1887
Volume 37, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper discusses two types of discourse-related V1 declaratives in Dutch. The first type involves a missing argument. In the position before the finite verb a referential 3rd person pronoun is deleted. The deletion of the pronoun is constrained by the recoverability condition, which requires that its referential features can be reconstructed from context. I will argue that only the deletion of a -pronoun is “topic drop”. Deleted topic -pronouns are subject to the same syntactic conditions as overt topic -pronouns. Like the overt -pronoun, the deleted -pronoun refers to the focus constituent of the preceding sentence. A deleted -pronoun, by contrast, does not have a uniquely determined antecedent. The second type of V1 declarative is found in so-called “narrative inversion” in which all arguments are present, and no empty element needs to be postulated. Various types of narrative inversion and the kind of discourse relation they imply are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00043.kam
2020-10-27
2020-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Axel, Katrin & Angelika Wöllstein
    2009 “German verb-first conditionals as unintegrated clauses.” The fruits of empirical linguisticsed. bySam Featherston & Susanne Winkler. 1–35. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110216158.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216158.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Biezma, María
    2011 “Conditional inversion and givenness.” Proceedings of SALT 21ed. byNeil Ashton, Anca Chereches & David Lutz. 552–571. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blom, Elma & Frank Wijnen
    2013 “Optionality of finiteness: evidence for a non-overlap stage in Dutch child language.” First Language33(3): 225–245. 10.1177/0142723713487612
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723713487612 [Google Scholar]
  4. Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver
    2016Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases. Volume3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_614910
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_614910 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
    1977 “Filters and Control.” Linguistic Inquiry8(3): 425–504.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Corver, Norbert
    2016 “Exclamative relatives in vocative noun phrases.” Nederlandse Taalkunde21(3): 79–93. 10.5117/NEDTAA2016.3.CORV
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2016.3.CORV [Google Scholar]
  7. Huang, James
    1984 “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry15(4): 531–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jansen, Frank
    1981Syntaktische constructies in gesproken taal. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kampen, Jacqueline van
    1992 “Underspecification of functional features.” Paper presented at theBUCLD, October 23–25.
  10. 1997 “First steps in wh-movement.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
  11. 2010 “Anaforische middelen voor topicverschuiving.” Nederlandse Taalkunde15(2/3): 189–210. 10.5117/NEDTAA2010.2.DISC442
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2010.2.DISC442 [Google Scholar]
  12. Koeneman, Olaf
    2000 “The flexible nature of verb movement.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
  13. Los, Bettelou & Ans van Kemenade
    2018 “Syntax and the morphology of deixis: the loss of demonstratives and paratactic clause linking.” Atypical demonstratives: Syntax, semantics and pragmaticsed. byMarco Coniglio. 127–158. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110560299‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110560299-005 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mazeland, Harrie
    2016 “The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou.” A family of discourse markers across the languages of Europe and beyonded. byPeter Auer & Yael Maschler. 377–408. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110348989‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348989-012 [Google Scholar]
  15. Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen
    2009 “A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast.” Alternatives to cartographyed. byJeroen van Craenenbroeck. 15–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110217124.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110217124.15 [Google Scholar]
  16. Overdiep, Gerrit
    1937Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. Zwolle: Tjeenk-Willink.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Thrift, Erica
    2003 “Object drop in the LI acquisition of Dutch.” PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
  18. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    1993 “Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach.” PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
  19. 2005 “Verb second as a function of Merge.” The function of function words and functional categoriesed. byMarcel den Dikken & Christina Tortora. 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.78.03zwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.78.03zwa [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00043.kam
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00043.kam
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Dutch , narrative inversion , subject drop and topic drop
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error