Nederlandse Taalkunde - Volume 21, Issue 2, 2016

In this paper, we argue that ascending verb cluster orders (1-2 and 1-2-3, e.g. moet eten ‘must eat’ and moet hebben gegeten ‘must have eaten’) are not only the default verb cluster orders in Standard Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands, but also play a crucial role in the acquisition of verb clusters. We administered a series of three sentence repetition tasks (SRTs) to a total of 120 children (2;8–5;6), and found that children, in contrast to what previous literature might predict, are much more likely to produce 1-2 orders than 2-1 orders. We propose an acquisition pathway in which we assume an OV stage (Vfin-final) and a 1-2 stage before children completely fine-tune their preferences toward adult-like behavior. We further argue that this pathway first applies to bipartite modal-infinitive clusters but is quickly expanded to include all cluster types. We believe our proposal has three advantages: it answers an important learnability question, explains the differences attested between the way children of different ages handle verb clusters, and strongly suggests that verb clusters follow one general rule, rather than several separate construction-specific ones.

In this discussion paper, a comparative overview of the behaviour of adjectives in Afrikaans and Dutch is given by utilising two descriptive categories identified by Broekhuis (2013), viz complementation and modification. While noticeable areas of overlap and similarity between the two languages can be shown, some important systematic differences exist, both with regard to complementation and modification, and these are illustrated by means of (as far as possible, empirical) examples. The explanatory value of a performance grammar, in the light of the variable behaviour of adjectives in certain fields, is emphasised, while recognising the extensive range of linguistic categories made possible by introspection.

The present paper is part of an ongoing discussion between Hans Broekhuis and myself about the second opposition in the binary tense system originally proposed by Te Winkel (1866). This opposition connects the first one (between Past and Present) and the third one (between Imperfect(ive) and Perfect(ive)). Broekhuis is radical in proposing to do without it. This proposal is too radical in my view, so I want to temper his cutting edge mood.

On verb frame alternations in the Syntax of Dutch

This review article offers a critical discussion of the extensive treatment of verb frame alternations in the first volume on Verbs and Verb Phrases of the Syntax of Dutch (SoD). The article takes a usage-based perspective and focuses on a number of aspects of the grammatical description in the SoD that are too exclusively rooted in the theoretical framework of formal syntax.

This contribution is a review of Chapter 5.2 of Broekhuis & Corver’s (2015) Syntax of Dutch (pp. 765-935). The chapter describes Dutch infinitival constructions from a formal perspective. In this review I share several theoretical, descriptive and methodological considerations, which relate to the status of control as a purely syntactic phenomenon, the semantic and geographic variation of Dutch causative constructions, and the problems with using Google counts from the World Wide Web when writing a (formal) grammar.

This paper provides some historical background of the rise of verb-second in Germanic by data from the earliest Germanic language of which we have authentic texts (rather than slavish translations from Latin): Old English (ca. 700-1100). The rise of verb-second can be seen as activating the C-head (i) by movement of another head V, in order to demarcate a focus domain, and (ii) by merging a ‘bespoke’ element, a complementizer. The rise of verb-second, then, is seen to work in tandem with the rise of hypotaxis, in which correlative, paratactic pairs of clauses develop into main clause/subclause configurations.

Word order variation: theory vs. empiricism?

In their chapter on word order variation in the middle field (scrambling), Broekhuis & Corver (2016) present a set of syntactic rules (generalizations) to derive word order patterns in Dutch. I will argue that their theoretical assumptions lead to the rejection of some sentences as being ungrammatical, while in my view they are perfectly grammatical. I conclude that it would be better to base grammaticality judgments on empirical data rather than on theoretical assumptions.

An extra position?

The present paper discusses the VP-topicalization and the mirror effect. According to the Syntax of Dutch (Broekhuis & Corver 2016), these two tests can make a reliable, non-intuitive distinction between the postfield and the afterthought, as well as between the middle field and the postfield, which is often not noticeable in main clauses with only a finite verb. Although these tests seem valuable indeed, even to non-generative studies, there are also some limitations, and especially for prepositional phrases (PPs) which can be either placed in the middle field or in the postfield. Furthermore, this paper also aims at refining the motivations of extraposition, and more particularly extraposition of PPs. We therefore rely on empirical corpus-based research, which can fine-tune the theoretical framework of extraposition in the Syntax of Dutch.

This article is a rejoinder to the various reviews of the Syntax of Dutch (2012-2016) that have appeared in this and earlier volumes of Nederlandse Taalkunde. It focuses especially on one recurring theme in these reviews: the use of introspection for collecting data. Although many reviewers are of the opinion that data extracted from corpora are to be preferred, I will argue that such data are of limited use for the Syntax of Dutch, given that it involves competence rather than performance research: it aims at describing the internal structure of phrases and sentences and not the actual use of these structures.