Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 155–172

Have-doubling constructions in historical and modern Dutch

| Utrecht University

Have-doubling constructions closely resemble periphrastic perfect tense constructions but have an additional, seemingly superfluous form of the verb have. Whilst these constructions are only found in a small number of modern Dutch dialects, they appear much more broadly in historical varieties of Dutch. In this article, I present new data from a corpus study of have-doubling constructions in Early Modern Dutch (ca. 1500-1700) which reveals both similarities and an important difference with the modern dialectal phenomenon. I argue that there are two structurally distinct types of have-doubling in this older period: one which contains a canonical adjective (i.e. with one internal argument) and one with a non-canonical adjective with a vP layer (Koeneman et al. 2011). I further show that this sheds new light on the observed link between doubling constructions and the rise of the periphrastic perfect tenses, with implications for the nature of this syntactic development.

Keywords: have-doubling, periphrastic perfect tenses, participles, syntactic change, Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Koeneman et al. (2011)
    • 2.1Structural analysis
    • 2.2(Un)availability of have-doubling
  • 3. Have-doubling in Early Modern Dutch
    • 3.1Word order
    • 3.2Transitivity
    • 3.3Thematic status of the syntactic subject
    • 3.4Theoretical implication: Two kinds of have-doubling
  • 4.Link to the rise of the periphrastic perfect tenses
  • 5.Link between have- and be-doubling
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00011.wal
References
Barbiers, Sjef, Johan van der Auwera, Hans J. Bennis, Eefje Boef, Gunther De Vogelaer & Margreet van der Ham
2008a Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects, volume 21. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Olaf N. C. J. Koeneman & Marika Lekakou
2008b “Perfect doubling.” (talk presented at the TIN-dag, 2 February, Utrecht).
Barbiers, Sjef & Hans J. Bennis
2010 “De plaats van het werkwoord in zuid en noord.” Voor Magda. Artikelen voor Magda Devos bij haar afscheid van de Universiteit Gent ed. by J. de Caluwe and J. van Keymeulen, 25–42. Gent: Dirksland.Google Scholar
Bonger, Hendrik
1978 Leven en werk van D. V. Coornhert. Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Leonie Cornips
1994 “Undative constructions.” Linguistics 32 (2): 173–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans
2017 “The rise of the periphrastic perfect tense in the continental West Germanic languages.” LingBuzz, December 2017, [URL].
Burridge, Kate
1993 Syntactic change in Germanic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coornhert, Dirck V.
eds. 1630a Vande predestinatie, verkiesinghe en de verwerpinghe Godes. Amsterdam: Jacob Aertsz. Colom.Google Scholar
1630b “Van de toelatinge ende decrete Godts.” D.V. Coornhert, wercken, deel II. Amsterdam: Jacob Aertsz. Colom.Google Scholar
1630c “Vre-reden, of onderwijs tot eendracht, vrede ende liefde, in dese tyden hoogh-noodigh.” D.V. Coornhert, wercken, deel III. Amsterdam: Jacob Aertsz. Colom.Google Scholar
1631 “Oorsaken ende middelen vander menschen saligheyt ende verdoemenisse.” D.V. Coornhert, wercken, deel I. Amsterdam: Jacob Aertsz. Colom.Google Scholar
eds. 1632 Waarachtighe aflaat van zonden. Amsterdam: Jacob Aertsz. Colom.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
2012 “Ditransitieven en het nut van hiërarchische structuur en derivatie.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 17 (3): 362–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duinhoven, Antonius M.
1997 Middel-Nederlandse syntaxis: synchroon en diachroon 2. De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop M.
2008 Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Kern, Johan H.
1912 De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoordsvormen in ’t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf N. C. J., Marika Lekakou & Sjef Barbiers
2011 “Perfect doubling.” Linguistic Variation 11 (1): 35–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1994 “The event argument and the semantics of voice”. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S.
2000 “Syntactic change.” The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory ed. by M. Baltin and C. Collins, 629–739. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Maria J.
1986 Passiefproblemen in oudere taalfasen. Leiden: ICG Printing.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

van de Poppe, Cora & Joanna Wall
2023. The pragmatic and rhetorical function of perfect doubling in the work of D. V. Coornhert. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 24:2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.