Diversity in Dutch DP Design
advertisement
Diversity in Dutch DP Design Marjo van Koppen Norbert Corver Huib Kranendonk Mirjam Rigterink Diversity in Dutch DP Design (DiDDD) Project on microvariation in the Dutch Noun Phrase (see Corver 2004). Started 01-01-05 at the UiL-OTS, University of Utrecht, Netherlands. Project members Norbert Corver (project leader) Marjo van Koppen (Postdoc) Huib Kranendonk (PhD-student) Mirjam Rigterink (PhD-student) Outline of this talk 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction to the project as a whole: what is the research domain, what are the research questions? Introduction to the subprojects: (i) DP-internal pronouns, (ii) DP-internal negation and quantification and (iii) the left periphery of DP. Outline of the practical side of the project: what is the intended output of the project, which steps will be taken to obtain this output? General information and contact information. 1. Diversity in Dutch DP Design (DiDD) Research domain The noun phrase in contemporary variants of Dutch (dialects) and in older variants of Dutch. More specific: Project 1: DP-internal pronouns Project 2: Negation and quantification in DP Project 3: Left periphery of DP Research question What is the nature of microvariation in the nominal domain in variants of Dutch? How can we account for this type of microvariation within the bounds of the Principles & Parameters model of language? 1. Diversity in Dutch DP Design (DiDD) What is the locus of microvariation in the DP-domain? Preferably the same as has been identified for the sentential domain: The realization of some functional category (cf. among others Poletto 2000) The doubly filled comp-filter: i.e. the realization of the head and/or specifier position of a certain functional projection (cf. among others Bennis 1997). The (sub-)feature make up of certain functional heads (cf. among others Carstens 2002) The morphological realization of certain functional categories (cf. among others Van Koppen 2005) 2. DiDDD: Subprojects Project 1: DP-internal pronouns Executor: Mirjam Rigterink (PhD-student) Research Goals Investigation of (morpho-)syntactic diversity in: Attributive pronominals within DP Substantively used pronominals Articles, demonstratives, possessive constructions An example Articles, demonstratives and ellipsis (i) a b (*den) the den the deizen this deizen this bŏom tree ____ Oerle Dutch ‘this tree’ ‘this one’ Generalization: In Oerle Dutch, the article can only cooccur with a demonstrative in elliptical constructions (cf. De Bont 1962). But in Bruxelles Dutch: the appearance of the article is not only dependent on the absence of the head noun, but also on the gender of the elided noun (cf. Mazereel 1931). (ii) a b den the (*et) the dane ___ that-m.sg da ___ that-n.sg Bruxelles Dutch ‘that one’ ‘that one’ Furthermore, in Schouwen-Duivenland Dutch: the appearance of the article is not only dependent on the absence of the head noun, but also on the number of the elided noun (cf. De Vin 1916) (iii)a b Neem jij dan den Take you then the ‘Will you then take that one?’ ‘ka (*den) deze ____ I-have the thesepl ____ ‘I took these ones with me.’ diejen thatsg ___? ___ meejebrocht. taken These data raise the following questions: Why can articles and demonstratives cooccur in certain varieties of Dutch but not in others? How can we account for the (variation concerning the) restrictions on the cooccurence of articles and demonstratives? 2. DiDDD: Subprojects Project 2: negation and quantification Executor: Huib Kranendonk (PhD-student) Research Goals Describe and explain the dimensions of variation concerning quantification and negation, focussing in particular on: DP-internal negation The morpho-syntax of numerals Partitive constructions An example The DP-internal position of numerals and quantifiers (i) Present-day standard Dutch Middle Dutch (Duinhoven 1988) a zijn vijf his five b al zijn all his c geen no a’ heilige wonden holy wounds lieden people water water b’ c’ zijn heilige wonden vive his holy wounds five sinen lieden al his people all water negheen water no The numerals and quantifiers appear in postnominal position in Middle Dutch, but not in standard Dutch. This raises the following questions: How can we account for the microvariation concerning the DP-internal positioning of numerals and quantifiers? Does the Middle Dutch pattern appear in present-day variants of Dutch? 2. DiDDD: Subprojects Project 3: The left-periphery of the Dutch Noun Phrase Executor: Marjo van Koppen (Postdoc) Research Goals Investigation of syntactic diversity in nominal constructions expressing interrogation, exclamation and focalization Investigation of aspects of cross-categorial parallellism between the nominal and the sentential system An example (i) The wat voor-construction in Dutch dialects a b Wat voor boeken heb je what for books have you ‘What kind of books did you buy?’ Wat heb je voor boeken what have you for books gekocht? bought standard Dutch gekocht? bought Variation attested in Dutch dialects (data from SAND-project) ‘How’ instead of ‘what’ (ii) Hok for boeken hast how for books have.you For is not present (iii) Wa buken hedde what books have.you kocht? bought Oosterbierum Dutch gekocht? bought Leuven Dutch Reduced inflected form (iv) he have je you gekocht? bought Strijen Dutch ‘vukke’ instead of ‘voor’ (v) Waffer-e boeke what.for-infl books Wat what vukke for boeken books hei have.you kocht? bought Oostmarsum Dutch The morphosyntax of wat voor is subject to microvariation in the contemporary variants of Dutch. This raises the following questions: What does the attested microvariation tell us about the structure of the wat voor-construction and hence about the structure of DP? How can we account for the variation discussed above? Does this construction display the same properties in these dialects for instance wat voor-split? 3. The practical side Intended output two dissertations on microvariation in the DP one monograph on microvariation in the DP Two databases concerning microvariation in the DP in variants of Dutch. These databases will be compatible with the SAND-database. A database with data from reference grammars A database containing the responses to the written questionnaire Two workshops: one at the end of 2006, the other at the end of 2007 (posted on our website, see final sheet) 3. The practical side The project will proceed along the following lines: Step 1: Reference grammar-database: data from reference grammars of both contemporary and older variants of Dutch Step 2: Collect data from other sources, like the SAND-project. Step 3: Written questionnaire (based on the reference grammar database and the other sources). Step 4: Oral interviews. 3. The practical side Reference grammar-database This database contains the data of reference grammars concerning both older and contemporary variants of Dutch. Goals: i. to get an idea of which type of constructions concerning the three subprobjects are attested in variants of Dutch ii. to get an idea of which region/period is potentially interesting for a certain type of construction iii. the reference grammar-database both serves as a research tool and as input for the questionnaire 3. The practical side Reference grammar-database At present, the database contains 1768 chunks of data from 71 reference grammars. Apart from the data, it also contains comments of the author of the reference grammar. You can search this database by Looking for concrete bits of data. Problem is spelling. Selecting a subproject: Pronouns, Negation & Quantification, Left Periphery. Using (a combination of) keywords. At this point the keywords are not yet synchronised with those used in the SAND-project and the Corpus Spoken Dutch. Selecting a certain period or region. 3. The practical side The reference grammar database Data Project de miende the mine-de Pron watveurent LP Both in sing and plur Veerdalfhondert “350” N&Q Is 350 Uit: Comments source Keywords Period Region Kloeke Page subst def art pospron poss infl endde Modern Drenthe G048p 125 Modern Drenthe G048p 131 Modern Drenthe G048p 100 subst watvoor endt Sassen, A. 1953. Het Drents van Ruinen. Dissertation RU Groningen. Van Gorcum &Comp, Assen 3. The practical side The questionnaire Goal of this questionnaire: (i) obtain information concerning the morpho-syntax of certain constructions. (ii) serve as input for the oral interviews. The set-up of the questionnaire will be similar to the SAND-questionnaire (cf. Cornips & Jongenburger 2001). It will contain both translation questions and completion tasks. Direct questions on whether sentences are grammatical will be avoided as much as possible. 3. The practical side Methodology of oral interviews Goal of these interviews: obtain information concerning the morpho-syntax of certain specific constructions. Methodology: the methodology of the oral interviews will also be set up similar to that of the interviews of the SAND-project (cf. Cornips & Jongenburger 2001): one dialectspeaker will be instructed so that he can interview another dialectspeaker. This in order to prevent accomodation to the interviewer. The interviews will be recorded. If time allows it, the interviews will be transcribed. 3. The practical side Planning 01-01-2005 15-06-2005 30-10-2005 07-01-2006 15-02-2006 15-04-2006 Start of the project Reference grammar-database First version questionnaire Questionnaires sent out to informants Questionnaires are sent back Questionnaire-database June 2006 December 2006 December 2007 31-12-2008 Start with oral interviews First workshop Second workshop End of the project Practical information Diversity in Dutch DP Design DiDDD Website http://www.let.uu.nl/~mirjam.rigte rink/personal/dutchdpdesign/ DiDDD e-mail [email protected] DiDDD postal address University of Utrecht/UiL-OTS Mirjam Rigterink/Microvariation Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht Netherlands Individual members Norbert Corver [email protected] Marjo van Koppen [email protected] Huib Kranendonk [email protected] Mirjam Rigterink [email protected] References Bennis, H. (1997). Voegwoordvariaties. In: A. van Santen & M. van der Wal (red.). Taal in tijd en ruimte. Leiden: SNL. Bont, A.P. De. (1962). Dialekt van Kempenland. Van Gorcum & Comp.N.V., Assen. Carstens, V. (2003). Rethinking Complementizer Agreement: Agree with a Case-checked Goal. In: Linguistic Inquiry 34, 393-412. Cornips, L. & W. Jongenburger (2001). Het design en de methodologie van het SAND-project. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde 6, pp. 215-232. Corver, N. (2004). The noun phrase: Diversity in Dutch design and the design of diversity. Ms. University of Utrecht. Duinhoven, A.M. (1988). Middelnederlandse syntaxis - synchroon en diachroon; deel 1: de naamwoordgroep. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden. Mazereel, G. (1931). Klank- en vormleer van het Brusselsch dialect met zijne plaatselijke verscheidenheden. Uitgaven van de Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde 6 (52), Leuven . Koppen, M. van (2005). One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. LOT-dissertations 105. Leiden University. Poletto, C. (2000). The higher functional field: Evidence from northern Italian dialects. Oxford University Press. Vin, A. de. (1916). Het dialect van Schouwen-duiveland. Dissertation Leiden.
