Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 19:1 (2019) ► pp.79–105

A corpus-based study of the human impersonal pronoun ('n) mens in Afrikaans

Compared to men and een mens in Dutch

ORCID logo | Lancaster University (United Kingdom)
| North-West University Potchefstroom (South Africa)
| University of Antwerp (Belgium)
This article compares the grammaticalizing human impersonal pronoun ('n) mens in Afrikaans to fully grammaticalized men and non-grammaticalized een mens in Dutch. It is shown that 'n mens and een mens can still be used lexically, unlike mens and men, and that ('n) mens and een mens are restricted to non-referential indefinite, universal-internal uses while men exhibits the whole range of (non-) referential indefinite ones. Despite the latter’s presence in the earliest Afrikaans data, it is argued not to have influenced the development of ('n) mens. This pronoun and Dutch een mens are also found to have syntactic functions other than subjecthood, unlike men. The contrast is attributed to their different degrees of grammaticalization. Lastly, the Afrikaans ‘man’-pronoun is shown to differ from its Dutch counterparts in relying on the second person singular for suppletion, though forms of ('n) mens are found to occasionally occur instead.
Keywords: grammaticalization, impersonal, pronoun, Afrikaans/Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpora
    • 2.2Data retrieval
    • 2.3Statistics
  • 3.Functional analysis
    • 3.1Analytic framework
    • 3.2Results for Afrikaans
    • 3.3Discussion in light of Dutch
    • 3.4First interim conclusion
  • 4.Formal analysis
    • 4.1 'n Mens versus mens
    • 4.2Suppletion
    • 4.3Syntactic functions
    • 4.4Second interim conclusion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17004.van
References (18)
References
Cabredo Hofherr, P. 2010. Binding Properties of Impersonal Human Pronouns in Generic and Episodic Contexts. Available at [URL] [last accessed on 6 April 2017].
Conradie, C. J. 2017. Root Semantics. Taalportaal. Available at [URL] [last accessed on 4 October 2017].
Coussé, E. and van der Auwera, J. 2012. Human Impersonal Pronouns in Swedish and Dutch: a Contrastive Study of Man and Men . Languages in Contrast 12(2):121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. n.d. Die Burger Corpus. Leuven: Leuven University.
Donaldson, B. C. 1993. A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Draye, L. 2014. Man en men: een Wereld van Verschil. In Patroon en Argument, F. Van de Velde, H. Smessaert, F. Van Eynde and S. Verbrugge (eds), 241–253. Leuven: Leuven University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egerland, V. 2003. Impersonal Pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 711:75–102.Google Scholar
Fenger, P. 2016. How Impersonal does One Get? A Study of Man-Pronouns in Germanic. Available at [URL] [last accessed on 6 April 2017].
Gast, V. and van der Auwera, J. 2013. Towards a Distributional Typology of Human Impersonal Pronouns, Based on Data from European Languages. In Languages Across Boundaries, D. Bakker and M. Haspelmath (eds), 119–158. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. and Sansò, A. 2007. The Spread and Decline of Indefinite Man-Constructions in European Languages: an Areal Perspective. In Europe and the Mediterranean Linguistic Areas, P. Ramat and E. Roma (eds), 95–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.Th. 2013. Elementary Statistical Testing with R. In Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, M.G. Krug and J. Schlüter (eds), 361–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Deygers, K., Van Aken, H., Van Den Heede, V. and Speelman, D. 2000. Het ConDiv-Corpus Geschreven Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5(4):356–363.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. 2010. On the Impersonal Pronoun Men in Modern West Frisian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13(1):35–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsten, J. 2016. Grammatikale Verandering in Afrikaans van 1911–2010. PhD dissertation, North-West University Vanderbijlpark.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. E. and Garside, R. 2000. Comparing Corpora Using Frequency Profiling. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics Workshop on Comparing Corpora at their 38th Annual Meeting. Hong Kong, China, 7 October 2000. Association for Computational Linguistics. 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. and Papastathi, M. 2011. Towards a Typology of Third Personal Plural Impersonals. Linguistics 49(3):575–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taalkommissie. 2010. Taalkommissiekorpus. Pretoria: Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns.Google Scholar
Weerman, F. 2006. It’s the Economy, Stupid: een Vergelijkende Blik op Men en Man . In Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels, M. Hüning, U. Vogl, T. van der Wouden and A. Verhagen (eds), 19–47. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van Olmen, Daniël & Adri Breed
2018. Human impersonal pronouns in Afrikaans: a double questionnaire-based study. Language Sciences 69 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.