Advertisement

Preposition doubling in Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs

  • Lobke Aelbrecht
  • Marcel den Dikken
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper explores the previously undiscussed phenomenon of preposition doubling in Flemish Dutch dialects. It offers an account for the properties of this phenomenon adapting the basic internal structures for Dutch PPs proposed by Koopman (2010) and Den Dikken (2010a). They argue following Van Riemsdijk (1978, 1990) that PPs contain functional structure, parallel to the verbal and nominal domain: the lexical P is dominated by a PlaceP–parallel to vP–and also a DegP, hosting degree modifiers, and a CP[Place]. We argue that doubling PPs are the result of identical spell-out of a locative P-element (PLoc) and a directional P-element (PDir), in a structure in which PLoc has a full extended projection but PDir does not. The CP[Place] in the functional layer of PLoc in doubling PPs is defective, which derives doubling as well as the distribution of R-words in these PPs. C[Place]’s defectivity also provides a window on the cross-dialectal distribution of P-doubling: the availability of P-doubling in certain dialects is correlated with the use of the directional preposition van ‘of, from’ as the introducer of infinitival clauses exhibiting NP-raising.

Keywords

Preposition doubling Circumpositions R-pronouns Defective C Extended projection EPP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arregi, Karlos. 2003. Clausal pied piping. Natural Language Semantics 11: 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbiers, Sjef. 2000. The right periphery of SOV languages: English and Dutch. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 181–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Barbiers, Sjef, Olaf Koeneman, and Marika Lekakou. 2009. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 45: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergh, Gunnar. 1998. Double prepositions in English. In Advances in English historical linguistics, ed. Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier, 1–13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergh, Gunnar, and Aimo Seppänen. 2000. Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics 4: 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booij, Geert. 2002. Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation. In Verb-particle explorations, ed. Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew Macintyre, and Silke Urban, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Booij, Geert. 2008. Pseudo-incorporation in Dutch. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 46: 2–26.Google Scholar
  8. Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 2006. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Freidin Robert, Otero Carlos, and Zubizaretta Maria-Luisa. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. den Dikken, Marcel. 2010a. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, ed. Cinque Guglielmo and Rizzi Luigi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. den Dikken, Marcel. 2010b. Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP: A critical review. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. When particles won’t part. Paper presented at CGSW18, University of Durham. http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/lingu/dendikken/docs/particles.pdf.
  14. Fowlie, Meaghan. 2010. More multiple multiple spell-out. In Proceedings of GLOW 31 Principles of Linearisation workshop. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Gehrke, Berit. 2007. On directional readings of locative prepositions. In Proceedings of Console XIV, ed. Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente, and Erik Schoorlemmer, 99120.Google Scholar
  16. Grimshaw, Jane. 1991/2005. Extended projection. In Words and structure, ed. Jane Grimshaw, 1–73. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  17. Haddican Bill, Hidekazu Tanaka, and George Tsoulas. 2006. Clausal pied-piping in English. Talk presented at NESS, Edinburgh, November 17, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Haider, Hubert. 2000. OV is more basic than VO. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Helmantel, Marjon. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
  20. Hermon, Gabriella. 1984. Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  21. Hoekstra, Teun, Monic Lansu, and Marion Westerduin. 1987. Complexe verba. Glot 10: 61–79.Google Scholar
  22. Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Null subject parameters. In Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Huijbregts, Riny, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 2007. Location and locality. In Clausal and phrasal architecture: syntactic derivation and interpretation: A Festschrift for Joseph E. Emonds, ed. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy Wilkins, 339–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Jónsson, Jóhannes G. 2008. Preposition reduplication in Icelandic. In Microvariations in syntactic doubling (Syntax and Semantics 36), ed. Sjef Barbiers, Margreet Van der Ham, Olaf Koeneman, and Marika Lekakou, 403–417. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Koopman, Hilda. 1995. De plaats van geinkorporeerde hoofden in de werkwoordskluster. Tabu 25: 174–179.Google Scholar
  27. Koopman, Hilda. 2010. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, ed. Cinque Guglielmo and Rizzi Luigi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Li, Yafei. 1990. X°-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 399–426.Google Scholar
  30. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque: A GB approach to Basque syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  32. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1993. Feature percolation and clausal pied-piping. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 189–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Radford, Andrew. 2004. English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Radford, Andrew, and Claudia Felser. 2011. On preposition copying and preposition pruning in wh-clauses in English. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 60.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, Ian. 2010. A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michele Sheehan, 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rudkowski, Paweł. 2007. The syntactic properties and diachronic development of postnominal adjectives in Polish. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 15: The Toronto meeting 2006, ed. Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska, and Ulyana Savchenko, 326–345. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Shim, Ji Young. 2012. Deriving word order in code-switching: Feature inheritance and light verbs. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, Andrew, and Tanmoy Bhattacharya. 2003. Obligatory overt wh-movement in a wh-in-situ language. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Troseth, Erika. 2004. Negative inversion and degree inversion in the English DP. Linguistics in the Big Apple. http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Linguistics/liba/papers/troseth_LIBA.pdf
  40. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2000. Complementerend van: een voorbeeld van syntactische variatie in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5: 133–163.Google Scholar
  41. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  42. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Unity in diversity. Festschrift for Simon Dik, ed. Harm Pinkster and Inge Genée, 229–242. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  43. Yadroff, Michael, and Steven Franks. 2001. The origin of prepositions. In Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics, ed. Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Grit Mehlhorn, and Luka Szucsich, 69–79. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GISTGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.CUNY Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations