Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.2007, Qupperneq 116

114
GENDER IN LANGUAGE CONTACT: EVIDENCE
FROM FAROESE-DANISH AND CATALAN-SPANISH
Doleschal, U. 2000. “Gender assignment revised”. In
Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen (eds.) Gender
in Grammar and Cognition. I Approaches to Gen-
der. pp. 117-167. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Froschauer, R. 2003. “Genus im Althochdeutschen: eine
funktionale Analyse des Mehrfachgenus althoch-
deutscher Substantive”. Heidelberg, Neckar: Winter.
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Explanation in Pltonology. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Kðpcke, K. M. 1982. Untersuchungen zum Genussystem
der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tiibingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag.
Kopcke, K. M. & Zubin D.A. 1983. “Die Kognitive
Organisation der Genuszuweisung zu den einsil-
bigen Nomen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache”.
Zeitschrift jiir deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 11,
pp. 166-182.
Kopcke, K. M. & Zubin, D.A. 1984. “Sechs Prinzipien
fur die Genuszuweisung im Deutchen: Ein Bcitrag
zur naturlichen klassifíkation”. Linguistische Be-
richte. 93, pp. 26-51.
Kryk-Kastovsky, B. 2000. “Norm versus use: On gender
in Polish”. In Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen
(eds.) Gender in Grammar and Cognition. II Mani-
festations of Gender, pp. 729-747 Berlin, New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Leiss, E. 2000. “Gender in Old High German”. In:
Gender in Grammar and Cognition. I Apporaches
to Gender. Eds. Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissa-
nen. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin, New York.
Lloret, M.R. & Viaplana, J. 1998. “E1 binarismo del
genero gramatical en castellano y catalán”. Verba
25, pp. 71-91.
Nesset. T. 2006. “Gender meets the Usage-Based Model:
Four principles of rule interaction in gender assign-
ment”. Lingua 1139, pp. 1-25.
Petersen, H. P. and Staksberg, M. 1995. Donsk-føroysk
orðabók. Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.
Poulsen, J. H. W. P. et. al. 1998. Føroysk orðabók. Før-
oya Fróðskaparfelag.
Rice, C. 2006. “Optimizing gender”. Lingua 116, pp.
1394-1417.
Steinmetz, D. 1985. “Gender in German and Icelandic:
Inanimate nouns”. Papers from a Symposium at the
University of Chicago, pp. 10-18.
Steinmetz, D. 1986. “Two principlcs and some rules for
gender in Gcrman: Inanimate nouns”. Word 37, pp.
189-217.
Steinmetz, D. 1997. “The great gender shift and the
attrition of neuter nouns in West Germanic: The
example of German”. In I. Rauch and G. Carr (eds.)
New insights in Gertnanic Linguistics II. pp. 201-
224. New York: Peter Lang.
Trosterud, T. 2001. “Genustilordning i norsk er regel-
styrt”. Norsk Lingvistisk TidskriJ't 19, pp. 29-58.
Trosterud, T. 2006. “Gender Assignment in Old Norse”.
LinguaVol. 116/9, pp. 1441-1463.
Notes
1 It is not a universal principle, however, as studies
have shown, that formal assignment may take prece-
dence over the principle: Preserve gender (Corbett
1999:70ff).
2 When referring to a human, the noun is feminine ein
modell ‘a model’.
3 There are only three masculine nouns (two actually)
with word fínal -a, babba, pabba ‘father’ and harra
‘sir.’ Note that this speaks in favor of SAR » MAR
» PAR as -a should be associated with the feminine
or neuter, as in native kona-í. ‘woman’ and native
eyga-n. ‘eye’.
4 An anonymous reviewer has pointed out that in
his/her language buffe is feminine. That is a pos-
sibility. I think it is neuter, so the noun is, as seen, in
a transition period.
5 This noun is in a transition period. All three genders
are found.