Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2020
Edited by Elena Tribushinina and Mark Dingemanse
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 37] 2020
► pp. 135–148

All good and well

Introducing an objection in Dutch

| Meertens Instituut
The Dutch expression goed en wel ‘good and well’ is polysemous. In one of its uses, goed en wel combines with a universal quantifier alles or allemaal ‘all’ and the conjunction maar ‘but’. The resulting construction is typically used to introduce a contrary reaction to an earlier utterance or suggestion. The combination is shown to fit into a larger class of pragmatic operators, which are argued to be instances of lexicalized pragmatics.
Keywords: pragmatics, construction, objection
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. On the history of alles/allemaal goed en wel
  • 3. On the function of alles/allemaal goed en wel
  • 4.The elements of the construction
    • 4.1The universal quantifier
    • 4.2The synonymous adverbs
    • 4.3The conjunction
    • 4.4The sentence containing the contrary reaction
  • 5.The broader picture
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00042.wou
References (26)
References
Broekhuis, Hans & Marcel den Dikken. 2020. “The use of allemaal as an independent constituent. Taalportaal.” Retrieved from [URL]. (accessed 13 April 2020).
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cirillo, Robert. 2009. “The syntax of floating quantifiers: Stranding revisited.” PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cooper, William E. & John Robert Ross. 1975. “Word order.” Papers from the parasession on functionalism ed. by R. E. Grossman, L. J. San & T. J. Vance. 63–111. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Coppen, Peter-Arno. 1991. “Specifying the noun phrase.” PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
[Van Dale] = den Boon, Ton, Ruud Hendrickx, & Nicoline van der Sijs (eds.). 2015. Van Dale groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. 15th ed. Utrecht and Anwerpen: Van Dale.Google Scholar
Droste, Flip G. 2017. “Het zinspronomen.” Leuvense Bijdragen 1011: 42–50.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1993. “De betekenis van partikels. Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onder-zoek met bijzondere aandacht voor maar .” PhD dissertation, Univerisity of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Pragmatic particles.” In Handbook of Pragmatics ed by J. Verscheren, J. -O. Östman, J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen. 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1980. “Cross-categorial semantics for coordination.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 307–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack & Ton van der Wouden. 2020. “On the Dutch temporal adverbial goed en wel .” This volume1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Larence R. 1984. “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature.” In Meaning, form, and use in context ed. by D. Shiffrin. 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization. A programmatic sketch. Vol. I1. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts, Nr. 481. Köln.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mastop, Rosja. 2005. “What can you do? Imperative mood in semantic theory.” PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Moerdijk, Fons. 1994. Handleiding bij het Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT). ’s-Gravenhage: Sdu Uitgeverij Koninginnegracht.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke. 2000. “The Spoken Dutch Corpus. Overview and first evaluation.” Proceedings of LREC-2000 21: 887–894.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke & Daan Broeder. 2003. “The Spoken Dutch Corpus and its exploitation environment.” Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora (LINC-03). 14 April, 2003. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, Lonneke. 2013. “Allemaal allemaals, wat is dat toch allemaal? Een empirische studie naar het gebruik van het Nederlandse woord allemaal .” Bachelor Thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. [URL]
Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Tom Wasow & Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and How to Distinguish Categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 117–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Tom Wasow & Emily Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction (2nd ed.). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. De nominale constituent. Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
[WNT] = de Vries, Matthias & Lammert A. te Winkel [e.a.] (eds.). 1864–1998. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. ‘s-Gravenhage [etc.]: Martinus Nijhoff [etc.].Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hoeksema, Jack & Ton van der Wouden
2020. On the Dutch temporal adverbial goed en wel . Linguistics in the Netherlands 37 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.