2004
Volume 25, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This paper discusses the phenomenon of pronoun deletion in Dutch. In the position before the finite verb a 3rd person pronoun may be deleted. The deletion of the pronoun is constrained by the recoverability condition, which requires that its referential features can be reconstructed from the context. It will be argued that only the deletion of a -pronoun is ‘topic drop’, which is typical for spoken Dutch. Deleted topic -pronouns are subject to the same syntactic conditions as overt topic -pronouns (Van Kampen 2010). Like the overt topic -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 and therefore it cannot be analyzed as discourse topic drop. In written texts, it solely maintains the preceding subject referent. I will further discuss the deletion of 1st person pronouns and the deletion of -pronouns in imperatives.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.008.VANK
2020-10-01
2021-11-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barbiers, Sjef(2007). On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German. In: van der WurffWim (red.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 95-112.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barbiers, Sjef, OlafKoeneman & MarikaLekakou(2010). Vragen aan de linkerperiferie. Nederlandse Taalkunde15(3), 284-307.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayer, Joseph(2010). Wh-drop and recoverability. In: ZwartJan-Wouter & de VriesMark (red.) Structure preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koster. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 31-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennis, Hans(2007). Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives. In: van der WurffWim (red.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 113-134.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bosch, Peter, GrahamKatz & CarlaUmbach(2007). The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns. In: Schwarz-Friesel e.a.Monika (red.), Anaphors in texts. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145-164.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cardinaletti, Anna(1990). Subject/object asymmetries in German null-topic constructions and the status of SpecCP. In: MascaróJoan & NesporMarina (red.), Glow essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris, 75-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, Noam & HowardLasnik(1977). Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry8.3, 425-504.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dikken, Marcel den(1992). Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives. In: GilbersDicky & LooyengaSietze (red.), Language and Cognition 2. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 51-64.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gundel, Jeannette(1977). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. PhD dissertatie Indiana University Bloomington.
  10. Haegeman, Liliane(1990). Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In: MascaróJoan & NesporMarina (red.), Glow essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris, 167-174.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoekstra, Heleen, MichaelMoortgat, BramRenmans, InekeSchuurman & Tonvan der Wouden(2001). On certain properties of spoken Dutch. Paper gepresenteerd op de CLIN-dag, 30 november.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, James(1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry15, 531-574.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jansen, Frank(1981). Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taal. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten.
  14. Kampen, Jacqueline van(1992). Underspecification of functional features. Paper gepresenteerd op de BUCLD, 23-25 oktober.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kampen, Jacqueline van(1997). First steps in wh-movement. PhD dissertatie Universiteit Utrecht.
  16. Kampen, Jacqueline van(2007). Relative agreement in Dutch. In: van KoppenMarjo & LosBettelou (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 112-125.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kampen, Jacqueline van(2010). Anaforische middelen voor topicverschuiving. Nederlandse Taalkunde15 (2/3), 189-210.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kampen, Jacqueline van(2016). Deriving verb-cluster variation in Dutch and German. In: AudringJenny & LestradeSander (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 54-69.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lambrecht, Knud(1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Neeleman, Ad, ElenaTitov, Hansvan de Koot & ReikoVermeulen(2009). A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In: van CraenenbroeckJeroen (red.), Alternatives to cartography. Berlijn: Mouton de Gruyter, 15-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Overdiep, Gerrit(1937). Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. Zwolle: Tjeend-Willink.
  22. Reinhart, Tanya(1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica27, 53-94.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ross, John(1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertatie MIT.
  24. Thrift, Erica(2003). Object drop in the L1 acquisition of Dutch. PhD dissertatie Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  25. Trutkowski, Ewa(2011). Referential null subjects in German. In: CumminsChris (red.), Proceedings of CamLing 2010, 135-166.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wijnen, Frank(1997). Functionele categorieën in Nederlandse kindertaal. Nederlandse Taalkunde3, 178-198.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Zwart, Jan-Wouter(1993). Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. PhD dissertatie Universiteit Groningen.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.008.VANK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.008.VANK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): d-pronouns; diary drop; Dutch topic drop; p-pronouns; topicalization
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error