Abstract
Dutch dialects show an enormous amount of variation with respect to the verbal inflectional paradigm. To wit, some dialects only have two forms in the present tense indicative to express all persons in singular and plural, whereas other dialects use three or even four different forms to do so. inflectional pattern is equally likely to occur; some patterns are found nowhere, whereas others are geographically widespread and stable over time. We will show that these recurring patterns of syncretism are also typologically well-attested. The recurring pattern involves neutralization of a morphosyntactic distinction in the marked half of the paradigm. More specifically, we see that plural and past tense are neutralizing contexts. We will show that a grammar that solely uses underspecification of affixes to account for the observed syncretisms, misses a generalization that can only be expressed by impoverishment rules or some paradigmatic means.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aalberse S.P. (2004) Waer bestu bleven? De verdwijning van het pronomen ‘du’ in een taalvergelijkend perspectief. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9(3): 231–252
Aalberse S.P. (2007) The typology of syncretisms and the status of feature structure. Verbal paradigms across 355 Dutch dialects. Morphology 17(1): 109–149
Aikhenvald A.Y., Dixon R.M.W. (1998) Dependencies between Grammatical Systems. Language 74(1): 56–80
Baerman, M. (2000). Contrary to syncretic structure. Presentation LAGB.
Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. (2005). The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barbiers, S., et al. (2006). Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/.
Bennis, H., & MacLean, A. (2006). Variation in verbal inflection in Dutch dialects. Morphology, 16(2), 291–312.
Bobaljik, J. D. (2003). Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002 (pp. 53–85). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review, 25(1–2), 203–230.
Booij G.E. (2002) The morphology of Dutch. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cysouw, M. (2005). What it means to be rare: The variability of person marking. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp. 235–258). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de Hoop, H., Haverkort, M., & van den Noort, M. (2004). Variation in form versus variation in meaning. Lingua, 114(9–10), 1071–1089.
de Vogelaer, G. (2005). Persoonsmarkering in de dialecten van het Nederlands en het Fries. http://users.ugent.be/~gdvogela/proefschrift.
De Wulf, C., & Taeldeman, J. (2001). Apocope en insertie van –n na sjwa in de zuidelijk Nederlandse dialecten: conditionering en geografie. In L. Draye, H. Ryckeboer, & J. Stroop (Eds.), De Variabiliteit van de –e(n) in het Nederlands (Taal & Tongval themanummer 14) (pp. 7–51). Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlande taal-en letterkunde.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 30, pp. 425–449).
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20, essays in linguistics in honor of sylvain bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Stump G.T. (2001) Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
van den Berg, B. L. (2003). Phonology & morphology of Dutch & Frisian. Dialects in 1.1 million transcriptions. Goeman-Taeldeman-Van Reenen project 1980–1995 (CD_ROM). Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
Williams E. (1994) Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92(1): 7–34
Wunderlich D. (1997) A minimalist model of inflectional morphology. In: Wilder C., Gärtner H.M., Bierwisch M. (eds) The role of economy principles in linguistic theory. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp 267–298
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Aalberse, S., Don, J. Syncretism in Dutch dialects. Morphology 19, 3–14 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-009-9132-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-009-9132-y