Article published In:
Linguistic Variation: Online-First Articles

Variation in the use of the partitive pronoun ER in regional (Heerlen) standard Dutch

| NL-Lab (KNAW)
ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam
This paper focuses on the variable use of partitive er in two types of constructions. First, er combined with cardinal numbers like drie ‘three’ and quantifiers like genoeg ‘enough’. Second, er combined with an elliptical noun referring to age and weight. Er should be present in the first case (Ik heb *(er) drie ‘I have three’) but absent in the second case (Hij is (*er) tachtig ‘He is eighty’), according to normative Dutch grammars.
The spontaneous spoken speech of 67 speakers born and raised in Heerlen, in the southeast of the Netherlands was analyzed, investigating the use of er also according to social distribution: language background, education/occupation and age.
The results show that er is used variably in the two types of constructions. It was found that younger speakers differ in some contexts from older speakers, suggesting that language change is going on, possibly under the influence of standard Dutch.
Keywords: partitive pronoun, quantifier, age, social distribution, Heerlen Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The emergence of Heerlen Dutch
  • 3.Research questions, hypotheses, and methodology
    • 3.1Research questions and hypotheses
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Data
    • 3.4Searching the corpus
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1The quantificational construction
    • 4.2The age/weight construction
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The quantificational construction
    • 5.2The age/weight construction
    • 5.3Linguistic analysis
      • 5.3.1The quantificational construction
      • 5.3.2The age/weight construction
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

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

Published online: 22 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.23026.cor
References (41)
References
Barbiers, Sjef. 2017. Kwantitatief er en ze [Quantitative er and ze ]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 22(2). 163–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1981. The syntax of “NE”. Some theoretical implications. The Linguistic Review 1(2). 117–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Berends, Sanne. 2019. Acquiring Dutch quantitative ER. Amsterdam: LOT.Google Scholar
Blom, Alied. 1977. Het kwantitatieve er [The quantitative pronoun er ]. Spektator 61. 387–395.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. Expletive split: Existentials and presentationals. North East Linguistics Society 29(2). Article 6. [URL]
Brassé, Paul & Willem van Schelven. 1980. Assimilatie van vooroorlogse immigranten, drie generaties Polen, Slovenen, Italianen in Heerlen [Assimilation of pre-war immigrants, three generations of Poles, Slovenians, Italians in Heerlen]. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2013. Syntax of Dutch. Adpositions and adpositional phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and spoken language. In Leonie Cornips & Karen P. Corrigan (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, 81–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, Johan De Caluwe, Walter Haeseryn, Ronny Boogaart, Frank Landsbergen, Johan Van Hoorde. 2021. Electronic ANS (Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst) [Dutch Reference Grammar].Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1994. Syntactische variatie in het algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen [Syntactic variation in Heerlen Dutch]. Amsterdam: IFOTT, University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
. 1998. Syntactic variation, parameters and their social distribution. Language Variation and Change 10(1). 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Heerlens Nederlands [Heerlen Dutch]. The Hague: Sdu.Google Scholar
. 2013. Recent developments in the Limburg dialect region. In Frans Hinskens & Johan Taeldeman (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 31: Dutch, 378–399. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Language contact, linguistic variability and the construction of local identities. In Tor A. Åfarlí & Brit Mæhlum (eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar, 67–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Aafke Hulk. 1996. Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French. Studia Linguistica 50(1). 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1997. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 151. 289–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert, Marjo van Koppen, Huib Kranendonk & Mirjam Rigterink. 2011. Database Diversity in Dutch DP Design (DDiDD). Utrecht, UiL-OTS. [URL]
Döhmer, Caroline. 2018. A new perspective on the Luxembourgish genitive. In Tanja Ackermann, Horst J. Simon & Christian Zimmer (eds.), Germanic genitives (Studies in Language Companion Series 193), 15–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2021. Partitivity in Italian: A Protocol approach to a multifaceted phenomenon. In Petra Sleeman & Giuliana Giusti (eds.), Partitive determiners, partitive pronouns and partitive case (Linguistische Arbeiten 580). Berlin: De Gruyter, 33–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Elvira. 1992. Umbau partitiver Strukturen in der Geschichte des Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 17(2). 113–132.Google Scholar
. 1993. Syntaktische Strategien zum Ausdruck von Indefinitheit und Partitivität im Deutschen (Standardsprache und Dialekt). In Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds.), Dialektsyntax, 99–116. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Syntaktische Raumbilder. In Peter Ernst & Franz Patocka (eds.), Dialektgeographie der Zukunft, 85–111. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan. 2009. Woordvolgorde in presentatieve zinnen en de theoretische basis van multi-factoriële grammatica [The word order of presentational sentences and the theoretical basis of multifactorial grammar]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14(3). 282–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [Dutch reference grammar], 2nd edn. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hanse, Joseph. 1987. Nouveau dictionnaire des difficultés du français moderne, 2nd revised edn. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben. 2013. Phonological features of Limburgian dialects. In Frans Hinskens & Johan Taeldeman (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 31: Dutch, 336–356. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12(1). 93–133.Google Scholar
Kranendonk, Huib. 2010. Quantificational constructions in the nominal domain: Facets of Dutch microvariation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 11. 99–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattens, Wim. 1987. Het partitieve ER in de ANS [The partitive pronoun ER in the Dutch Reference Grammar]. Nederlands van NU 351. 68–77.Google Scholar
Rooij, Jaap de. 1991. Regionale variatie en gebruik van ER II [Regional variation and use of ER II]. Taal en Tongval 431. 18–46.Google Scholar
Schutter, Georges de. 1992. Partitief of kwantitatief ER, of over de verklaring van syntactische variatie [Partitive or quantitative ER, or about the explanation of syntactic variation]. Taal en Tongval 44(1), 15–26.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 1998. The quantitative pronoun ER in Dutch dialects. In Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Small words in the big picture. Squibs for Hans Bennis, 107–111. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2023. Partitive pronouns in intransitive contexts in Italian and Dutch. In Silvia Luraghi & Petra Sleeman (eds.), Partitives cross-linguistically. Dimensions of variation. Special issue of Linguistic Variation 23(1). 217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. The partitive pronoun ER in two national varieties of standard Dutch. In Elvira Glaser, Petra Sleeman, Thomas Strobel & Anne Tamm (eds.), Partitive constructions and partitive elements within and across language borders in Europe (Linguaggio e Variazione. Variation in Language). Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra & Tabea Ihsane. 2020. Convergence and divergence in the expression of partitivity in French, Dutch, and German. Linguistics 58(3). 767–804. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobel, Thomas. 2013. On the spatial structure of the syntactic variable ‘pronominal partitivity’ in German dialects. In Ernestina Carrilho, Catarina Magro & Xosé Álvarez (eds.), Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectology, 399–435. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2016. Die syntaktische Variable ‘pronominale Partitivität’ in den deutschen Dialekten. In Alexandra N. Lenz & Franz Patocka (eds.), Syntaktische Variation: Areallinguistische Perspektiven, 151–197. Vienna: Wiener Arbeiten zur Linguistik. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Pronominale Partitivität. Arealität und Mikrovariation einer morphosyntaktischen Variable in den Varietäten des Deutschen. Frankfurt: University of Frankfurt dissertation.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sleeman, Petra
2024. The Partitive Pronoun ER in Two National Varieties of Standard Dutch . In Partitive Constructions and Partitive Elements Within and Across Language Borders in Europe , DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.