Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2019
Edited by Janine Berns and Elena Tribushinina
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 36] 2019
► pp. 115–129
Part II: Selected papers presented at the Dutch Annual Linguistics Day of 2019

Changes in argument structure

The case of Dutch vernieuwen

| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
English is often contrasted with German and Dutch when it comes to the semantic roles that the subject can express (Hawkins 1986; Los & Dreschler 2012). Specifically, English seems to have more middles (She photographs well) and allows for unusual inanimate subjects (The cottage sleeps four). However, it seems that the semantics of the grammatical subject in Dutch are also changing, as witnessed by recent examples from websites and advertisements, such as Uw fietsenstalling verbetert and Presikhaaf vernieuwt. Although these sentences do not have the adverb that is typical of middles in Dutch (Broekhuis, Corver & Vos 2015: 455ff.), they meet several other requirements for middle formation. In this paper, I analyse examples with one such verb, vernieuwen, and identify two different types of intransitive uses for this predominantly transitive verb. I argue that ambiguity, analogy and genre all play an important role in this change in argument structure.
Keywords: middles, semantic roles, subject, analogy, syntactic change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: Transitivity alternations and middles in Dutch
  • 3. Vernieuwen: Transitive, intransitive and middle
    • 3.1A note on data and methodology
    • 3.2Current transitive and intransitive uses of vernieuwen
    • 3.3Is this really a new development?
  • 4. Vernieuwen as a middle: Explaining an ongoing development
    • 4.1Genre
    • 4.2Ambiguity, vagueness and analogy
  • 5.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: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00027.dre
References (18)
References
Den Boon, Ton & Ruud Hendrickx. 2015. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal. Fifteenth, revised edn. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Riet Vos. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verb and Verb Phrases, Volume 11. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2017. “Ambiguity and Vagueness in Historical Change”. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives ed. by M. Hundt, S. Mollin and S. Pfenninger, 292–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Olga Fischer. 2017. “The Role of Analogy in Language Change: Supporting Constructions”. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives ed. by M. Hundt, S. Mollin and S. Pfenninger, 240–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dreschler, Gea. 2015. Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 2002. Elektronische Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. <[URL]> (1 April 2019).
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop & Kees van der Horst. 1999. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuw. Den Haag: Sdu.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, Corpus-based Study of their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keyser, Jay & Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 151, 381–416.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1994. “English”. The Germanic Languages ed. by E. König and J. van der Auwera, 532–565. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou & Gea Dreschler. 2012. “The loss of local anchoring: From adverbial local anchors to permissive subjects.” The Oxford Handbook of the History of English ed. by T. Nevalainen & E. Traugott, 859–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mårdh, Ingrid. 1980. Headlinese: On the Grammar of English Front Page Headlines. Lund, Sweden: Liberläromedel/Gleerup.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013. “The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch.” Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-programme ed. By P. Spyns and J. Odijk, 219–247. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1974. Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. Bielefeld: Cornelson-Velhagen and Klasing.Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. 2016. Semantics, 4th edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar