Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2020
Edited by Elena Tribushinina and Mark Dingemanse
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 37] 2020
► pp. 149–164

Discourse-related V1 declaratives in Dutch

 | Utrecht University
This paper discusses two types of discourse-related V1 declaratives in Dutch. The first type involves a missing argument. In the position before the finite verb a referential 3rd person pronoun is deleted. The deletion of the pronoun is constrained by the recoverability condition, which requires that its referential features can be reconstructed from context. I will argue that only the deletion of a d(emonstrative)-pronoun is “topic drop”. Deleted topic d-pronouns are subject to the same syntactic conditions as overt topic d-pronouns. Like the overt d-pronoun, the deleted d-pronoun refers to the focus constituent of the preceding sentence. A deleted p(ersonal)-pronoun, by contrast, does not have a uniquely determined antecedent. The second type of V1 declarative is found in so-called “narrative inversion” in which all arguments are present, and no empty element needs to be postulated. Various types of narrative inversion and the kind of discourse relation they imply are discussed.
Keywords: Dutch, topic drop, subject drop, narrative inversion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Two types of sentence-initial deletion in Dutch
  • 3.Distinction between d-pronouns and p-pronouns: Topics and canonical subjects
  • 4.The discourse function of d-pronouns and p-pronouns
  • 5.Recoverability of deletion
    • 5.1Topic drop: Subject and object d-pronouns
    • 5.2Subject drop of 3rd person p-pronouns
  • 6.Narrative inversion: No missing argument
    • 6.1Narrative inversion in the main clause: Temporal succession
    • 6.2Narrative inversion in conditional or temporal clauses
    • 6.3Narrative inversion in spoken Dutch: No stylistic effect
  • 7.Discussion
  • 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: 27 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00043.kam
References (19)
References
Axel, Katrin & Angelika Wöllstein. 2009. “German verb-first conditionals as unintegrated clauses.” The fruits of empirical linguistics ed. by Sam Featherston & Susanne Winkler. 1–35. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biezma, María. 2011. “Conditional inversion and givenness.” Proceedings of SALT 21 ed. by Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches & David Lutz. 552–571. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Blom, Elma & Frank Wijnen. 2013. “Optionality of finiteness: evidence for a non-overlap stage in Dutch child language.” First Language 33(3): 225–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver. 2016. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases. Volume 31. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. “Filters and Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 8(3): 425–504.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2016. “Exclamative relatives in vocative noun phrases.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 21(3): 79–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, James. 1984. “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 531–574.Google Scholar
Jansen, Frank. 1981. Syntaktische constructies in gesproken taal. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten.Google Scholar
Kampen, Jacqueline van. 1992. “Underspecification of functional features.” Paper presented at the BUCLD , October 23–25.
. 1997. “First steps in wh-movement.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Anaforische middelen voor topicverschuiving.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 15(2/3): 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf. 2000. “The flexible nature of verb movement.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou & Ans van Kemenade. 2018. “Syntax and the morphology of deixis: the loss of demonstratives and paratactic clause linking.” Atypical demonstratives: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics ed. by Marco Coniglio. 127–158. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 2016. “The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou .” A family of discourse markers across the languages of Europe and beyond ed. by Peter Auer & Yael Maschler. 377–408. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen. 2009. “A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast.” Alternatives to cartography ed. by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck. 15–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overdiep, Gerrit. 1937. Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. Zwolle: Tjeenk-Willink.Google Scholar
Thrift, Erica. 2003. “Object drop in the LI acquisition of Dutch.” PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. “Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach.” PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Verb second as a function of Merge.” The function of function words and functional categories ed. by Marcel den Dikken & Christina Tortora. 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Weir, Andrew & Liliane Haegeman
2024. Register Variation: Core Grammar and Periphery. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 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.