2004
Volume 137, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0040-7550
  • E-ISSN: 2212-0521

Abstract

Abstract

This corpus study investigates the alternation between and ‘such’ in front of plural and uncountable singular nouns, by putting three hypotheses to the test. The first hypothesis concerns the potential influence of lectal contamination. This is an effect whereby contact between two language varieties leads to lexical biases in the determinants of language variation within each of the varieties separately. Concretely, it is hypothesized that typically Belgian phrases more often exhibit than typically Netherlandic phrases, both in the language use of Belgians and in the language use of Dutchmen. The second hypothesis predicts that in the Netherlands, in front of singular, uncountable nouns, is preferred in the identifying function compared to the intensifying function. Finally, the third hypothesis holds that in Belgium, in front of plural nouns, is preferred in formal registers. The first hypothesis is not confirmed, while the second is confirmed, pending some qualifications, and the third is also confirmed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TNTL2021.4.001.PIJP
2021-12-01
2022-01-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Algeo2006 – J.Algeo, British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  2. Altenberg1994 – B.Altenberg, ‘On the functions of such in spoken and written English’. In: N.Oostdijk, P.De Haan & J.Aarts (eds.), Corpus-based research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994, p. 223-239.
  3. Arnon & Snider2010 – I.Arnon & N.Snider, ‘More Than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-Word Phrases’. In: Journal of Memory and Language62 (2010) 1, p. 67-82.
  4. Barr e.a.2013 – D. J.Barr e.a., ‘Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal’. In: Journal of Memory and Language68 (2013) 3, p. 255-278.
  5. Bates e.a.2018 – D.Bates e.a., ‘Parsimonious Mixed Models’. In: arXiv.org. Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org, 2018, 1506.04967v2.
  6. Beuls & Steels2013 – K.Beuls & L.Steels, ‘Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement’. In: PLoS ONE8 (2013), 3, p. e58960.
  7. Bod1995 – L.W.M.Bod, Enriching linguistics with statistics. Performance models of natural language. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  8. Cappelle2006 – B.Cappelle, ‘Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”’. In: Constructions7 (2006), p. 1-28.
  9. Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek – Beschikbaar op: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83926NED/barv?dl=17256&ts=1584114358740 (Bezocht op 15september2021).
  10. Croft2003 – W.Croft, ‘Lexical rules vs. constructions. A false dichotomy’. In: H.Cuyckens e.a. (eds.), Motivation in language: studies in honor of Günter Radden. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003, p. 49-68.
  11. Dąbrowska2006 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections’. In: Language Sciences28 (2006) 1, p. 120-135.
  12. Dąbrowska2012 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Different Speakers, Different Grammars: Individual Differences in Native Language Attainment’. In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism2 (2012) 3, p. 219-253.
  13. Dąbrowska2014 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing’. In: Cognitive Linguistics25 (2014) 4, p. 617-653.
  14. Dąbrowska2018 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment’. In: Cognition178 (2018), p. 222-235.
  15. Daems, Heylen & Geeraerts2015 – J.Daems, K.Heylen & D.Geeraerts, ‘Wat dragen we vandaag: een hemd met blazer of een shirt met jasje?’ In: Taal en Tongval67 (2015) 2, p. 307-342.
  16. DenBoon & Geeraerts2005Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. 14th ed. Antwerpen/Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie, 2005.
  17. Diessel2019 – H.Diessel, The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  18. Duinhoven1988 – A. M.Duinhoven, Middelnederlandse syntaxis, synchroon en diachroon. Deel 1: de naamwoordgroep. Leiden: Nijhoff, 1988.
  19. Gazzaniga, Ivry & Mangun2009 – M.Gazzaniga, R.Ivry & G.Mangun, Cognitive neuroscience. The biology of the mind. 3rd edn. New York: Norton, 2009.
  20. Geeraerts & Van de Velde2013 – D. Geeraerts & H.Van de Velde, ‘Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch’. In: F.Hinskens & J.Taeldeman (eds.), Language and space: Dutch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013, p. 532-556.
  21. Ghesquière & Van de Velde2011 – L.Ghesquière & F.Van de Velde, ‘A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification’. In: Cognitive Linguistics22 (2011) 4, p. 765-797.
  22. Gilbert2008 – N.Gilbert, Agent-based models. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.
  23. Gries2013 – S. T.Gries, Statistics for linguistics with R. A practical introduction. 2e ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.
  24. Grondelaers, Speelman & Geeraerts2008 – S.Grondelaers, D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts, ‘National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations’. In: G.Kristiansen & R.Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, p. 153-203.
  25. Haeseryn1996 – W.Haeseryn, ‘Grammaticale verschillen tussen het Nederlands in België en het Nederlands in Nederland: Een poging tot inventarisatie’. In: R.van Hout & J.Kruijsen (red.), Taalvariaties: Toonzettingen en modulaties op een thema. Dordrecht: Foris, 1996, p. 109-126.
  26. Haeseryn e.a.1997 – W.Haeseryn e.a, Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff, 1997.
  27. Heller2018 – B.Heller, Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide. Proefschrift KU Leuven.
  28. Hosmer & Lemeshow2000 – D.Hosmer & S.Lemeshow, Applied logistic regression. 2e ed. New York: Wiley, 2000.
  29. Levshina2015 – N.Levshina, How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2015.
  30. Oostdijk e.a.2002 – N.Oostdijk e.a., ‘Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project’. Proceedings of the third international conference on language resources and evaluation (lrec), 2002, p. 340-347.
  31. Oostdijk e.a.2013 – N.Oostdijk e.a., ‘The Construction of a 500-Million-Word Reference Corpus of Contemporary Written Dutch’. In: P.Spyns & J.Odijk (eds.), Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, p. 219-247.
  32. Pijpops2020 – D.Pijpops, ‘What is an alternation? Six answers’. In: Belgian Journal of Linguistics34 (2020), p. 283-294.
  33. Pijpops te versch. – D.Pijpops, ‘Lectal contamination. Evidence from corpora and from agent-based simulation’. In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, te verschijnen.
  34. Pijpops, Beuls & Van de Velde2015 – D.Pijpops, K.Beuls & F.Van de Velde, ‘The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic. An agent-based model’. In: Computational linguistics in the Netherlands Journal5 (2015), p. 81-102.
  35. Pijpops & Van de Velde2016 – D.Pijpops & F.Van de Velde, ‘Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?’ In: Folia Linguistica50 (2016) 2, p. 543-581.
  36. Pijpops & Van de Velde2018 – D.Pijpops & F.Van de Velde, ‘A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion’. In: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14 (2018) 1, p. 99-131.
  37. Pijpops e.a.2018 – D.Pijpops e.a., ‘Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle. Evidence from argument realization’. In: Language and Cognition10 (2018) 3, p. 514-543.
  38. Plevoets2008 – K.Plevoets, Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. Proefschrift KU Leuven.
  39. ‘Referentiebestand Nederlands – RBN’2014. Beschikbaar aan het Instituut voor de Nederlandse taal: http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-n2, 2014.
  40. Rohdenburg & Schlüter2009 – G.Rohdenburg & J.Schlüter, One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  41. Ruette2012 – T.Ruette, Aggregating Lexical Variation: towards large-scale lexical lectometry. Proefschrift KU Leuven.
  42. De Smet & Van de Velde2019 – I.De Smet & F.Van de Velde, ‘Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection’. In: Diachronica36 (2019) 2, p. 139-180.
  43. Speelman2014 – D.Speelman, ‘Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics’. In: D.Glynn & J. A.Robinson (eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014, p. 487-533.
  44. Speelman e.a.2020 – D.Speelman e.a., ‘Schaalvergroting in het syntactische alternantieonderzoek. Een nieuwe analyse van het presentatieve er met automatisch gegenereerde predictoren’. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde25 (2020) 1, p. 101-123.
  45. Speelman & Geeraerts2009 – D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts, ‘Causes for causatives: the case of Dutch “doen” and “laten”’. In: T.Sanders & E.Sweetser (eds.), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009, p. 173-204.
  46. Speelman, Grondelaers & Geeraerts2008 – D.Speelman, S.Grondelaers & D.Geeraerts, ‘Variation in the choice of adjectives in the two main national varieties of Dutch’. In: G.Kristiansen & R.Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, p. 205-233.
  47. Speelman, Heylen & Geeraerts2018 – D.Speelman, K.Heylen & D.Geeraerts, ‘Introduction’. In: D.Speelman, K.Heylen & D.Geeraerts (eds.), Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Cham: Springer, 2018, p. 1-10.
  48. Stefanowitsch & Flach2016 – A.Stefanowitsch & S.Flach, ‘The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment’. In: H.-J.Schmid (eds.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2016, p. 101-127.
  49. Stefanowitsch & Gries2003 – A.Stefanowitsch & S.T.Gries, ‘Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions’. In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8 (2003) 2, p. 209-244.
  50. Tremblay e.a.2011 – A.Tremblay e.a., ‘Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading and Sentence Recall Tasks’. In: Language Learning61 (2011) 2, p. 569-613.
  51. Tremblay & Baayen2010 – A.Tremblay & R.H.Baayen, ‘Holistic Processing of Regular Four-word Sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall’. In: D.Wood (eds.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication. London: Continuum, 2010, p. 151-173.
  52. Tummers, Speelman & Geeraerts2005 – J.Tummers, D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts, ‘Inflectional variation in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch: a usage-based account of the adjectival inflection’. In: N.Delbecque, J.Van der Auwera & D.Geeraerts (eds.), Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005, p. 93-110.
  53. Van Agtmaal-Wobma e.a.2007 – E.van Agtmaal-Wobma e.a., Belgen in Nederland en Nederlanders in België. Centraal Bureau voor de Statisitiek (cbs).
  54. Van de Velde2009 – F.Van de Velde, De nominale constituent. Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.
  55. Van der Horst2008 – J.van der Horst, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2008.
  56. Van der Vliet2007 – H.van der Vliet, ‘The Referentiebestand Nederlands as a Multi-Purpose Lexical Database’. In: International Journal of Lexicography20 (2007) 3, p. 239-257.
  57. Van Eerten2007 – L.van Eerten, ‘Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands’. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde12 (2007) 3, p. 194-215.
  58. Van Olmen2019 – D.Van Olmen, ‘A diachronic corpus study of prenominal zo’n “so a” in Dutch: Pathways and (inter)subjectification’. In: Functions of Language26 (2019) 2, p. 216-247.
  59. Van Olmen & Van der Auwera2014 – D.Van Olmen & J.van der Auwera, ‘Over zo’n en zo meer’. In: F.Van de Velde e.a. (red.), Patroon en argument. Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2014, p. 215-228.
  60. Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen2018Ein Online-Nachschlagewerk. Verfasst von einem Autorenteam unter der Leitung von Christa Dürscheid, Stephan Elspaß und Arne Ziegler. 2018. Beschikbaar op http://mediawiki.ids-mannheim.de/VarGra/index.php/Substantive_auf_-ation_/_-ung.
  61. Wallis2012 – S.Wallis, ‘That vexed problem of choice’. Presentatie op ICAME33, KU Leuven, 30mei – 3juni2012. Beschikbaar op: www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/statspapers/vexedchoice.pdf.
  62. Wolk e.a.2013 – C.Wolk e.a., ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change’. In: Diachronica30 (2013) 3, p. 382-419.
  63. Zehentner & Traugott2020 – E.Zehentner & E.C.Traugott, ‘Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English’. In: L.Sommerer & E.Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2020, p. 168-211.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TNTL2021.4.001.PIJP
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TNTL2021.4.001.PIJP
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