Morphology

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 109–149

The typology of syncretisms and the status of feature structure. Verbal paradigms across 355 Dutch dialects

Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

In this article syncretic patterning in the present indicative paradigm of the verb kloppen (‘to knock’) is described for 355 Dutch dialects taken from the morphological atlas of Dutch dialects (Van den Berg 2003). Following Baerman et al. (2005, The syntax-morphology interface. A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), I distinguish syncretisms driven by (universal) feature structure and language specific sources of syncretism. I present independent evidence for the role of phonology, pragmatics and amplification in the formation of syncretic patterns of Dutch. The benefit of the study of the interaction between language specific routes to syncretism and feature structure is threefold. We know language specific routes to syncretism can obscure feature structure. By distinguishing the different routes to syncretism we canalsorevealthe strength of feature structure. Secondly, distinguishing sources of syncretisms enables us to understand similarities and differences in the cross-linguistic patterning of syncretisms. Thirdly, we can link typological data to language acquisition patterns.

Keywords

Syncretism Verbal inflection Feature hierarchy Amplification Dialectal variation 

References

  1. Aalberse S. (2004). Waer bestu bleven? De verdwijning van het pronomen ‘du’ in een taalvergelijkend perspectief. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9(3): 231–254Google Scholar
  2. Ackema P., Neeleman Ad. (2004). Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikhenvald A.Y., Dixon R.M. (1998). Dependencies between grammatical systems. Language 74(1): 56–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson S.R. (2004). Morphological universals and diachrony. In: Booij G.E., van Marle J. (eds). Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 1-14Google Scholar
  5. Baerman M. (2004). Typology and the formal modelling of syncretism. In Booij G.E., van Marle J. (eds). Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 41-72Google Scholar
  6. Baerman M. (2005). Directionality and (Un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80(4): 807–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baerman M., Brown D. (2005a). Syncretism in verbal person/ number marking. In: Haspelmath M., Bibiko H.J. (eds). The World Atlas of language structures. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 122-123Google Scholar
  8. Baerman M., Brown D. (2005b). Case syncretism. In Haspelmath M., Bibiko H.J. (eds). The World Atlas of language structures. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 118-119Google Scholar
  9. Baerman M., Brown D., Corbett G.G. (2005). The syntax-morphology interface. A study of syncretism. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Barbiers, S., et al. (2006). 2006 Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND) <http://www.meertens.nl/sand/> Accessed arch 1st 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Bennis, H., & MacLean, A. (2007). Variation in verbal inflection in Dutch dialects. Morphology, 16(2).Google Scholar
  12. Brown P., Levinson S.C. (1987). Politeness Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Buitenrust-Hettema F. (1891). De aangesproken persoon. Taal en Letteren 1: 148–153Google Scholar
  14. Bybee J.L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  15. Comrie B. (1975). Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51(2): 406–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coveney A. (2000). Vestiges of Nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences 22(4): 447–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cysouw M. (2003). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Cysouw M. (2005). What it means to be rare: The variability of person marking. In: Frajzyngier Z., Hodges A., Rood D.S. (eds). Linguistic diversity and language theories. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Benjamins, pp. 235- 258Google Scholar
  19. De Vogelaer, G. (2005). Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese dialecten. <http://user-s.ugent.be/~gdvogela/proefschrift>. Accessed on January 22nd 2007.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, N., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. (2000). Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: A network morphology analysis. Yearbook of Morphology.Google Scholar
  21. Franck J. (1910). Mittelniederländische Grammatik mit Lesestücken und Glossar. Leipzig, TauchnitzGoogle Scholar
  22. Goeman A.C.M., Taeldeman J. (1996). Fonologie en morfologie van de Nederlandse dialecten. Een nieuwe materiaalverzameling en twee nieuwe atlasprojecten. Taal en Tongval 48, 38–59Google Scholar
  23. Goeman A.C.M. (1999). T-deletie in Nederlandse dialecten. Kwantitatieve analyse van structurele, ruimtelijke en temporele variatie. Den Haag: Holland Academic GraphicsGoogle Scholar
  24. Harley H. (1994). Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 289–320Google Scholar
  25. Harley H., Ritter E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Head B. (1978). Respect degrees in pronominal reference. In: Greenberg J.H. (ed). Universals of human language. Stanford, Stanford University Press, pp. 151-211Google Scholar
  27. Heath J. (1991). Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Planck F. (ed). Paradigms: The economy of inflection. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75-90Google Scholar
  28. Heath J. (1998). Pragmatic skewing in 1–2 pronominal combinations in native american languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64(2): 83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hickey R. (2003). Rectifying a standard deficiency. Second-person pronominal distrinctions in varieties of English. In Taavitsainen I., Jucker A.H. (eds). Diachronic perspectives on address term systems. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 343-373Google Scholar
  30. Lass R. (1999). Phonology and morphology. In Lass R. (Ed). The Cambridge history of the English language. 1476–1776 (vol. III pp. 56–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Maiden M. (1992). Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinker S. (1996). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Aken H. (1996). Van uitgang tot vooruitgang: het verdwijnen van de werkwoordsuitgangen van de tweede persoon uit het Nederlands. Utrecht, manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  34. Van den Berg, B. L. (2003). Phonology & morphology of Dutch & Frisian Dialects in 1.1 million transcriptions. Goeman-Taeldeman-Van Reenen project 1980–1995, Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. (CD-ROM). Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
  35. Van Gestel F., Nijen T.J., Rinkel T., Weerman F. (1992). Oude zinnen. Grammaticale analyse van het Nederlands tussen 1200–1700. Leiden, Martinus NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  36. Vermaas H. (2002). Veranderingen in de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen van de dertiende t/m de twintigste eeuw. Utrecht, LOTGoogle Scholar
  37. Vor der Hake J.A. (1908). De aanspreekvormen in ’t Nederlandsch. Utrecht, P. Den BoerGoogle Scholar
  38. Wales, K. (2004). Second person pronouns in contemporary English: The end of a story or just the beginning? Franco British Studies, 33–34, 172–185.Google Scholar
  39. Watkins L.J. (1984). A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln, University of Nebraska PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Weerman F., De Wit P. (1999). The decline of the genitive in Dutch. Linguistics 37(6): 1155–1192Google Scholar
  41. Weijnen A. (1941). De Nederlandse dialecten. Groningen, NoordhoffGoogle Scholar
  42. Zilles A.M.S. (2005). The development of a new pronoun: The linguistic and social embedding of a gente in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change 17(1): 19–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts, Department of Dutch LinguisticsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations