The discourse motivation for split-ergative alignment in Dutch nominalisations (and elsewhere)

Freek Van de Velde

Abstract

Dutch nominalisations of the type het eten van vlees (‘the eating of meat’) have ergative alignment. The alignment is functionally motivated, in that it is a natural consequence of the flow of discourse. The functional account that is put forward here draws on the notion of Preferred Argument Structure (Du Bois 1987) and on the distinction between foregrounded and backgrounded discourse (Hopper & Thompson 1980). Support for this account comes from other domains of ergativity in Dutch, such as causativised predicates and participial constructions and from the observation that the alignment in Dutch nominalisations is in fact split-ergative. The present study adduces corpus evidence to corroborate the claims. In the last section, the analysis is cast in a Functional Discourse Grammar model (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008), including its hitherto underdescribed Contextual Component.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Alexiadou, A
(2001) Functional structure in nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Connolly, J.H
(2007) Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa 51/2: 11-33.Google Scholar
Dik, S.C
(1980) Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1985) Nederlandse nominalisaties in een funktionele grammatika. Forum der Letteren 26: 82-107.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W
(1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
(1985) Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 343-365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805-855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski
(1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69.2: 175-204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij, and M.C. van den Toorn
(1997) Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. 2nd ed. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Harbert, W
(2007) The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K
(2008) Prototypical and non-prototypical noun phrases in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco, and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The noun phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43-62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., and J.L. Mackenzie
(2008) Functional Discourse Grammar. A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Functional Discourse Grammar. In B. Heine, and H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367-400.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, L
(2008) On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica 42.1: 39-82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., and S.A. Thompson
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251-299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E
(2004) Term structure in FG: A modest proposal. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 78.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M
(1993) Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2003) Action nominal constructions in the languages of Europe. In F. Plank (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 723-759.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C
(1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J.L
(1985) Nominalization and valency reduction. In A.M. Bolkestein, C. de Groot, and J.L. Mackenzie (eds.), Predicates and terms in functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 29-47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) English nominalizations in the layered model of the sentence. In B. Devriendt, L. Goossens, and J. van der Auwera (eds.), Complex structures. A functionalist perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325-355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M
(1985) ‘Complementation’. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II. Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E
(1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223-255.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.R
(1973) Nouniness. In O. Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistics theory. Tokyo: TEC 137-257.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A
(2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M
(1986) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In P. Muysken, and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and projections. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 163-232. Originally published in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), 1976. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institutes of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112-171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Belle, W., and W. Van Langendonck
(1996) The indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Belle, and W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative. Volume 1: Descriptive studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 217-250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C
(2008) The status of purpose, reason, and intended endpoint in the typology of complex sentences: Implications for layered models of clause structure. Linguistics 46.4: 757-788. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120: 1637-1651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar