Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Consanguinity and Possession in Varieties of Dutch

  • Johan Rooryck (a1) and Erik Schoorlemmer (a1)

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. *

Copyright

Corresponding author

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]

References

Hide All
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions . Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14.301329.
Broekhuis, Hans, & den Dikken, Marcel. 2012. Syntax of Dutch. Nouns and noun phrases, vol. II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
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, 112. Available at http://www.let.rug.nl/koster/DenBesten/Corver.pdf, accessed on August 12, 2016.
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, & Catherine O’Connor, Mary. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64.501538.
Fuß, Eric. 2011. Eigennamen und adnominaler Genitiv im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 225.1942.
Georgi, Doreen, & Salzmann, Martin. 2011. DP-internal double agreement is not double Agree: Consequences of Agree-based case assignment within DP. Lingua 121.20692088.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., & Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Resuming reflexives. Nordlyd 31.4662.
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.
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, 133166. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2001. What's in the lexicon? Storage and computation in the language faculty, ed. by Nooteboom, Sieb, Weerman, Fred, & Wijnen, Frank, 340. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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, 385398. Berlin: Lang.
Kroon, Myrthe. 2015. The use of ons/onze with kinship relations in Vught. Unpublished manuscript, Leiden University.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schoorlemmer, Erik. 2012. Definiteness marking in Germanic: Morphological variations on the same syntactic theme. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15.107156.
Scott, Alan K. 2014. The genitive case in Dutch and German: A study of morphosyntactic change in codified languages . Leiden: Brill.
Weerman, Fred, & de Wit, Petra. 1999. The decline of the genitive in Dutch. Linguistics 37.11551192.

Consanguinity and Possession in Varieties of Dutch

  • Johan Rooryck (a1) and Erik Schoorlemmer (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed