0816 −2.306 0.0211 *
Indefinite −0.9430 0.9745 −0.968 0.3332 no
Definite 4.8863 1.0781 −4.532 5.84e−06 ***
Non-generic–indefinite 2.1443 1.5123 1.418 0.1562 no
Non-generic–definite 4.2072 1.5482 2.717 0.0065 **
Figure 6. Distribution of the acceptance of the bare form across all conditions.
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 21
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
However, there was no interaction between generic and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
properties
of the conditions, entailing that the acceptance of the bare form is not incrementally
increased by genericity and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
contexts (p=.9355).
4.6 Individual variation
The overall results revealed gradience in the acceptance of singular NP forms across
the tested contexts. This is something that we expected in general, but for some
surprising findings, a more in-depth investigation is warranted. For example, we ask
how to account for the approximately 50% ratio of acceptance in some form/
conditions as opposed to others. A 50% acceptance can be the result of having two
distinct groups of participants: one that always accepts a specific form in a certain
condition and another that always rejects this combination. Alternatively, it could
be that all participants accept/reject different test items with the same NP form
within the same condition.
We thus plotted average responses per form and condition for each participant
and present them in Figure 7. Each dot represents the average acceptance ratio for a
participant for a particular combination of condition and NP form. All the
participants are represented in every ‘violin’of the plot.
The graph in Figure 7illustrates that the 50% acceptance in the
CHARACTERIZING
condition for the indefinite and the bare singular is due to both types of participants.
There are participants that always accept one of these forms in
CHARACTERIZING
condition, and an approximately equal number of participants that persistently
reject it. But we also have participants who are positioned in the middle of the graph,
entailing that these items are sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected by
another group of participants. The bare singular form has more participants
gravitating towards the middle of the graph, compared to the indefinite which has a
higher number of participants at the two extremes. It is also visible from the graph
that definite and indefinite forms are accepted and rejected, respectively, by most
participants in the
KIND
and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions.
Consider the bare singular 50% acceptance in the two
KIND
conditions. Once
again this is due to a combination of three different participant types: the ones that
always accept the bare form in
KIND
contexts, the ones that always reject it, and
participants who land somewhere in the middle. It is only in the
CHARACTERIZING
condition that participants have truly divergent evaluations of the form’s
acceptability.
Table 13. Generalized linear mixed-effect model of the bare forms across conditions
Estimate Std. error z-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2.5847 0.8176 3.161 0.0015 **
Non-generic −2.4344 1.1679 −2.084 0.0371 *
Not type-denoting −2.7751 0.8940 −3.104 0.0019 **
NonGen–nonTD −0.1067 1.3184 −0.081 0.9355 no
22 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
In summary, the individual results show that there is gradience not just in
conditions, but also among participants. However, this variability is more prevalent
in some contexts than in others.
4.7 Reaction times
In the process of conducting the timed AJT, we collected reaction times (RTs)
commencing from the moment the target sentence became visible on the screen
until the response button was pressed.
Thus, what we present in this section are RTs for the whole sentence. For
analytical precision, we opted to omit all RTs exceeding 10,000 milliseconds (ms) to
ensure we are assessing genuine reactions from the participants. Again, we found
the responses to be gradient rather than categorical; however, the examination of the
RTs can illuminate this distinction further. Faster RTs –whether they signify
acceptance or rejection of an item –speak to a faster decision-making process
without vacillations. Sentences that are closer to the boundaries of acceptability
might require longer processing times, revealing their position on a gradient of
acceptability.
In linguistic studies, RTs often indicate some ambiguity resolution in the
sentence. Ambiguous constructs typically require a prolonged comprehension
compared to unambiguous constructs. In our type of target sentences, we are not
dealing with ambiguity, as the context narrowed down the set of possible
interpretations. Nonetheless, the RTs grant us a glimpse into the immediacy of
acceptance or rejection of a form in diverse generic contexts. Our predictions posit
that the prototypical form corresponding to a generic meaning will be accepted
faster. For instance, the definite should surpass the bare in
KIND
conditions in speed;
Figure 7. Individual variation in the generic conditions.
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 23
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
furthermore, the bare form should be rapidly dismissed in non-generic scenarios.
Figure 8shows an overview of the RTs per condition and per response type.
An examination of Figure 8reveals that negative judgments (B
AD
) can manifest
shorter RTs than their positive counterpart (G
OOD
) with the same form and
condition. This underscores the imperative to consider both response categories in
our analytical framework. The speed of both accepting and rejecting an item is
essential, especially when items are dismissed more rapidly than they are accepted,
hinting at their ungrammaticality or inappropriateness.
For statistical modeling, we employed linear mixed-effects regression models
(lmer), run on each generic condition. The response time was set as the dependent
variable. All the RTs were logarithmically transformed. We ran a separate model per
each generic condition. Two models were run for each condition, one with the raw
RTs and another one with logarithmic RTs. The models presented below report the
result of the logarithmic RTs, but the reported milliseconds (ms column) are taken
form the models run on the raw RTs. The dependent variables were NP form
(definite, indefinite, bare) and response type (G
OOD
vs. B
AD
).
The model on the
KIND
–subject condition had the definite form and
GOOD
response set as the reference level; the results are displayed in Table 14. We see that
acceptance of the indefinite and the bare is significantly slower (p<.05) than
acceptance of the definite form. Rejection of the definite is marginally slower than its
acceptance, but recall that rejections of the definite in the current condition are rare,
which makes this a small sample. The interactions reveal that both the indefinite
and the bare form are rejected faster (p<.05), indicating their decreased
appropriateness for this reading compared to the definite.
The model run on the
KIND
object condition had the same setup as the model
above. We find fewer significant differences in RTs (Table 15), though the
Figure 8. Overview of RTs per condition, item form, and response type.
24 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
tendencies were similar. A potential reason for having diminished significant
differences is that it takes longer overall to react to generic contexts featuring a
generic reference in object position, and thus the differences in RTs are weaker.
Compare the raw value for the RT for the subject position in Table 14 (2979 ms) and
for the object position in Table 15 (3716 ms).
The indefinite is accepted with slower RTs when compared to the intercept,
though the difference is not significant; the bare form was accepted slightly faster
than the intercept, but this difference also did not reach significant difference. The
interactions indicate that the indefinite and bare forms were rejected faster, but the
difference only reached marginal significance (p<.1) for the indefinite, and it was
not significant for the bare comparison (p=.8117).
In the
CHARACTERIZING
model, discrepancies in RTs did not attain statistical
significance. Upon inspecting raw RTs, variances between variables were negligible,
all being under 1000 ms.
Lastly, we plotted an lmer for the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition, with the same setup
as the models above, the only difference being that the bare form was set as the
reference level, aligning with its natural inclination to express genericity. The RTs of
accepting the sentences did not differ across the three forms; the bare forms,
however, take longer to be rejected than accepted (p<.05). The significant
interaction in the penultimate row of Table 16 suggests that definite NPs affect
participants’rejection speed differently than their acceptance, indicating that
Table 14. Linear mixed-effects model on the RTs in
KIND
subject condition
ms Estimate Std. error df t-value p-value Significance
Intercept 2979.09 7.86275 0.0915 26.0701 85.871 <2e−16 ***
Indefinite 1499.09 0.4302 0.1866 85.6259 2.305 0.0236 *
Bare 880.77 0.2686 0.1267 23.7977 2.119 0.0447 *
Bad 1780.70 0.4357 0.2286 150.3463 1.906 0.0586 .
Indefinite–bad −2651.87 −0.6836 0.2925 153.4155 −2.337 0.0208 *
Bare–bad −2198.34 −0.5828 0.2630 159.19343 −2.216 0.0281 *
Table 15. Linear mixed-effects model on the RTs in
KIND
object condition
ms Estimate Std. error df t-value p-value Significance
Intercept 3716.93 8.1035 0.0797 27.6459 101.562 <2e−16 ***
Indefinite 404.54 0.1205 0.1413 67.9531 0.853 0.3969 no
Bare −135.51 −0.0465 0.1113 32.6174 −0.418 0.6787 no
Bad 1088.21 0.2547 0.2219 152.9109 1.148 0.2528 no
Indefinite–bad 1922.68 −0.4690 0.2683 156.3004 −1.748 0.0825 .
Bare–bad −203.86 −0.0593 0.2487 155.7838 −0.239 0.8117 no
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 25
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
definite NPs are processed more quickly when rejected and more slowly when
accepted, compared to sentences with bare and indefinite NPs. (p<.05).
5. Discussion
In this study we investigated the extent to which three morphological realizations of
singular NPs are accepted in a variety of generic and non-generic contexts by native
speakers of Norwegian. Generic meanings are expressed with readily available forms
in the language, but these forms also convey other (non-generic) meanings. Hence,
context plays a pivotal role in disambiguating the intended generic interpretation.
Moreover, there are different types of genericity.
In this article, we have provided empirical evidence of the form-to-meaning
mappings in generic contexts in Norwegian. We analyzed the results of our timed
AJT, in which the target generics were presented in a clear context to convey the
intended meaning for each item. Our findings reveal an interesting interplay
between the type of generic meaning and the respective acceptance of each form. In
particular, we established that all three forms under investigation can signify
genericity. More concretely, the definite singular effectively carried
KIND
and
CHARACTERIZING
readings but, notably, not
TYPE
-
DENOTING
readings. The bare
form reached above chance acceptance in
KIND
and
CHARACTERIZING
contexts, but
it was highly accepted in
TYPE
-
DENOTING
contexts. The indefinite was not accepted
with
KIND
generics, and this was the case to the same extent in subject and object
position. This finding is in line with Dayal’s(2004) treatment of singular kinds
depending on a definite determiner. Indeed, the definite singular performed well in
the kind condition. The finding is also in line with Cohen’s(2001) theory of singular
indefinites being restricted to characterizing contexts. The indefinite was indeed
well accepted as denoting
CHARACTERIZING
generics, though its acceptance was
surpassed by the acceptance of the definite form. The indefinite was also well
accepted in the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
conditions, with the bare form possibly
transmitting a number-neutral reading more readily. Overall, the indefinite form
was not the preferred expression of any generic meaning, so it may seem that it is the
least readily available form to express genericity. However, indefinites may be more
acceptable in object position, a consideration that our experiment did not include a
priori.2This possibility is left for further research.
Table 16. Linear mixed-effects model on the RTs on
TYPE
-
DENOTING
condition
ms Estimate Std. error df t-value p-value Significance
Intercept 3335.03 7.9732 0.1129 20.8782 70.616 <2e−16 ***
Definite 960.70 0.2610 0.1962 44.5506 1.331 0.1901 no
Indefinite 314.86 0.0518 0.1461 15.4932 0.355 0.7275 no
Bad 1457.75 0.4049 0.1824 156.8424 2.219 0.0279 *
Definite–bad −2276.57 −0.5932 0.2384 154.5307 −2.488 0.0139 *
Indefinite–bad 986.36 0.2008 0.2280 154.5085 0.881 0.3797 no
26 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Our findings addressing RQ1 regarding the form-to-meaning mappings are
visualized in Figure 9. The best expression of
KIND
and
CHARACTERIZING
meanings
are the definite singulars. However,
TYPE
-
DENOTING
situations are best captured by
either bare or indefinite singulars.
RQ2 asked how exclusively an NP is used in a generic context. To address this
question in a similar visual manner, we added possible but less preferred expressions
in Figure 10. No NP is used exclusively in a single generic context; that is, there is no
one-to-one mapping. While the definite and indefinite can express two meanings,
the bare forms are acceptable in all three meanings, to lesser degrees. Importantly,
we have revealed that the indefinite form cannot take
KIND
readings, while the
definite form cannot be used in
TYPE
-
DENOTING
contexts.
Finally, RQ3 probed into the other form–meaning associations among the
meanings we tested. The definite forms were accepted in
KIND
,
SPECIFIC
,
CHARACTERIZING
, and
EXISTENTIAL
contexts, appearing as the most versatile form.
Adding to those the definite non-specific meanings that we did not test, this NP can
be associated with at least five meanings. Indefinite singulars can express
EXISTENTIAL
(indefinite specific) as well as indefinite non-specific and
TAXONOMIC KIND
readings (not tested), together with
CHARACTERIZING
and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
meanings, another one-form-to-five-meanings association.
Although bare forms are mostly related to
TYPE
-
DENOTING
NPs, they are also
multi-functional. In this respect, the diversity of Norwegian singular NPs expressing
genericity surpasses that of the English equivalent paradigm, since the bare singular
is not available in English.
Related to the multi-functional forms, we argue, is the variability evident in the
native speaker acceptability choices. ‘A general observation that can help explain
variability is the fact that, although context includes previous discourse, it is not
completely determined by it, as context is partly created by the interlocutors as
processing takes place’(see e.g. Sperber & Wilson 1995). Given that context is not a
static feature, it is not surprising that informants may imagine different contexts
than the ones intended by the researchers (Borthen, Hemforth, Mertins, Behrens &
Figure 9. Visualization of form-to-meaning mappings in Norwegian. Note: black arrows stand for
preferred expression.
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 27
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Fabricius-Hansen 2014). We are mindful of the message from the above quote, and
tried to mitigate it in our experimental design.
An important insight of the experiment is that when one tests for informants’
preference in a case where the informants have a ‘free choice’(perhaps related more
to communicative intention than cognitive and linguistic constraints), very subtle
features of the response alternatives and the involved languages may have a
considerable effect on the results. That is, minor linguistic differences may lead to
pulling the choice from one interpretive option to the other and consequently have a
crucial influence (Borthen et al. 2014:139).3
Thebaresingularsareespeciallyinteresting in Norwegian grammar, as use of
this form along with an indefinite singular is rare among Germanic languages.
Other languages with bare singulars include Swedish, Spanish, Catalan, Greek,
Brazilian Portuguese, and Persian. It is important, then, to discuss the tendency
that bare singulars receive higher acceptability scores in the generic conditions
than in the non-generic conditions. Comparative models contrasting these
contexts confirmed that the bare singular was unacceptable in specific and
existential scenarios. In line with Borthen (2003), we suggest that there is an
intrinsic generic nuance in the bare singular, more so than in the other singular
forms. Borthen (2003) outlines that the bare singular is
TYPE
-
EMPHASIZING
,a
premise foundational to our
TYPE
-
DENOTING
test items. Although we probed
potential interactions between genericity and
TYPE
-
DENOTING
interpretations as
factors influencing the bare form’s acceptance rates, no such interaction emerged.
Yet we identified the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
nature of the bare form as the predominant
factor bolstering its acceptance. This could potentially stem from the dataset’s
structure, as there were only two conditions (one generic, one non-generic)
designated as
TYPE
-
DENOTING
and four conditions without this designation.
A plausible explanation is that the
TYPE
-
DENOTING
nature of the form –which
abstracts from particular objects or events (Carlson & Pelletier 1995)–resonates
Figure 10. Visualization of all the generic meanings an NP can express in Norwegian. Note: black arrows
stand for preferred expressions (over 70% acceptance); red arrows denote possible but statistically less
preferred expressions (at roughly 50% acceptance).
28 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
with the broader semantic essence of generics, thereby fostering its high
acceptance across various generic readings.
The current study has its limitations, some of which are due to the fact that it was
part of a larger project investigating second and third language acquisition of
Norwegian. Two findings could be attributed to the low number of items we could
plausibly test to prevent experimental fatigue. First, indefinite singulars did not seem
to be well accepted, but this could be due to a task effect as we did not include
TAXONOMIC KIND
reference, where indefinites should be highly accepted. Secondly,
we did not have a well-balanced investigation of syntactic position, as the majority
of our items had the target NP in subject position, which could further have
diminished the acceptability of indefinites (Søfteland 2014). Syntactic positions are
not created equal. Often, subjects and sentence-initial elements are more naturally
interpreted as topics, known information, hence definite, than object positions.
Thus, indefinites do not fare well in subject positions. We leave testing generic
indefinites in object positions for further research.
6. Conclusion
The current study probed the expression of genericity in Norwegian through
singular NPs. We established that all three Norwegian forms (bare, definite, and
indefinite) are used to express some generic meaning or other. What is more, the
singular NPs are multifunctional, as they express up to five meanings, generic and
non-generic. Most importantly, however, this does not mean that the forms are used
interchangeably across the generic readings. While there was substantial variability
in the responses, our findings also revealed clear patterns in the form-to-meaning
mapping of the tested generics confirming the theoretical discussions in the
semantics literature. We also established that the bare singular is overall a well-
accepted form across generic contexts, due to its
TYPE
-
DENOTING
nature, akin to
generic meanings.
Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0332586524000258
Acknowledgements. This study is part of the ADIM (Across-Domains Investigations in Multilingualism)
project made possible with Norway grants NCN, ID: DEC-2019/34/H/HS2/00495. We would like to thank
our extended team for feedback and extensive discussions; we thank the AcqVA research group at the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology for piloting the first iteration of the task and the numerous
comments. We are especially grateful to Kaja Borthen for valuable comments on the first version of the draft,
for the ample discussions on NP forms, referring expressions, and their contextual uses in Norwegian.
Competing interests. The authors declare none.
Notes
1The term
TYPE
-
DENOTING
was first used by Heim (1982) to convey how nominal expressions can be used
to name a type of entity (or substance). Here we use this term in line with what Borthen (2003) refers to as
TYPE
-
EMPHASIZING
for Norwegian. A similar connotation of the bare form was also investigated for other
languages. For Brazilian Portuguese, Dobrovie-Sorin & de Oliveira (2008) refer to the bare singular NPs as
KIND
-
DENOTING
. The distribution of bare singulars was also extensively discussed for Catalan (Espinal 2010,
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 29
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Espinal & McNally 2011) in the context of which these generic interpretations were referred to as
NUMBER
NEUTRAL
and defined as denoting properties of kinds.
2The experiment only tested the object position in
KIND
and
SPECIFIC
conditions, in which the indefinite
form was not excepted, and was not found to be, highly accepted. Future research should explore the object
position in
CHARACTERIZING
generics.
3We are grateful to Kaja Borthen for the ample discussions on NP forms, referring expressions, and their
contextual uses in Norwegian.
References
Barton, Dagmar, Nadine Kolb & Tanja Kupisch. 2015. Definite article use with generic reference in German:
An empirical study. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 34(2). 147–173.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Machler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using
lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48.
Borik, Olga & M. Teresa Espinal. 2015. Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions in Spanish:
Definiteness and number. The Linguistic Review 32(2). 167–225.
Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. NTNU doctoral dissertation.
Borthen, Kaja, Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Mertins, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen. 2014.
Referring expressions in speech reports. In Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Mertins & Cathrine Fabricius-
Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (Studies in
Theoretical Psycholinguistics 44), 111–142. Cham: Springer.
Carlson, Gregory. 2011. Genericity. In Claudia Maineborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.),
Semantics: An international handbook, vol. II, 1153–1185. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Carlson, Gregory N. & Francis J. Pelletier. 1995. The generic book. University of Chicago Press.
Chatzigoga, Dimitra Lazaridou, Napoleon Katsos & Linnaea Stockall. 2017. Generic and universal
generalisations: Contextualising the ‘generic overgeneralisation’effect. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual
Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 724–729.
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. On the generic use of indefinite singulars. Journal of Semantics 18(3). 183–209.
Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in) definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.
393–450.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Roberta Pires de Oliveira. 2008. Reference to kinds in Brazilian Portuguese:
Definite singulars vs. bare singulars. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, 107–121.
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua
120(4). 984–1009.
Espinal, M. Teresa & Louise McNally. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan.
Journal of Linguistics 47(1). 87–128.
Gelman, Susan A. & Lakshmi Raman. 2003. Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues
to interpret generics. Child Development 74(1). 308–325.
Gundel, Jeanette K. 2002. Information structure and the use of cleft sentences in English and Norwegian. In
Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information
structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 113–128. Brill.
Halmøy, Madeleine. 2010. The Norwegian nominal system: A Neo-Saussurean perspective. University of
Tromsø doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10037/2740.
Halmøy, Madeleine. 2016. The Norwegian nominal system. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Heim, Irene Roswitha. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. UMass Amherst doctoral
dissertation.
Hermas, Abdelkader. 2020. Lexical semantics in advanced second language French: The acquisition of
genericity. Lingua 234. 102761.
Hollander, Michelle A., Susan A. Gelman & Jon Star. 2002. Children’s interpretation of generic noun
phrases. Developmental Psychology 38(6). 883–894.
