Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-9p9wk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-15T19:16:00.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonology and morphology in Dutch indefinite determiner syncretism: Spatial and quantitative perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2014

Meredith Tamminga
Meredith Tamminga*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics, Williams Hall, Philadelphia
*
*Adderss for correspondence: Meredith Tamminga, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics, Williams Hall, 255 S. 46th St. Philadelphia, PA 19104; 814-321-7062 (Email tamminga@ling.upenn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uses dialect data to disentangle the contributions of phonology and morphology to the emergence of gender syncretism in the Dutch determiner paradigm. Quantitative and spatio-statistical analyses are used to identify an inverse relationship between phonological erosion and adoption of the innovative syncretic system, counter to expectation. That inverse relationship is shown to obscure the parallel development of the determiners in masculine and feminine contexts, leading to the suggestion that the syncretism results from a single morphological change triggered by phonological variability.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistic Geography , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 115 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Baerman, Matthew. 2006. Syncretism. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 363–366. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan & Sand, Lori. 1993. Some patterns of linguistic diffusion. Language Variation and Change 5(3):359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna & Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. Case in decline. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (eds), The Oxford handbook of case, chapter 30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Richard A., Allan R. Wilks (original S code), Ray Brownrigg (R version) & Thomas P. Minka (enhancements). 2012. maps: Draw Geographical Maps. R package version 2.2-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=maps Google Scholar
Berg, B.L. van den. 2003. Phonology and morphology of Dutch and Frisian dialects in 1.1 million transcriptions. Goeman-Taeldeman-Van Reenen project 1980–1995, Meertens Instituut Electronic Publications in Linguistics 3. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Bivand, Roger, with contributions by Micah Altman, Luc Anselin, Renato Assunção, Olaf Berke, Andrew Bernat, Guillaume Blanchet, Eric Blankmeyer, Marilia Carvalho, Bjarke Christensen, Yongwan Chun, Carsten Dormann, Stéphane Dray, Rein Halbersma, Elias Krainski, Pierre Legendre, Nicholas Lewin-Koh, Hongfei Li, Jielai Ma, Giovanni Millo, Werner Mueller, Hisaji Ono, Pedro Peres-Neto, Gianfranco Piras, Markus Reder, Michael Tiefelsdorf & Danlin Yu. 2012. spdep: Spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics and models. R package version 0.5-51. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=spdep Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack & Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Dialectology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeman, Ton. 1999. T-deletie in Nederlandse dialecten: kwantitatieve analyse van structurele, ruimtelijke en temporele variete. Amsterdam: Holland Academic Graphics Vol. 26.Google Scholar
Goeman, Ton, van Oostendorp, Marc, van Reenen, Pieter, Koornwinder, Oele, van den Berg, Boudewijn & van Reenen, Anke. 2008. MAND: Morphological atlas of the Dutch dialects: Volume II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, Jan, Taeldeman, Johan & Verleyen, Geert. 1998–2005. Fonologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten Volumes I-IV. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2011. A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change 23:193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2013. A multivariate spatial analysis of vowel formants in American English. Journal of Linguistic Geography 1:31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, David. 2000. La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique: les pronoms sujets en roman central. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Herzog, M. 1969. Yiddish in the Ukraine: Isoglosses and historical inferences. The Field of Yiddish 3:58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, Samuel E. & Jefferis, Gregory. 2011. RANN: fast nearest neighbour search. R package version 2.1.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RANN Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1:199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Patrick. 1948. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 37:243–251.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1962. Dialect geography and the concept of phonological space. Word 18:23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. Forthcoming. Phonological and phonetic databases at the Meertens Institute. Draft chapter for a handbook.Google Scholar
Odland, John. 1988. Spatial autocorrelation. Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ord, J. Keith & Getis, Arthur. 2001. Testing for local spatial autocorrelation in the presence of global autocorrelation. Journal of Regional Science 41(3):411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pebesma, Edzer J. & Bivand, Roger S. 2005. sp: Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5(2). http://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/ Google Scholar
Schutter, Georges de, van den Berg, Boudewijn, Goeman, Ton & de Jong, Thera. 2005. MAND: Morphological atlas of the Dutch dialects: Volume I. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 1980. Inflectional aspects of adjectives in the dialects of Dutchspeaking Belgium. In W. Zonnerveld etal. (eds), Studies in Dutch Phonology, volume 4 of Dutch Studies, 265–292. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith. 2012. Interpreting the spatial distribution of quantitative variation as evidence for mechanisms of morphological change. In Pre-Proceedings of the International Conference Linguistic Evidence 2012: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, 95–99.Google Scholar
Wulf, Chris & Taeldeman, Johan. 2001. Apocope en insertie van -n na sjwa in de zuidelijke nederlandse dialecten: Conditionering en geografie. Taal en Tongval Themanummer 14:7–51.Google Scholar