Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-smskv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-09T02:17:57.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consanguinity and Possession in Varieties of Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2017

Johan Rooryck  and
Erik Schoorlemmer
Johan Rooryck*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Erik Schoorlemmer*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
*
Leiden University Center for Linguistics (LUCL), P.O. BOX 9515, 2300 RA, The Netherlands [j.e.c.v.rooryck@hum.leidenuniv.nl] [e.schoorlemmer@hum.leidenuniv.nl]
Leiden University Center for Linguistics (LUCL), P.O. BOX 9515, 2300 RA, The Netherlands [j.e.c.v.rooryck@hum.leidenuniv.nl] [e.schoorlemmer@hum.leidenuniv.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Southern varieties of Dutch use the 1st person plural form of the possessive pronoun ons as a marker of consanguinity with proper names, as in ons Emma ‘Emma, our consanguineous family member’. This use of ons ‘our’ has some remarkable properties: It is incompatible with adjectival modification and contrastive stress. These properties are shared with a construction from Standard Dutch: complex prenominal s- possessors consisting of the 1st person singular form of the possessive pronoun and a kinship term as in mijn vaders fiets ‘my father's bike’. We propose that both these constructions are constructional idioms (Booij 2002), a lexical template with a variable part. This offers a straightforward account of the properties of these constructions.*

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions . Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14.301–329.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, & den Dikken, Marcel. 2012. Syntax of Dutch. Nouns and noun phrases, vol. II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2003. A note on micro-dimensions of possession in Dutch and related languages. Germania et alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten, ed. by Koster, Jan & van Riemsdijk, Henk, 1–12. Available at http://www.let.rug.nl/koster/DenBesten/Corver.pdf, accessed on August 12, 2016.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, & Catherine O’Connor, Mary. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64.501–538.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2011. Eigennamen und adnominaler Genitiv im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 225.19–42.Google Scholar
Georgi, Doreen, & Salzmann, Martin. 2011. DP-internal double agreement is not double Agree: Consequences of Agree-based case assignment within DP. Lingua 121.2069–2088.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., & Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Resuming reflexives. Nordlyd 31.46–62.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS) . Groningen, Noordhoff Uitgevers. Available at http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/index.html, accessed on August 12, 2016.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. The boundaries of the lexicon. Idioms, structural and psychological perspectives, ed. by Everaert, Martin, van der Linden, Elisabeth, Schenk, André, & Schreuder, Robert, 133–166. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2001. What's in the lexicon? Storage and computation in the language faculty, ed. by Nooteboom, Sieb, Weerman, Fred, & Wijnen, Frank, 3–40. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kampen, Jacqueline van, & Corver, Norbert. 2006. Diversity of possessor marking in Dutch child language and Dutch dialects. Variation in Sprachtheorie und Spracherwerb, ed. by Vliegen, Maurice, 385–398. Berlin: Lang.Google Scholar
Kroon, Myrthe. 2015. The use of ons/onze with kinship relations in Vught. Unpublished manuscript, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Erik. 2012. Definiteness marking in Germanic: Morphological variations on the same syntactic theme. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15.107–156.Google Scholar
Scott, Alan K. 2014. The genitive case in Dutch and German: A study of morphosyntactic change in codified languages . Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred, & de Wit, Petra. 1999. The decline of the genitive in Dutch. Linguistics 37.1155–1192.Google Scholar