Cover not available
Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 305–325

Chapter 18
The expressive en maar-construction

| Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Meertens Institute, Amsterdam
| Utrecht University, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS
This article discusses constructions of the type En maar zeuren! ‘You keep on nagging’, which express a negative attitude of the speaker towards the proposition expressed by the construction. We will argue that en ‘and’ should be seen as a regular conjunction conjoining a phonetically empty clause with an overt infinitival clause: [[Ø] en [maar zeuren]]. The proposition expressed by the empty clause is determined by the common ground and contrasts with the propositional content of the second clause. This contrast is essential for obtaining the expressive meaning, but is potentially problematic in light of the regular interpretation of en. We solve this by claiming that the contrastive reading is expressed by the conjunction in tandem with the discourse particle maar, which can also be used as a contrastive/oppositional conjunction.
Keywords: expressivity, conjunction en ‘and’ , root infinitive, discourse particle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The infinitive
    • 2.1Root infinitive versus nominal infinitive
    • 2.2What is the “clausal size” of the root infinitive?
  • 3.On the syntactic behaviour and interpretation of maar
  • 4.Some speculations on the expressivity of ‘en’
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.18han
References (19)
References
Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and the form–function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2010. Focus particle doubling. In Jan-Wouter Zwart and Mark de Vries (eds.), Structure preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koster, 21–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation. In M. Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework, 197–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef, and Hans-Georg Obenauer. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28. 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, Elma. 2002. On the use and interpretation of root infinitives in early child Dutch. In Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 103–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The acquisition of finiteness. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny, and Kim Verheij. 2013. Als dát geen insubordinatie is! De pragmatiek van zelfstandige conditionele zinnen, 13–28. Amsterdam: Uitgaven Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver. 2016. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, Volume 3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, and Evelien Keizer. 2012. Syntax of Dutch. nouns and noun phrases, Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2008. Deconstructing exclamations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7. 41–90.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, David Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1993. De betekenis van partikels. Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek, met bijzondere aandacht voor ‘maar’, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 1995. Dutch modal particles: The relevance of grammaticalized elements. In Thomas F. Shannon and Johan P. Snapper (eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1993, 57–70. Lanham: University of America Press.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 165–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villalba, Xavier. 2008. Exclamatives: a thematic guide with many questions and few answers. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7. 9–40.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, and Paul Portner. 2003. Exclamative clauses: at the syntax-semantic interface. Language 79. 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bogaards, Maarten, Ronny Boogaart & Sjef Barbiers
2022. The syntax of progressive and ingressiveaanhet-constructions in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 39 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Doreleijers, Kristel & Norbert Corver
2021. Adviserend beter*. Nederlandse Taalkunde 26:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 july 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.