Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Dialektsyntax pp 246–270Cite as

Clues from Dialect Syntax: Complementizer Agreement

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft ((LINGB,volume 5))

Abstract

It is common opinion among linguists, that languages and dialects cannot be distinguished in a principled way. Languages differ from each other with respect to certain syntactic phenomena, but so do dialects. Especially recent theoretical developments have provided the tools needed to describe these differences in an explanatory way. However, these tools will not serve to distinguish, say, Dutch dialects from the Dutch language. To be sure, we cannot exclude the possibility that one dialect of Dutch called Standard Dutch can be distinguished from all other dialects of Dutch by certain distinct linguistic criteria. However, this would be a matter of accidental taxonomy rather than one of methodological principle. More interesting is the possibility that a phenomenon present only in certain dialects of Dutch reveals properties shared by all dialects of Dutch, but not by any dialect of, say, English. Obviously, this calls for generalizations at an appropriate level of abstraction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Altmann, H. (1984): “Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart”. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51, 191–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, J. (1984): “COMP in Bavarian Syntax”. The Linguistic Review 3, 209–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, H. & L. Haegeman (1984): “On the Status of Agreement and Relative Clauses in West Flemish”. In: W. de Geest & Y. Putseys,: Sentential Complementation. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, H. (1990): Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Diss. University of Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruch, R. (1973): Précis populaire de Grammaire Luxembourgeoise. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1991): “Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation”. In: R. Freidin, ed.: Principles and Parameters in Comparative Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1992): “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”. MIT Occasional Working Papers in Linguistics 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, K. & E. Engdahl (1989): “Null Subjects in Zurich German”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, P. (1991): “Topicalization, Inversion, and Complementizers in English”. Ms. Ohio State University, Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Geest, W. (1990): “Complementizer Agreement, Clitic Doubling, and Clitic Climbing in the Ghent Dialect”. Paper presented at the ESF Workshop on Clitics and Other Non-Lexical Categories. University of Tilburg, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ginneken, J. (1939): “De vervoeging der onderschikkende voegwoorden en voornaamwoorden”. Onze Taaltuin 8, 1–11, 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givdn, T. (1971): “Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology: An Archeologist’s Field Trip”. CLS 12, 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeman, T. (1980): “COMP-Agreement?”. In: W. Zonneveld, ed.: Linguistics in the Netherlands 1977–1979. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeman, T. (1992): “Voorbeelden van Paardekooper z’n ‘vaste aansluiting’. Werkwoordssuffigering in enclise bij monosyllabische werkwoorden, 2e persoon enkelvoud”. In: H. Bennis & J.W. de Vries,: De binnenbouw van het Nederlands. Dordrecht: ICG Printing, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haan, G. (1992): “Inflection and Cliticization in Frisian -sto, -ste, -st”. Ms. University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haan, G. & F. Weerman (1986): “Finiteness and Verb Fronting in Frisian”. In: H. Haider & M. Prinzhom,: Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, L. (1990): “Subject Pronouns and Subject Clitics in West Flemish”. The Linguistic Review 7, 333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Haeringen, C.B. (1939): “Congruerende Voegwoorden”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal-en Letterkunde LVIII, 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Haeringen, C.B. (1958): “Vervoegde voegwoorden in het Oosten”. In: C.B. van Haeringen: Gramarie. Utrecht: HES, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnisch, R. (1989): “Die sogenannte ‘sogenannte Flexion der Konjunktionen’. Ein Paradigma aus der Bavaria thuringica”. In: E. Koller, W. Wegstein & N.R. Wolff, Hrsg.: Bayerisch-Österreichische Dialektforschung. Würzburg, 283–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekema, T. (1955): “Konjugaesje, kumulphoby, of folksetymologyske analyse fan enklisefoarmingen?”. It Baeken 17, 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, J. (1986): “Some Theoretical Consequences of Dutch Complementizer Agreement”. BLS 12, 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, E. & C.J.W. Zwart (1992): “Topicalisatie in het Nederlands”. Paper presented at the TABU-dag, Groningen, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, J. & L. Marâcz (1989a): “On the Position of Inflection in West Germanic”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, J. & L. Maricz (1989b): “Some Implications of I-to-C Movement in Frisian”. In: H. Bennis & A. van Kemenade,: Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, J.B. & S.A. Thompson (1973): “On the Applicability of Root Transformations”. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E. (1991): “Non-Extraposition of CP”. Ms. University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. (1992): “Word Order”. GLOW Guest Lecture. Lisbon, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Körner, K.-H. (1984): “Deutsche Dialekte und fremde Sprachen. Teil III: Pronominale Subjektsenklise”. In: H. Krenn, J. Niemeyer, & U. Eberhardt, Hrsg.: Sprache und Text. Tübingen, I 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, H. (1984): The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraskow, T. (1990): “On Multiple Questions in Slavic”. Paper presented at the Workshop on Scrambling. Tilburg University, October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, H.L. (1961): Strukturelle Grammatik der Münchner Stadtmundart. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, P. (1991): “Verb Movement, Expletive Replacement, and Head Government”. Paper presented at GLOW. Leiden, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, A. (1989): On the A/A’-distinction and Movement Theory. Diss. MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer, G. (1991): “The ‘Conjugation’ of Subclause Introducers: Frisian -st”. NOWELE 17, 63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G. & W. Sternefeld (1992): “A-Movement Asymmetries”. GLOW Newsletter 28, 36–37. Paper presented at GLOW. Lisbon, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfalz, A. (1918): “Suffigierung der Personalpronomina im Donau-bairischen”. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, Chr. (1992): “Phi-features as Clitics”. Paper presented at the ESF Workshop on Clitics and Other Non-lexical Categories. Lund, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. & S. Vikner (1989): “All Verb Second Clauses Are CPs”. Working Papers in Scandinavion Syntax 43, 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlonsky, U. (1992): “The Representation of Agreement in Comp and Subject Clitics in West Flemish”. Ms. University of Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. (1987): “Enclitische verschijnselen in het Westbrabants”. Taal en Tongval 39, 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, L. (1984): Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Diss. MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, L. (1991): “Parameters of Phrase Structure and V2 Phenomena”. In: R. Freidin,: Principles and Parameters in Comparative Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanacker, F. (1949): “Over enkele meervoudsvormen van voegwoorden”. Taal en Tongval 1, 32–45, 76–93, 108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikner, S. (1991): Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP Positions in the Germanic Languages. Diss. University of Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Visser, M. (1979): “Voegwoord, relatief partikel en persoonsvorm in een dialect”. Taal en Tongval 31, 222–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, W. (1988): “In pear klitisearringsferskynsels yn it Frysk”. In: S. Dyk & G.J. de Haan,: Wurdfoarried en Wurdgrammatika. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 175–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, W. (1939): “Congruerende Voegwoorden”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal-en Letterkunde 59, 78–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weise, O. (1907): “Die sogenannte Flexion der Konjunktionen”. Zeitschrift Deutscher Mundarten, 199–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, O. (1988): “Mundartliche Enklisen bei Schmeller und heute”. In: L.M. Eichinger & B. Naumann, Hrsg.: Johann Andreas Schmeller und der Beginn der Germanistik. München, 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weijnen, A. (1939): “Congruerende verbindingswoorden”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal-en Letterkunde 59, 73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, C.J.W. (1991a): “Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the Position of INFL”. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 33, 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, C.J.W. (1991b): “Subject Deletion in Dutch: A Difference between Subjects and Topics”. In: M. Kas, E. Reuland, & C. Vet,: Zwart, C.J.W 1. University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, C.J.W. (1991c): “Agreement Phenomena in the Germanic Languages”. Talk given at the CUNY Graduate Center, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, C.J.W. (1992a): “Verb Movement and Complementizer Agreement”. GLOW Newsletter 28, 58–59. Paper presented at GLOW. Lisbon, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, C.J.W. (1992b): “Dutch Expletives and Small Clause Predicate Raising”. Proceedings of NELS 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, C.J.W. (1992c): “Notes on Clitics in Dutch”. Paper presented at the ESF Workshop on Clitics and Other Non-Lexical Categories. Lund, May.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Groningen, Niederlande

    Jan-Wouter Zwart

Authors
  1. Jan-Wouter Zwart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Werner Abraham Josef Bayer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, Opladen

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zwart, JW. (1993). Clues from Dialect Syntax: Complementizer Agreement. In: Abraham, W., Bayer, J. (eds) Dialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, vol 5. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97032-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97032-9_13

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-12422-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-322-97032-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation