Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2023Edited by Sterre Leufkens and Marco Bril
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 40] 2023
► pp. 210–229
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
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.
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
- 3.1Methodology
- 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].
References
Bennis, Hans & Frans Hinskens
2014 “Goed of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 19(2), 131–184. 
van Bergen, Geertje, Wessel Stoop, Jorrig Vogels & Helen de Hoop
2011 “Leve hun! Waarom hun nog steeds hun zeggen.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 161, 2–29.
Binnick, Robert
2005 “The markers of habitual aspect in English.” Journal of English Linguistics 33(4), 339–369.
Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen
Cornips, Leonie
1994 “De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief-constructie.” Forum der Letteren 35(4), 282–294.
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.
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.
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.
Garrett, Andrew
1998 “On the origin of auxiliary do
.” English Language & Linguistics 2(2), 283–330.
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.
Hogeweg, Lotte, Stefanie Ramachers & Helen de Hoop
2018 “Singular agreement in special partitive constructions in Dutch.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30(4), 335–370.
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.
Hubers, Ferdy & Helen de Hoop
2013 “The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch.” Linguistics in the Netherlands, 89–101.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lenth, Russel V.
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.
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.
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.
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
Vogel, Ralf
2019 “Grammatical taboos. An investigation on the impact of prescription in acceptability judgement experiments.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 38(1), 37–79.
Weber, Thilo
2018 “An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(1), 75–129.