2004
Volume 30, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Samenvatting

Abstract

This paper investigates a striking agreement phenomenon in several Hollandic dialects of Dutch. In these dialects, imperatives of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs (such as ‘look’ and ‘hear’) show number agreement with the subject of their embedded infinitival clause, an agreement pattern not attested in Standard Dutch. We refer to such constructions as ‘inflected imperatives’. We argue that in these cases the imperative verb lacks its usual second person subject. This absence leaves the matrix subject position available for the embedded subject to raise into, where it receives nominative case and triggers agreement on the imperative verb. This analysis is supported by three types of evidence: the correlation between case and agreement, the agentivity requirement on imperative subjects, and the restriction of inflected imperatives to ECM-verbs. Finally, we propose that these inflected imperatives represent an intermediate stage in an ongoing grammaticalization process, in which perception verbs are developing from verbs into clause-peripheral particles.

© Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Marjo van Koppen
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.3.004.CRAE
2025-12-01
2026-04-28

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ausems, W. A. (1953). Klank- en vormleer van het dialect van Culemborg. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennis, H. (2006). Agreement, pro and imperatives. In Arguments and agreement, P.Ackema, P.Brandt, M.Schoorlemmer, & F.Weerman (red.), 101–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beukema, F., & P.Coopmans. (1989). A government–binding perspective on the imperative in English. Journal of Linguistics25: 417–436.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Haegeman, L., & J.M.van Koppen. (2012). Complementizer agreement and the relation between T and C. Linguistic Inquiry43: 441–454.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Haeseryn, W., K.Romijn, G.Geerts, J.de Rooij, & M. C.van den Toorn. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. https://e-ans.ivdnt.org. Geraadpleegd 15juli2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. IJbema, A. (2002). Grammaticalization and infinitival complements in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Jensen, B. (2003). Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd31:150–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Koppen, J. M. (2017). Complementizer agreement. In The Wiley-Blackwell companion to syntax, M.Everaert & H.van Riemsdijk (red.), 923–962. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Oudenaarden, J. (1986). Wat zeggie? Azzie val dan leggie!: een speurtocht naar het dialect van Rotterdam. Utrecht: Veen.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Postal, P. (1974). On raising. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Runner, J. (2006). The accusative plus infinitive construction in English. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, M.Everaert & H.van Riemsdijk (red.), volume 1, 1–15. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. van Weel, M. A. (1904). Het dialect van West-Voorne. Leiden: Brill. E-book (PDF), heruitgave 2september2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Weijnen, A. (1966). Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.3.004.CRAE
Loading
  • Soort artikel: Research Article
Keyword(s): ECM-verbs; Hollandic Dutch dialects; inflected imperatives

Meest geciteerd Most Cited RSS feed

Dit is een verplicht veld
Graag een geldig e-mailadres invoeren
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error