Chapter published in:
Current Issues in Syntactic Cartography: A crosslinguistic perspectiveEdited by Fuzhen Si and Luigi Rizzi
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 267] 2021
► pp. 53–110
Chapter 4Invariant die and adverbial resumption in the
Ghent dialect
Karen De Clercq | Ghent University
Liliane Haegeman | Ghent University
This chapter focusses on the apparent V3 pattern
in (1), which is salient
with some speakers of the Ghent dialect: an initial adverbial
constituent in the root clause, vroeger
(‘formerly’), is separated from the finite verb by an optional
‘pleonastic’ (Vanacker
1980) element, die. The element
die has no impact on the truth value of the
proposition it introduces.
‘We used to bake four kinds of bread.’
(Gijzenzele
0.28) (Vanacker
1980: 76)
The chapter focusses on the distribution of
resumptive constituents in Standard Dutch and in the Ghent dialect,
comparing Ghent resumptive die with alternative
adverbial resumptives in the Ghent dialect and with the
corresponding StD resumptives. A first analysis is based on the
Poletto/Wolfe V2 typology, which proposes that the Germanic
languages are characterised by a Force-V2 requirement, meaning that
the finite verb moves to Force, via Fin. We argue – in line with the
literature – that the resumptive adverbial dan in
StD and the Ghent dialect is phrasal, it merges TP-internally, moves
via SpecFinP to SpecForceP and satisfies the Force V2-constraint. A
constituent preceding resumptive dan is
clause-external. In contrast, resumptive die in the
Ghent dialect is a head which spells out Force. Because Force is
spelt out by die, the finite verb halts in Fin. The
final part of the chapter speculates on an alternative analysis in
terms of a fully articulated left periphery in which
die is a variant of Force that is specifically
involved in the indirect satisfaction of LP criteria on Top and
Foc.
(1)
Vroeger,
Formerly
(die)
(die)
bakten
baked
wij
we
vier
four
soorten
sorts
brood
bread
Keywords: Ghent dialect, adverbial resumptive die
, V2 typology, force, left periphery, LP criteria
Article outline
- 1.Scope and goals of the chapter
- 1.1The V2 constraint
- 1.2Resumptive V3
- 1.2.1Argument resumption
- 1.2.2Adverbial resumption
- 1.3Resumption in the Ghent dialect
- 1.3.1Nominal CLD
- 1.3.2Adverbial resumption
- 1.4Goals
- 2.Adverbial resumption: Specialized resumption vs. generalized resumption
- 2.1Specialized resumptives
- 2.2Generalized resumptives
- 2.3Specialized vs. generalized resumptives
- 3.Invariant die in the Ghent dialect
- 3.1The initial adverbial constituent
- 3.1.1Categorial features
- 3.1.2Optionality
- 3.2Discourse function of the resumptive patterns
- 3.2.1Nominal CLD
- 3.2.2Adverbial CLD
- 3.2.3Arguments against the generalized topic analysis
- 3.2.4An additional contrast between specialized resumptives and invariant die
- 3.3The resumptive constituent
- 3.3.1Focusing
- 3.3.2Mid-position of the resumptive
- 3.3.3P-stranding and resumptive V3 patterns
- 3.4Summary and outline of a derivation
- 3.1The initial adverbial constituent
- 4.The cartography of invariant die
resumption
- 4.1The ingredients
- 4.2The options
- 4.3Invariant die as a left peripheral expletive
- 4.4Invariant die as a left peripheral head
- 4.4.1 Invariant die as a root complementizer
- 4.4.2Some predictions of the analysis
- 4.4.3 Verb first, null operators and invariant die
- 4.5Enriching the Wolfe/Poletto hypothesis: An articulated left periphery
- 4.5.1The articulated left periphery and indirect satisfaction of the criteria
- 4.5.2Satisfying the LP criteria by enriched Force
- 4.5.2.1SubjP, the Subject Criterion and subject extraction
- 4.5.2.2Enriching Force
- 4.5.2.3The derivation of Force-V2
- 5.Summary
-
Notes -
References
Published online: 12 October 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.267.04dec
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.267.04dec
References
Astruc-Aguilera, Lluisa
Benincà, Paola
Broekhuis, Hans & Corver, Norbert
Catasso, Nicholas
D’Avis, Franz Josef
De Clercq, Karen & Haegeman, Liliane
Eide, Kristin Melum
Eide, Kristin Melum & Sollid, Hilde
Ferraresi, Gisella & Goldbach, Maria
Haegeman, Liliane
1996 Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in
early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001059
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara
Haegeman, Liliane & Danckaert, Lieven
Haegeman, Liliane & Greco, Ciro
Haegeman, Liliane and Ciro Greco
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara
van Hoe, Lieven
Hoekstra, Eric
Holmberg, Anders
Hsu, Brian
Frey, Werner
Koopman, Hilda J.
Koster, Jan
Ledgeway, Adam
Leemans, Emilienne
Lutz, U.
Meinunger, André
Meklenborg, Christine
Mikkelsen, Line
Noonan, Máire
Nordström, Jackie
Poletto, Cecilia
van Reenen, Pieter & Schøsler, Lene
Rizzi, Luigi
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur
Roberts, Ian
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna
Rullman, Hotze & Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter
Salvesen, Christine Meklenborg
Salvi, Giampaolo
Samo, Guiseppe
Starke, Michal
Sollid, Hilde & Eide, Kristin Melum
Vanacker, Valère F.
Vance, Barbara S.
Vanelli, Laura, Renzi, Lorenzo & Benincà, Paola
Wolfe, Sam
Under review. Probing the syntax of a problematic particle: Old
French ‘SI’ revisited.