Skip to main content Accessibility help

Consanguinity and Possession in Varieties of Dutch

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


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. *


Corresponding author

Leiden University Center for Linguistics (LUCL), P.O. BOX 9515, 2300 RA, The Netherlands [] []


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, 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, 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)


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