Oblieke subjecten in het Nederlands? | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 28, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the oblique argument of the Dutch two-place predicate ‘wait’ behaves syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically as a subject. Conversely, its morphological subject behaves as an object. The starting point of this study is an instance of conjunction reduction in the Flemish newspaper , in which the oblique argument of is left unexpressed on identity with the nominative subject in the first conjunct, thereby affirming its status as a subject. Five additional subjecthood tests lend further support to this claim. They show that the oblique argument of is strongly associated with the first position in declarative clauses, that it systematically inverts with the conjugated verb, and that it is often pronominal, definite, and nearly always animate. The data for this study have been randomly extracted from the nlTenTen20 corpus (Kilgarriff et al. 2004, 2014).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2023.3.005.SOME
2023-12-01
2024-02-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrews, Avery D. (1976). The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society6, 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, Jóhanna (2001). The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics2, 47–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barðdal, Jóhanna (2004). The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In: W.Abraham (red.), Focus on Germanic typology. Berlijn: Akademie Verlag, 105–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, Jóhanna, CarleeArnett, StephenMark Carey, ThórhallurEythórsson, Gard B.Jenset, GuusKroonen & AdamOberlin (2016). Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. Language Typology and Universals69(1), 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bouma, Gerlof (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject and object fronting. Proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Broekhuis, Hans (2020). 8.1.2. Noun phrases in clause-initial position. Taalportaal. <https://www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/link/syntax__Dutch__np__n8__nouns8_Syntactic.8.1.2.xml> (geraadpleegd 29september2023).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: Charles N.Li (red.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Detges, Ulrich (2009). How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of Preferred Argument Structure. In: J.Barðdal & S.L.Chelliah (red.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 93–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, John W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63(4), 805–855.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Givón, Talmy (1978). Definiteness and referentiality. In: J.H.Greenberg (red.), Universals of human language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 149–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Haeseryn, Walter, KirstenRomijn, GuidoGeerts, Jaapde Rooij & Maartenvan den Toorn (red.) (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Haspelmath, Martin (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In: A.Y.Aikhenvald, R.M.W.Dixon & M.Onishi (red.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A.Thompson (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2), 251–299.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (1996). Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Proefschrift, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Keenan, Edward L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. In: C.N.Li (red.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 303–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kilgarriff, Adam, PavelRychlý, PavelSmrž, DavidTugwell (2004). The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, 105–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kilgarriff, Adam, VítBaisa, JanBušta, MilošJakubíček, VojtěchKovář, JanMichelfeit, PavelRychlý, VítSuchomel (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography1, 7–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lambrecht, Knud (1986). Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French. Proefschrift, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lamers, Monique (2007). Verb type, animacy and definiteness in grammatical function disambiguation. Linguistics in the Netherlands24, 125–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lamers, Monique J.A. & Helende Hoop (2014). Animate object fronting in Dutch: A production study. In: B.MacWhinney, A,Malchukov & E.Moravcsik (red.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mikkelsen, Line (2002). Reanalyzing the definiteness effect. Evidence from Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax69, 1–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schütze, Carson T. (2011). Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science2(2), 206–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Proefschrift, Lunds Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax49, 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Somers, Joren (2021). Onpersoonlijke datief-nominatiefwerkwoorden in het hedendaagse Duits: Definitie, inventaris en semantische classificatie. Handelingen - Koninklijke-Zuid Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis75, 211–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Somers, Joren, TorstenLeuschner, LudovicDe Cuypere & JóhannaBarðdal (ingediend). A corpus-based analysis of the Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat alternation in German.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1979). On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tomlin, Russell S. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. Londen: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Vandeweghe, Willy. 2013. Grammatica van de Nederlandse zin. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WNT = Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. <gtb.ivdnt.org>
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zaenen, Annie, JoanMaling & HöskuldurThráinsson (1985). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3, 441–483.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2011). The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2023.3.005.SOME
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2023.3.005.SOME
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