Skip to main content
Log in

Variation in verbal inflection in Dutch dialects

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From a diachronic perspective, Germanic languages are in the process of deflection. In this context, there appears to be a rather chaotic amount of variation within the verbal inflectional paradigms of Dutch dialects. Based on the paradigms of the verb leven (“to live”) in 253 Dutch dialects, we provide a description and a paradigmatic analysis of the variation that we found in verbal inflection in geographically determined, synchronic varieties of Dutch. It turns out that the observed variation is remarkably consistent: there are nine different paradigms, eight of which show a geographically delimited distribution. We discuss the observed geographical variation in the context of Germanic deflection. We argue that variation and deflection are determined by paradigmatic simplification of the feature system involved. We demonstrate that the following economy strategies are relevant: (A) the reduction of the number of distinctive features for a particular affix in an inflectional paradigm: each affix within the Dutch verbal inflectional system is characterized by one phi-feature only; (B) the introduction of a default category [+finite]; (C) the reduction of the number of feature categories in an inflectional paradigm: Dutch inflectional paradigms allow the presence of only one inflectional category ([number], [person], [gender]). These strategies largely determine the realm of variation, within which regional varieties occupy different positions. By doing so, we provide a perspective on paradigmatic change, triggered by properties of the language system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aalberse, S. (2007). Language specific variation and the status of feature structure. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam. Morphology (To appear).

  • Barbiers S., Bennis H., De Vogelaer G., Devos M., Van der Ham M. (2005) Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects. Part 1: Pronouns, agreement and topicalisation (maps + comments). Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennis H. (2006) Agreement, pro and imperatives. In: Ackema P., Brandt P., Schoorlemmer M., Weerman F. (eds). Arguments and agreement. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 101–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennis H. (2007) Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives. In: Van der Wurff W. (eds). Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Amsterdam, John Benjamins

    Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste E. (1966) Problèmes de linguistique geńeŕale. Paris, Gallimard

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten H. (1977) On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In: Abraham W. (eds). On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 47–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornips, L. & Jongenburger, W. (2001). Elicitation techniques in a Dutch syntactic atlas project. In H. Broekhuis, & T. Van der Wouden (Eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, (pp. 57–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Cysouw, M. (2001). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.

  • De Vogelaer, G. (2005). Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese dialecten. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gent.

  • Goeman, A. (1999). T-deletie in Nederlandse Dialecten. Kwantitatieve Analyse van Structurele, Ruimtelijke en Temporele Variatie. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics

  • van Haeringen C.B. (1958) Vervoegde voegwoorden in het Oosten. Driemaandelijkse bladen 19:115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., De Rooij, J., & van den Toorn M.C. (Eds.), (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst: 2 Dl (2nd edn.). Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Harley H., Ritter N. (2002) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78:482–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, E., & Smits, C. (Eds.) (1995). Vervoegde Voegwoorden. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertensinstituut. Cahiers van het P.J. Meertensinstituut 9.

  • Kayne, R. (2000). Notes on English agreement. In R. Kayne (Ed.), Parameters and universals (pp. 187–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kerstens, J. (1993). The syntax of number, person and gender; A theory of phi–features. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Ponelis, F. A. (1979). Afrikaanse sintaksis. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

  • Postma G. (1993) Jij kan en jij heb, Over structuurbehoud van analogische taalveranderingen. TABU 23: 115–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönfeld, M. (1959). Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. (6th edn.), Revised by Loey, A. Van. Zutphen: W.J. Thieme & Cie.

  • Stoett, F. A. (1923). Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Verdenius A. A. (1938). Over onze vertrouwelijkheidspronomina en de daarbij behorende wer-kwoordsvormen. De Nieuwe Taalgids 32: 205–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Weijnen, A. (1952). Zeventiende-eeuwse taal. Zutphen: Thieme.

  • Zwart, C. J. W. (1993). Dutch syntax. A minimal approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alies MacLean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bennis, H., MacLean, A. Variation in verbal inflection in Dutch dialects. Morphology 16, 291–312 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-007-9109-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-007-9109-7

Keywords

Navigation