Cover not available
Part of
Discourse-oriented Syntax
Edited by Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl and Andreas Trotzke
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226] 2015
► pp. 175–210

The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish

| FWO | Ghent University
| NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
We make an in-depth study of the response particles ja/nee (‘yes/no’) in the Lapscheure dialect of Dutch. These particles show overt phi-feature marking corresponding to what would be the subject of a response clause. Additionally, in ‘reversal answers’, the particles bear additional morphology. We develop a cartographic analysis, arguing that ja/nee represent TP proforms (Krifka 2013). We analyze the pronominal marking as a reflex of phi-features which are merged in Fin to satisfy the Subject Criterion (Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007). We argue that this analysis accounts for a number of facts concerning the distribution of ja/nee, including their incompatibility with (most) clausemate material, and the co-occurrence restrictions between ja/nee, the discourse particle ba, and ‘reversal doet’ (Van Craenenbroeck 2010).
Published online: 16 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.08hae
References (49)
References
Authier, Jean-Marc. 2013. Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 345-89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, de Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda & van der Ham, Margreet. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Vol. I: Commentary. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1]. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86: 85-132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Schutter, Georges & Taeldeman, Johan. 1986. Assimilatie van stem in de zuidelijke Nederlandse dialekten. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V. F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 91-133. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
de Vogelaer, Gunther & van der Auwera, Johan. 2010. When typological rara generate rarissima: Analogical extension of verbal agreement in Dutch dialects. In: Rara & Rarissima. Collecting and Interpreting Unusual Characteristics of Human Language, Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds), 47-73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda. 1986. Het persoonlijk voornaamwoord 2e pers enk in het Westvlaams. Geografie en historiek. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V. F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 167-189. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2005. Taal in Stad en Land. West-vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Bruce, Kim B. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81-118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2014. Discourse-driven head movement, VSO and ellipsis in Russian. Presentation at NELS 45 , MIT, October 31.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7: 333-364.Google Scholar
. 1996. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2002. West Flemish negation and the derivation of SOV order in West Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 154-189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2006. Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: Distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door van . Tabu 35: 135-158.Google Scholar
. 2008. Van + bijwoord van polariteit: Een geval van verplichte PP extrapositie? Tabu 37: 69-74.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2001. The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 141-175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61: 212-236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31-50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle. 2011. Polarity particles: An ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39, Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, & Brian Smith (eds). Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of SALT 23, Todd Snider (ed.), 1-18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in English: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2003. Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 55-77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661-738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2013. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 79-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 1982. Parameterizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57-75.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1986. Projecting features and featuring projections. In Features and Projections, Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 1-30. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, Piet C. 1993. Jaak/neenik enz. Tabu 23: 143-173.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Negative polarity: Entailment and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 149-180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement: Moving on, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Hans-Martin Gärtner & Uli Sauerland (eds), 115-160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Servidio, Emilio. 2014. Polarity Particles in Italian: Focus, Fragments, Tags. PhD dissertation, University of Siena.Google Scholar
Simon, Ellen. 2010. Phonological transfer of voicing and devoicing rules: Evidence from L1 Dutch and L2 English conversational speech. Language Sciences 32: 63–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans. 1995. Morfo-syntaxis van het Westvlaamse bè-jaa-k-gie . Tabu 25: 45-60.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. Tarald. 2001. Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic inversion. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 163-182. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2002. Van as a marker of dissociation: Microvariation in Dutch. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53], C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds), 41-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 167-178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Munaro, Nicola
2024. CLAUSE TYPING IN MAIN POLAR QUESTIONS: EVIDENCE FROM ITALO‐ROMANCE. Studia Linguistica DOI logo
Davidse, Kristin, Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende & Gerard O’Grady
2023. Existential there versus Demonstrative there. In Specificational and Presentational There-Clefts, ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman, Terje Lohndal & Christine Meklenborg
2023. Adverbial Resumption in Verb Second Languages, DOI logo
Vasilescu, Andra
2023. Yes(Rom.Da). Usages and functions in L2 proficiency examinations. Language and Dialogue 13:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Shyu, Shu-ing & Lio̍k-san N̂g
2022. Non-veridical kaN in Taiwanese Southern Min. In New Explorations in Chinese Theoretical Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 272], ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.