Ionin, Tania, Elaine Grolla, Hélade Santos & Silvina A. Montrul. 2015. Interpretation of NPs in generic and
existential contexts in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(2). 215–251.
Ionin, Tania, Silvina Montrul, Ji-Hye Kim & Vadim Philippov. 2011. Genericity distinctions and the
interpretation of determiners in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 18(4). 242–280.
30 Marta Velni´c, Roumyana Slabakova, Anne Dahl & Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Ionin, Tania, Silvina Montrul & Hélade Santos. 2011. Transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition of generic
interpretation. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language
Development, 283–295. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Khemlani, Sangeet, Sarah-Jane Leslie & Sam Glucksberg. 2012. Inferences about members of kinds: The
generics hypothesis. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(6). 887–900.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia & Godehard
Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic
book,1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kurek-Przybilski, Anna. 2021. A cognitive approach to genericity in Norwegian. Kraków: Jagiellonian
University Press.
Kurek-Przybilski, Anna. 2022. Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian. In Gabriele
Diewald & Katja Politt (eds.), Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the
reassessment of the notion of paradigm, 297–318. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Lange, Kristian, Simone Kühn & Elisa Filevich. 2015. ‘Just another tool for online studies’(JATOS): An easy
solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PLOS One 10(6). 0130834.
Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Dimitra & Artemis Alexiadou. 2019. Genericity in Greek: An experimental
investigation. In Anja Gattnar, Robin Hörnig, Melanie Störzer & Sam Featherson (eds.), Proceedings of
Linguistic Evidence 2018: Experimental data drives linguistic theory, 245–260. Tübingen: University of
Tübingen.
Leslie, Sarah-Jane, Sangeet Khemlani & Sam Glucksberg. 2011. Do all ducks lay eggs? The generic
overgeneralization effect. Journal of Memory and Language 65(1). 15–31.
Mari, Alda, Claire Beyssade & Fabio Del Prete. 2012. Genericity (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics
43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mathôt, Sebastiaan, Daniel Schreij & Jan Theeuwes. 2012. OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical
experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods 44(2). 314–324.
Park, Sun Young. 2013. L2 acquisition of genericity in English articles: The case of Korean adult learners of L2
English. University of Sheffield doctoral dissertation.
Reiter, Nils & Anette Frank. 2010. Identifying generic noun phrases. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual
Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,40–49. Association for Computational
Linguistics.
Rosén, Victoria & Kaja Borthen. 2017. Norwegian bare singulars revisited. In Victoria Rosén & Koenraad De
Smedt (eds.), The very model of a modern linguist: In honor of Helge Dyvik (Bergen Language and
Linguistics Studies 8), 220–240.
Seres, Daria. 2020. The expression of genericity in languages with and without articles. Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona doctoral dissertation.
Skrzypek, Dominika & Anna Kurek. 2018. Generics in Mainland Scandinavian languages. European Journal
of Scandinavian Studies 48(2). 253–266.
Skrzypek, Dominika, Anna Kurek-Przybilski & Alicja Piotrowska. 2022. Expressions of genericity in
Mainland Scandinavian languages. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 25(1). 43–78.
Snape, Neal, María del Pilar García Mayo & Ayşe Gürel. 2009. Spanish, Turkish, Japanese and Chinese L2
learners’acquisition of generic reference. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009).
Snape, Neal, María del Pilar García Mayo & Ayşe Gürel. 2013. L1 transfer in article selection for generic
reference by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese L2 learners. International Journal of English Studies 13(1).
1–28.
Snape, Neal, Makiko Hirakawa, Yahiro Hirakawa, Hironobu Hosoi & John Matthews. 2014. L2 English
generics: Japanese child returnees’incomplete acquisition or attrition? In Ryan T. Miller et al. (eds.),
Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum, 155–169. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Søfteland, Åshild. 2014. Utbrytingskonstruksjonen i norsk spontantale [Cleft constructions in Norwegian
spontaneous speech]. University of Oslo doctoral dissertation.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cite this article: Velni´c M, Slabakova R, Dahl A, and Listhaug KF (2025). Singular NPs and the expression
of genericity in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258
Singular NPs and the expression of genericity in Norwegian 31
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586524000258 Published online by Cambridge University Press
