Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2023
Edited by Sterre Leufkens and Marco Bril
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 40] 2023
► pp. 69–87

Finding a geographical basis for split noun phrases in the Netherlands and Belgium

| Georg-August-Universität

When considering the acceptance of split NPs, the Germanic language family reveals substantial variation. This is especially the case for Dutch as the observations seem rather contradictory, hence the question whether or not Dutch allows for split NPs. Via a large-scale questionnaire, the present study shows that some Dutch dialects allow split NPs to a larger extent than others, and that a geographical basis amidst the variation can be found in the southern regions of the Netherlands. These findings are crucial as they shed light onto the (syntactic) microvariation within the Netherlands which in turn leads to valuable insights into a future analysis of split NPs.

Keywords: Split NPs, syntax, microvariation, Dutch dialects
Article outline
  • 1.Split NPs
  • 2.No geographical basis?
  • 3.Contradictory observations
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Panelists
    • 4.2Stimuli
      • 4.2.1Test sentences
      • 4.2.2Structure of TOP
      • 4.2.3Structure of REM
      • 4.2.4Presence of a d-pronoun
      • 4.2.5Summary of conditions
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Results
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Northern provinces versus middle provinces
    • 5.2Northern provinces versus southern provinces
    • 5.3Middle provinces versus southern provinces
    • 5.4Southern provinces versus Belgian provinces
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

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

Published online: 3 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00080.hen
References
Bošković, Z.
2005 “On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP”. Studia Linguistica 59(1): 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B.
2022 “ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data.” R package version 2022.11–16. [URL]
Corver, Norbert, Marjo van Koppen, H. Kranendonk & M. Rigterink
2011 Database Diversity in Dutch DP Design (DDiDD). Utrecht, UiL-OTS. URL: [URL]
Devine, A. & Stephens, L.
2000 Discontinuous syntax: hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doreleijers, Kristel, Marjo van Koppen & Jos Swanenberg
2021 “De dynamiek van geslachtsmarkering in de Noord-Brabantse dialecten”. Taal en Tongval 72(1): 69–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G.
1988 “Aufspaltung von NPn un das Problem der ‘freien’ Wortstellung”. Linguistische Berichte 1141: 91–113.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & D. Ćavar
2002 “Distributed deletion”. In Theoretical approaches to universals, Volume 94 of Linguistik Aktuell, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, 65–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. & C. Féry, C.
2006 “Prosodic and Morphosyntactic Aspects of Discontinuous Noun Phrases: a Comparative Perspective”. Ms., Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. & R. Iovino
2016 “Latin as a split-DP language”. Studia Linguistica 10(3): 221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junghanns, U.
2021 Split noun phrases in Slavic Languages [Handout].Google Scholar
Lühr, R.
2016 “Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Older Indo-European Languages”. In Anatolica et Indogermanica, ed. by H. Marquardt, S. Reichmuth & J. Trabazo, 153–166. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Mensching, G.
2020 “On “partitive dislocation” in Sardinian: A Romance and Minimalist perspective”. Linguistics 58(3): 805–835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, K.
2005 “Semantic properties of split topicalization in German”. In Event arguments: foundations and applications, volume 501 of Linguistische Arbeiten ed. by C. Maienborn, A. Wöllstein, 331–356. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Formal properties of measurement constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolae, A.
2020 “Discontinuous nominal constituents in Old Romanian: empirical analysis and theoretical relevance” [Handout]. Anglia Ruskin – Cambridge Romance Linguistics Seminars February 13th, 2020.Google Scholar
Nolda, A.
2007 Die Thema-Integration. Syntax and Semantik der ‘gespaltenen Topikalisierung’ im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ott, D.
2011 “Local Instability”. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.
Puig-Waldmüller, E.
2006 “Wörter stehen da einige. On nominal split topicalization in non-standard Viennese German”. Master’s thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
R Core Team
2018 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Roehrs, D.
2009 “Split NPs”. Ms., University of North Texas.Google Scholar
Swanenberg, Jos
2013 “All dialects are equal, but some dialects are more equal than others”. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 43.Google Scholar
Tappe, H.
1989 “A note on split topicalization in German”. In Syntactic phrase-structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences, Volume 6 of Linguistik Aktuell, ed. by C. Bhatt, E. Löbel & C. Schmidt, 159–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hoof, H.
1997 “Left Dislocation and Split Topics in Brabant Dutch”. In Materials on Left Dislocation ed. by E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, F. Zwarts, 275–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Split topicalization”. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume I1, ed. by M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk, 408–462. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk
1989 “Movement and regeneration”. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. by P. Benincà, 105–136. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar