2004
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper I explain the difference between the notions and as used by me and other linguists like Vandeweghe (e.g. 1986 and 1987) and the notions and as used in Broekhuis et al. (2015). It is not so much the difference in the descriptive system I want to focus on, but the difference in aim. Broekhuis et al. want to specify the syntactic encoding of ‘inalienable possession’ and come to the conclusion that the possessor of the inalienable possession is always the referent of an indirect object, be it on different syntactic levels. I want to explain why this is the case. This can be done by showing that the complex predicates in inalienable possession constructions are comparable to the dative verbs in constructions with a regular indirect object, due to the fact that they contain a constituent referring to inalienable possession. Our descriptions have much in common and if we see them as complementary, they can profit from each other.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.1.005.SCHE
2021-04-01
2021-12-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Broekhuis, H. & M.den Dikken(2012). Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and Noun Phrases. Volume 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  2. Broekhuis, H., N.Corver & R.Vos(2015). Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  3. Elffers-van Ketel, E.(1991). The historiography of grammatical concepts. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  4. Haeseryn, W., K.Romijn, G.Geerts, J.de Rooij & M. C.van den Toorn(1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers, Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.
  5. Horst, J. van der(2008). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven.
  6. Horst, J. van der & K.van der Horst(2000). Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuw. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij.
  7. Klooster, W.(2001). Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.
  8. Schermer-Vermeer, I. C.(1991). Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Faculteit der Letteren.
  9. Schermer-Vermeer, I. C.(1996). De beschrijving van de possessieve datief. Nederlandse Taalkunde4, 265-280.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Vandeweghe, W. (1986a). Het semi-indirekt objekt en de zgn. possessieve datief. In: M.Devos &
 J.Taeldeman (red.), Vruchten van z’n akker. Opstellen van (oud-)medewerkers en oud-studenten van prof. V. F. Vanacker. Gent: Rijksuniversiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Vandeweghe, W. (1986b). De zogenaamde possessieve datief en configuratieherschikking. In: 
C.Hoppenbrouwerset al. (red.), Syntaxis en lexicon. Veertien artikelen bij gelegenheid van het emeritaat van Albert Sassen. Dordrecht: Foris, 117-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Vandeweghe, W.(1987). The possessive dative in Dutch: syntactic reanalysis and predicate formation. In: J.van der Auwera & L.Goossens (red.), Ins and outs of the predication. Dordrecht: Foris, 137-152.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Vandeweghe, W., m.m.v. M.Devos & F.De Meersman(2013). Grammatica van de Nederlandse zin. Antwerpen: Garant.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.1.005.SCHE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.1.005.SCHE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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