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. 210–229

On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch

| Radboud University,
| Radboud University,
| Radboud University, | Max Planck Institute for PsycholinguisticsNijmegen,
| Radboud University,
The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.
Keywords: grammatical norm violation, rating experiment, habitual aspect, intentional aspect
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Exploring the two meanings of the Dutch auxiliary ‘do’
  • 3.Acceptability judgment experiment
    • 3.1Methodology
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Materials
      • 3.1.3Procedure
      • 3.1.4Analysis
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1Habitual vs. intentional function of Doen
      • 3.2.2 Doen vs. een van de vs. hun
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • 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.00088.ser
References (26)
References
Bennis, Hans & Frans Hinskens. 2014. “Goed of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 19(2), 131–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje, Wessel Stoop, Jorrig Vogels & Helen de Hoop. 2011. “Leve hun! Waarom hun nog steeds hun zeggen.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 161, 2–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert. 2005. “The markers of habitual aspect in English.” Journal of English Linguistics 33(4), 339–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2022. “ordinal – Regression models for ordinal data”. R package version 2022.11–16. [URL]
Cornips, Leonie. 1994. “De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief-constructie.” Forum der Letteren 35(4), 282–294.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch.” In Do in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Marijke van der Wal & Arjan van Leuvensteijn, 83–101. Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Child use of auxiliary + infinitive in Dutch: Acquisition device or reflection of the input.” In Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition ed. by Elma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 369–394. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “The predictability of social stratification of syntactic variants.” In Explanations in sociosyntactic variation ed. by Tanya Karoli Christensen & Torben Juel Jensen, 144–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1998. “On the origin of auxiliary do .” English Language & Linguistics 2(2), 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giesbers, Herman. 1983–1984. “Doe jij lief spelen? Notities over het perifrastisch doen .” Mededelingen van de Nijmeegse Centrale voor Dialect- en Naamkunde 191, 57–64.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, Lotte, Stefanie Ramachers & Helen de Hoop. 2018. “Singular agreement in special partitive constructions in Dutch.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30(4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollebrandse, Bart, Margreet van Koert & Angeliek van Hout. 2013. “Semantic dummy verbs in child Dutch.” In Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition ed. by Elma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 75–100. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy & Helen de Hoop. 2013. “The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch.” Linguistics in the Netherlands, 89–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy, Tineke Snijders & Helen de Hoop. 2016. “How the brain processes violations of the grammatical norm: An fMRI study.” Brain and Language 1631, 22–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy, Theresa Redl, Hugo de Vos, Lukas Reinarz & Helen de Hoop. 2020. “Processing prescriptively incorrect comparative particles: evidence from sentence-matching and eye-tracking.” Frontiers in Psychology 111, 186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, Jan, Elma Blom & Antje Orgassa. 2013. “Dummy auxiliaries in children with SLI – a study on Dutch, in monolinguals and bilinguals.” In Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition ed. by Elma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 251–278. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordens, Peter. 2013. “Dummies and auxiliaries in the acquisition of L1 and L2 Dutch.” In Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition ed. by Elma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 341–368. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, Russel V. 2022. “emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means.” R package version 1.8.2. [URL]
Lestrade, Sander & Helen de Hoop. 2016. “On case and tense: The role of grounding in differential subject marking.” The Linguistic Review 33(3), 397–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Meulen, Marten. 2020. “Language should be pure and grammatical: Values in prescriptivism in the Netherlands 1917–2016.” In Language Prescription: Values, Ideologies and Identity ed. by Don Chapman & Jacob D. Rawlins, 121–144. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Gijs, Gert-Jan Schoenmakers, Olaf Hoenselaar & Helen de Hoop. 2022. “Tense and aspect in a Spanish literary work and its translations.” Languages 71, 217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2022. “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan. 2022. “Definite objects in the wild. A converging evidence approach to scrambling in the Dutch middle-field”. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
. 2023. “Linguistic judgments in 3D: A case study of stigmatized and non-stigmatized variation.” Linguistics 61(3), 779–824 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2019. “Grammatical taboos. An investigation on the impact of prescription in acceptability judgement experiments.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 38(1), 37–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, Thilo. 2018. “An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(1), 75–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar