Abstract In this article, we focus on the origin of the Wolof subject-focus construction (SFC) from a dynamic perspective. In Wolof, argument focus is expressed morpho-syntactically by means of copulaless cleft constructions consisting of the juxtaposition of the focus and a free relative clause. The free relative clause is headed by a determiner, which takes the form a in the case of the SFC. The determiner a is not found anywhere else in the language outside of SFC. We hypothesise that Wolof borrowed its SFC from Berber languages. The sociohistorical scenario, based on oral tradition, could have been the emergence of Wolof, as a crucible of contact between peoples of diverse origin including Berber groups. This finding is strengthened by the occurrence of other elements common to Wolof and Berber languages, such as clitic attraction, negation, copula insertion, as well as a number of lexical parallelisms.
{"title":"The contact-based emergence of the subject-focus construction in Wolof","authors":"Corentin Bourdeau, Luis Miguel Rojas-Berscia","doi":"10.1075/avt.00076.bou","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00076.bou","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we focus on the origin of the Wolof subject-focus construction (SFC) from a dynamic perspective. In Wolof, argument focus is expressed morpho-syntactically by means of copulaless cleft constructions consisting of the juxtaposition of the focus and a free relative clause. The free relative clause is headed by a determiner, which takes the form a in the case of the SFC. The determiner a is not found anywhere else in the language outside of SFC. We hypothesise that Wolof borrowed its SFC from Berber languages. The sociohistorical scenario, based on oral tradition, could have been the emergence of Wolof, as a crucible of contact between peoples of diverse origin including Berber groups. This finding is strengthened by the occurrence of other elements common to Wolof and Berber languages, such as clitic attraction, negation, copula insertion, as well as a number of lexical parallelisms.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"46 22","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop
Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.
{"title":"On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch","authors":"Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop","doi":"10.1075/avt.00088.ser","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The simple past in Dutch, as in many other European languages, is not necessarily used to refer to a past eventuality. A Dutch example of a verb in simple past that does not refer to a past event, taken from the Spoken Dutch Corpus (CGN), is: Pa die ging morgen golfen ‘Dad is going to play golf tomorrow.’ Here, the past tense verb ging ‘went’ can be called a ‘fake past’, since it refers to a future eventuality, as can be seen from the adverb tomorrow . We argue that this use of the past tense is not modal, because it does not involve reference to a counterfactual, hypothetical, or unlikely eventuality. We present a Reichenbachian (1947) analysis of this use of past tense, in which we argue that while the eventuality takes place in the future, past tense is used to indicate that the point of perspective (R) is situated in the past (i.e. R-S-E).
和许多其他欧洲语言一样，荷兰语的一般过去时不一定用来指过去发生的事情。荷兰语中有一个不涉及过去事件的一般过去时动词的例子，摘自荷兰口语语料库(CGN): Pa die ing morgan golfen’爸爸明天要去打高尔夫球。在这里，过去式动词“went”可以被称为“假过去”，因为它指的是未来的可能性，从副词tomorrow可以看出。我们认为，过去时的这种用法不是情态的，因为它不涉及反事实、假设或不太可能发生的事情。我们提出了Reichenbachian(1947)对这种过去式用法的分析，其中我们认为，虽然可能性发生在未来，但过去式用于表示观点(R)位于过去(即R- s - e)。
{"title":"Past tense reference to future eventualities","authors":"Harvey Haans, Helen de Hoop","doi":"10.1075/avt.00079.haa","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00079.haa","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The simple past in Dutch, as in many other European languages, is not necessarily used to refer to a past eventuality. A Dutch example of a verb in simple past that does not refer to a past event, taken from the Spoken Dutch Corpus (CGN), is: Pa die ging morgen golfen ‘Dad is going to play golf tomorrow.’ Here, the past tense verb ging ‘went’ can be called a ‘fake past’, since it refers to a future eventuality, as can be seen from the adverb tomorrow . We argue that this use of the past tense is not modal, because it does not involve reference to a counterfactual, hypothetical, or unlikely eventuality. We present a Reichenbachian (1947) analysis of this use of past tense, in which we argue that while the eventuality takes place in the future, past tense is used to indicate that the point of perspective (R) is situated in the past (i.e. R-S-E).","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 7","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In his latest book on relative clauses, Cinque claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of appositive (non-restrictive) relative clauses. The unintegrated ones are the typical English type, the integrated ones are found in various languages, including Chinese and Japanese. This second type shares some characteristics with restrictive relatives, and seems to require a different syntactic analysis. Some languages, like Italian, supposedly have both types. A list of a dozen criteria differentiates the two, such as the use of relative pronouns and the possibility of heavy pied piping. However, when we carefully look at Dutch and other languages, the picture starts to blur considerably, and an abundance of (micro)variation shows up. This is problematic. I argue that the suggested criteria do not add up to two natural classes at all and are in fact non-explanatory. Therefore, we need to focus on what is truly fundamental to non-restrictiveness, which leads to a different perspective on the matter.
{"title":"Are there different kinds of appositive relative clauses?","authors":"Mark de Vries","doi":"10.1075/avt.00089.dev","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00089.dev","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In his latest book on relative clauses, Cinque claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of appositive (non-restrictive) relative clauses. The unintegrated ones are the typical English type, the integrated ones are found in various languages, including Chinese and Japanese. This second type shares some characteristics with restrictive relatives, and seems to require a different syntactic analysis. Some languages, like Italian, supposedly have both types. A list of a dozen criteria differentiates the two, such as the use of relative pronouns and the possibility of heavy pied piping. However, when we carefully look at Dutch and other languages, the picture starts to blur considerably, and an abundance of (micro)variation shows up. This is problematic. I argue that the suggested criteria do not add up to two natural classes at all and are in fact non-explanatory. Therefore, we need to focus on what is truly fundamental to non-restrictiveness, which leads to a different perspective on the matter.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"49 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135819294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Dutch children temporarily use a possessor se construction with proper/kinship names and pronouns, like dit is Laura-se/opa-se/hem-se jas (‘this is Laura’s/grandpa’s/his coat’). The se possessive is not available in standard Dutch, although examples of it are found on the internet. The se possessive is fully productive with all nouns in Afrikaans. In standard Dutch prenominal possessive constructions show a wide range of variations and restrictions. Dutch children avoid the complexity of the system, but what makes the children apply the se possessive in the first place? I will show that it is due to three properties specific to Dutch. Nevertheless, the se possessive does not persist in standard Dutch as it did in Afrikaans. The Dutch Achilles’ heel might be the early use of weak possessive pronouns.
荷兰儿童暂时使用带有专有/亲属名称和代词的所有格se结构，如dit is Laura-se/opa-se/ hemm -se jas(“这是Laura的/爷爷的/他的外套”)。标准荷兰语中没有se的所有格，尽管在互联网上可以找到它的例子。在南非荷兰语中，所有名词都用se所有格。在标准荷兰语中，名词前所有格结构表现出广泛的变化和限制。荷兰孩子避免了系统的复杂性，但是是什么让孩子们首先使用se所有格呢?我将说明这是由于荷兰语特有的三个属性。然而，se的所有格在标准荷兰语中并不像在南非荷兰语中那样持续存在。荷兰人的致命弱点可能是早期使用弱所有格代词。
{"title":"<i>Dit is Laura-se (trui)</i>","authors":"Jacqueline van Kampen","doi":"10.1075/avt.00084.van","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00084.van","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Dutch children temporarily use a possessor se construction with proper/kinship names and pronouns, like dit is Laura-se/opa-se/hem-se jas (‘this is Laura’s/grandpa’s/his coat’). The se possessive is not available in standard Dutch, although examples of it are found on the internet. The se possessive is fully productive with all nouns in Afrikaans. In standard Dutch prenominal possessive constructions show a wide range of variations and restrictions. Dutch children avoid the complexity of the system, but what makes the children apply the se possessive in the first place? I will show that it is due to three properties specific to Dutch. Nevertheless, the se possessive does not persist in standard Dutch as it did in Afrikaans. The Dutch Achilles’ heel might be the early use of weak possessive pronouns.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 18","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135819302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imke Wets, Michelle Suijkerbuijk, Maria den Hartog, Helen de Hoop
Abstract Argument doubling, also known as (contrastive) left-dislocation, is common in spoken Dutch, but it is unclear exactly what triggers it. Earlier proposals in the literature showed that the construction is not used for marking contrast, and suggested it is used for marking shifted topics instead. However, the results from a Spoken Dutch Corpus study on argument doubling with proper nouns demonstrate that topic-shift does not adequately characterize the construction’s function either. Further examination of our corpus data shows that at least for proper nouns, Dutch argument doubling mostly occurs when a new referent is introduced into the discourse, but that this referent does not necessarily become the topic of the discourse. We hypothesize that argument doubling is a way of giving speakers and/or hearers some extra time to establish and/or process the new discourse referent in the discourse, regardless of whether it will become a discourse-topic after its introduction.
{"title":"Argument doubling with proper nouns in spoken Dutch","authors":"Imke Wets, Michelle Suijkerbuijk, Maria den Hartog, Helen de Hoop","doi":"10.1075/avt.00090.wet","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00090.wet","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Argument doubling, also known as (contrastive) left-dislocation, is common in spoken Dutch, but it is unclear exactly what triggers it. Earlier proposals in the literature showed that the construction is not used for marking contrast, and suggested it is used for marking shifted topics instead. However, the results from a Spoken Dutch Corpus study on argument doubling with proper nouns demonstrate that topic-shift does not adequately characterize the construction’s function either. Further examination of our corpus data shows that at least for proper nouns, Dutch argument doubling mostly occurs when a new referent is introduced into the discourse, but that this referent does not necessarily become the topic of the discourse. We hypothesize that argument doubling is a way of giving speakers and/or hearers some extra time to establish and/or process the new discourse referent in the discourse, regardless of whether it will become a discourse-topic after its introduction.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 21","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marlou Rasenberg, Azeb Amha, Matt Coler, Marjo van Koppen, Emiel van Miltenburg, Lynn de Rijk, Wyke Stommel, Mark Dingemanse
Abstract What is language and who or what can be said to have it? In this essay we consider this question in the context of interactions with non-humans, specifically: animals and computers. While perhaps an odd pairing at first glance, here we argue that these domains can offer contrasting perspectives through which we can explore and reimagine language. The interactions between humans and animals, as well as between humans and computers, reveal both the essence and the boundaries of language: from examining the role of sequence and contingency in human-animal interaction, to unravelling the challenges of natural interactions with “smart” speakers and language models. By bringing together disparate fields around foundational questions, we push the boundaries of linguistic inquiry and uncover new insights into what language is and how it functions in diverse non-human-exclusive contexts.
{"title":"Reimagining language","authors":"Marlou Rasenberg, Azeb Amha, Matt Coler, Marjo van Koppen, Emiel van Miltenburg, Lynn de Rijk, Wyke Stommel, Mark Dingemanse","doi":"10.1075/avt.00095.ras","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00095.ras","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What is language and who or what can be said to have it? In this essay we consider this question in the context of interactions with non-humans, specifically: animals and computers. While perhaps an odd pairing at first glance, here we argue that these domains can offer contrasting perspectives through which we can explore and reimagine language. The interactions between humans and animals, as well as between humans and computers, reveal both the essence and the boundaries of language: from examining the role of sequence and contingency in human-animal interaction, to unravelling the challenges of natural interactions with “smart” speakers and language models. By bringing together disparate fields around foundational questions, we push the boundaries of linguistic inquiry and uncover new insights into what language is and how it functions in diverse non-human-exclusive contexts.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"230 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135775130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An investigation into the production of universal quantifiers with negation in the CHILDES database of Dutch shows several scopal properties that have not been discussed before. First, it shows a crucial distinction between child and adult Dutch. A universal quantifier with scope over negation has an isomorphic interpretation in adult Dutch, but an inverse scope interpretation in child Dutch. This raises the question why children do not adopt the surface scope interpretation. Second, it indicates a possible answer to the puzzle why languages often avoid a universal quantifier under the scope of negation. I will discuss the idea that the explanation may lie in the type of reading of a quantifier, collective/distributive and specific/non-specific. It might also explain why no language has a lexicalized negated universal pronoun *neverything.
{"title":"Everything is not equal in adult and child Dutch","authors":"Jacqueline van Kampen","doi":"10.1075/avt.00083.van","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00083.van","url":null,"abstract":"An investigation into the production of universal quantifiers with negation in the CHILDES database of Dutch shows several scopal properties that have not been discussed before. First, it shows a crucial distinction between child and adult Dutch. A universal quantifier with scope over negation has an isomorphic interpretation in adult Dutch, but an inverse scope interpretation in child Dutch. This raises the question why children do not adopt the surface scope interpretation. Second, it indicates a possible answer to the puzzle why languages often avoid a universal quantifier under the scope of negation. I will discuss the idea that the explanation may lie in the type of reading of a quantifier, collective/distributive and specific/non-specific. It might also explain why no language has a lexicalized negated universal pronoun *neverything.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Netherlands Urban Field Station","authors":"Eva van Lier, Ad Backus, Nel de Jong, Rik van Gijn, Konrad Rybka, Jantien Smit, Josje Verhagen, Katherine Walker, Camille Welie","doi":"10.1075/avt.00093.van","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00093.van","url":null,"abstract":"Preview this article: The Netherlands Urban Field Station, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/avt.00093.van-1.gif","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135819303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper provides an overview, based on the MAND database and on additional recordings for Limburgian Panningen, of diminutive formation in Limburgian and focuses on the status of n-assimilation. It is shown that both the presence and the absence of n-assimilaton poses problems both for existing phonological descriptions as well as for constraint-based approaches to phonology such as standard Optimality Theory. We will show that the nature of the three interacting modifications, that is n-assimilation, k-fronting and s-insertion is different. k-fronting and s-insertion are limited in their application to the diminutive suffix and are as such lexical modifications. n-assimilation is shown to apply also across word boundaries and is a post-lexical modification. This allows for a straightforward description in stratal OT and for a better understanding of the data observed.
{"title":"A sightseeing diminutive tour in Limburgian","authors":"Haike Jacobs","doi":"10.1075/avt.00082.jac","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00082.jac","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper provides an overview, based on the MAND database and on additional recordings for Limburgian Panningen, of diminutive formation in Limburgian and focuses on the status of n-assimilation. It is shown that both the presence and the absence of n-assimilaton poses problems both for existing phonological descriptions as well as for constraint-based approaches to phonology such as standard Optimality Theory. We will show that the nature of the three interacting modifications, that is n-assimilation, k-fronting and s-insertion is different. k-fronting and s-insertion are limited in their application to the diminutive suffix and are as such lexical modifications. n-assimilation is shown to apply also across word boundaries and is a post-lexical modification. This allows for a straightforward description in stratal OT and for a better understanding of the data observed.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 23","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：