1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919

Abstract

This paper is devoted to a construction in a specific Flemish dialect, in which infinitives are used in fragment answers in contexts where this would be unacceptable in other varieties. Questions such as ‘Where is my book?’ can be answered with constructions such as ‘lay. on the table’. We apply an analysis in terms of ellipsis to these infinitival constructions. However, we find fragment answers with infinitives in contexts where the assumption of ellipsis is problematic, since there is no plausible underlying structure available. We show that the use of this construction has extended to contexts in which the infinitive independently expresses the clausal tense features. Our description of the construction is based on a questionnaire study in which around thirty speakers were tested.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.07rys
2016-12-14
2019-11-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/avt.33.07rys.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.07rys&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barbiers, Sjef
    2013 “Dummy auxiliaries in Dutch dialects, L1 and L2 acquisition”. Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisitioned. by E. Blom , I. van de Craats and J. Verhagen , 395–416. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9781614513476.395
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476.395 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boogaart, Ronny
    1999 Aspect and temporal ordering: A contrastive analysis of Dutch and English. PhD diss., Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
  3. Broekhuis, H.
    2013 “The syntactic analysis of the Dutch absentive construction”. Nederlandse Taalkunde18:1. 87–97. doi: 10.5117/NEDTAA2013.1.BROE
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2013.1.BROE [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornips, L.
    1994 “Syntactic Variation in Heerlen Dutch”. Germanic Generative Syntax Newsletter10:2.5–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. de Groot, Casper
    2000 “The absentive”. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europeed. by Ö. Dahl , 693–719. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Haegeman, L.
    2013 “The syntax of registers: diary subject omission and the privilege of the root”. Lingua130.88–110. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Merchant, J.
    2004 “Fragments and ellipsis”. Linguistics and philosophy27.661–738. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑005‑7378‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ott, D.
    2014 “An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation”. Linguistic Inquiry45.269–303. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00155
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00155 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ott, D. & M. de Vries
    2016 “Right dislocation as deletion”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory34.641–690.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Stowell, T.
    1982 “The tense of infinitives”. Linguistic Inquiry13.561–570.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    2014 “The tense of infinitives in Dutch”. Black Book. A Festschrift in honor of Frans Zwartsed. by J. Hoeksema and D. Gilbers , 363–387. Groningen: University of Groningen.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.07rys
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.07rys
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ellipsis , Fragment answers , infinitival tense and microvariation
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