Article published in:
Discourse-oriented Syntax
Edited by Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl and Andreas Trotzke
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226] 2015
► pp. 175–210

The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish

| FWO | Ghent University
| NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
We make an in-depth study of the response particles ja/nee (‘yes/no’) in the Lapscheure dialect of Dutch. These particles show overt phi-feature marking corresponding to what would be the subject of a response clause. Additionally, in ‘reversal answers’, the particles bear additional morphology. We develop a cartographic analysis, arguing that ja/nee represent TP proforms (Krifka 2013). We analyze the pronominal marking as a reflex of phi-features which are merged in Fin to satisfy the Subject Criterion (Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007). We argue that this analysis accounts for a number of facts concerning the distribution of ja/nee, including their incompatibility with (most) clausemate material, and the co-occurrence restrictions between ja/nee, the discourse particle ba, and ‘reversal doet’ (Van Craenenbroeck 2010).
Published online: 16 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.08hae
References

References

Authier, Jean-Marc
2013 Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 345-89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, de Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda & van der Ham, Margreet
2005 Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Vol. I: Commentary. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
1997 Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2004 Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1993 A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1]. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer
2010 Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86: 85-132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Schutter, Georges & Taeldeman, Johan
1986 Assimilatie van stem in de zuidelijke Nederlandse dialekten. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V. F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 91-133. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
de Vogelaer, Gunther & van der Auwera, Johan
2010 When typological rara generate rarissima: Analogical extension of verbal agreement in Dutch dialects. In: Rara & Rarissima. Collecting and Interpreting Unusual Characteristics of Human Language, Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds), 47-73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda
1986 Het persoonlijk voornaamwoord 2e pers enk in het Westvlaams. Geografie en historiek. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V. F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 167-189. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild
2005 Taal in Stad en Land. West-vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Bruce, Kim B.
2010 On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81-118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera
2014 Discourse-driven head movement, VSO and ellipsis in Russian. Presentation at NELS 45 , MIT, October 31.
Haegeman, Liliane
1991 Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7: 333-364.Google Scholar
1996 Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001059Google Scholar
2002 West Flemish negation and the derivation of SOV order in West Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 154-189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hardt, Daniel
1993 Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
2006 Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: Distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door van . Tabu 35: 135-158.Google Scholar
2008  Van + bijwoord van polariteit: Een geval van verplichte PP extrapositie? Tabu 37: 69-74.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2001 The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 141-175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61: 212-236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31-50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle
2011 Polarity particles: An ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39, Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, & Brian Smith (eds). Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2013 Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of SALT 23, Todd Snider (ed.), 1-18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar
1990 Negation in English: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne
1995 Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2001 The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2003 Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 55-77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661-738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2013 Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 79-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
1982 Parameterizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57-75.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & van Riemsdijk, Henk
1986 Projecting features and featuring projections. In Features and Projections, Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 1-30. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, Piet C.
1993 Jaak/neenik enz. Tabu 23: 143-173.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana
1993 Negative polarity: Entailment and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 149-180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1982 Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement: Moving on, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur
2006 Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Hans-Martin Gärtner & Uli Sauerland (eds), 115-160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Servidio, Emilio
2014 Polarity Particles in Italian: Focus, Fragments, Tags. PhD dissertation, University of Siena.Google Scholar
Simon, Ellen
2010 Phonological transfer of voicing and devoicing rules: Evidence from L1 Dutch and L2 English conversational speech. Language Sciences 32: 63–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans
1995 Morfo-syntaxis van het Westvlaamse bè-jaa-k-gie . Tabu 25: 45-60.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. Tarald
2001 Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic inversion. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 163-182. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2002  Van as a marker of dissociation: Microvariation in Dutch. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53], C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds), 41-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane
2007 The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 167-178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar