Finiteness and response particles in West Flemish
The empirical focus of the chapter is the morphosyntax of the morphologically marked response particles ja and neen in the Lapscheure dialect of West Flemish. Building on Krifka (2013)’s analysis of the corresponding German response particles ja/nein as TP pro-forms, we analyze morphologically marked Flemish ja/neen as TP pro-forms. First we show that the morphological marking on these particles is sui generis: it does not correspond to the marking found on verbs nor does it correspond to a clitic form of the subject pronoun. We develop a cartographic analysis of the syntax of the morphologically marked response particles in the dialect, endorsing Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006, 2007)’s proposal that a finite TP is dominated by a specialized projection for the subject, SubjP, a criterial projection. The pronominal marking on ja/neen is an instantiation of finiteness. If all finite clauses have SubjP then the finite TP pro-form realized by morphologically marked ja/neen is also dominated by (the criterial) SubjP. In the absence of an overt subject, following Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006, 2007), we assume that the Subject Criterion is satisfied by nominal φ-features generated on Fin and that morphologically marked ja/neen moves to Fin in order to license these features. Our analysis predicts that West Flemish morphologically marked ja/neen are a root phenomenon. In addition to the variant with pronominal marking, there is also a bare variant of the ja/neen pro-forms. The presence and absence of the pronominal marking on ja/neen correlates fairly closely with the distribution of finite and non-finite clauses, and we correlate the presence vs. absence of pronominal marking with a finiteness opposition.
References (53)
References
Adger, David. 2007. Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective. In Finiteness Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. , Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 23-58. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Authier, Jean-Marc. 2013. Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3): 345-89. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, De Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda & van der Ham, Margreet. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Vol. I: Commentary. Amsterdam: AUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2], Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth. This volume. Finiteness and pseudofiniteness.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1):167-178. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86(1):85-132. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2005. Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese Dialecten. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
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: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Devos, Magda & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2005. Taal in stad en land. West-vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2009. Finiteness: the haves and the have-nots. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger & Florian Schäfer (eds), 357-90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7(4): 333-364. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haegeman, Liliane. 1996. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. <[URL]>
Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between C° and T°. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 441–454. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haegeman, Liliane & Weir, Andrew. 2015. The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish. In Discourse-oriented Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226], Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds), 175-210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoeksema, Jack. 2006. Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: Distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door van
. Tabu 35(3-4):135-158.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoeksema, Jack. 2008. Van + bijwoord van polariteit: Een geval van verplichte PP extrapositie? Tabu 37(1-2):69-74.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmberg, Anders. 2001. The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55(2):141-175. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmberg, Anders. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61(3):212-236. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmberg, Anders. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31-50. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of SALT 23, Todd Snider (ed.), 1-18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811-77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6):661-738. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muysken, Pieter. 1982. Parameterizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57-75.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paardekooper, Piet C. 1993. Jaak/neenik enz. Tabu 23(3):143-173.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365-424.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Lai-shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Craige. (2012/1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5:1-69. Originally published in OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in semantics
, Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds). Columbus OH: The Ohio State University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In The structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 297-328. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Servidio, Emilio. 2014. Polarity Particles in Italian: Focus, Fragments, Tags. PhD dissertation, University of Siena.
Simon, Ellen. 2010. Phonological transfer of voicing and devoicing rules: Evidence from L1 Dutch and L2 English conversational speech. Language Sciences 32(1): 63–86. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smessaert, Hans. 1995. Morfo-syntaxis van het Westvlaamse bè-jaa-k-gie
. Tabu 25(1):45-60.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2005. Overt infinitival subjects (if that’s what they are). Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds), 618-25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taraldsen, Knut 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Travis, Lisa. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 403-447. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman, Terje Lohndal & Christine Meklenborg
2023.
Adverbial Resumption in Verb Second Languages,
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.