Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:44:29.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Corpus-Based Analysis of V2 Variation in West Flemish and French Flemish Dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

Chloé Lybaert ,
Bernard De Clerck ,
Jorien Saelens  and
Ludovic De Cuypere
Chloé Lybaert*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Bernard De Clerck*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Jorien Saelens*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Ludovic De Cuypere*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
*
Ghent University, Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, [chloe.lybaert@ugent.be], [bernard.declerck@ugent.be]
Ghent University, Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, [chloe.lybaert@ugent.be], [bernard.declerck@ugent.be]
[jorien.saelens@ugent.be]
Linguistics Department, Jubileumlaan 33-35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, [ludovic.decuypere@ugent.be]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores V2 variation in West Flemish and French Flemish dialects of Dutch based on an extensive corpus of authentic spoken data. After taking stock of the existing literature, we probe into the effect of region, prosodic integration, form and function of the topicalized constituent, form of the subject, and the number of constituents in the prefield on (non)inverted word order. This is the first study that carries out regression analysis on the combined impact of these variables in the entire West Flemish and French Flemish region, with additional visualization of effect sizes. The results show that noninversion is generally more widespread than originally anticipated, with unexpected higher occurrence of noninversion in continental West Flemish and lower frequencies in western West Flemish. With the exception of the variable number of constituents in the prefield, all other variables had a significant impact on word order: Clausal topicalized elements, elements that have peripheral functions, and elements that lack prosodic integration all favor noninverted word order. The form of the subject also impacted word order, but its effect is sometimes overruled by discourse considerations.

Keywords

syntactic variationV2mixed effects regression analysisFrench and West Flemish dialects
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 43 - 100
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 2003. Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe. Journal of French Language Studies 13. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin. 2007. Studies on Old High German syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb second. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, de Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda, & van der Ham, Margreet. 2005. Syntactische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten: Deel 1 (SAND 2005). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3. 209–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola, & Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. On some descriptive generalizations in Romance. Handbook of comparative syntax, ed. by Cinque, Giglielmo & Kayne, Richard, 221–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, & Corver, Norbert. 2016. Main clause external elements. Dutch syntax. Verbs and verb phrases, vol. 3, ed. by By Broekhuis, Hans & Corver, Norbert, 1679–1733. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic change in Germanic. Aspects of language change in Germanic. With particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2007. Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd edn. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Cognola, Federica. 2013. Syntactic variation and verb second: A German dialect in Northern Italy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie, & Jongenburger, Willy. 2001. Het design en de methodologie van het SAND-project. Nederlandse Taalkunde 6. 1–12.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie. 2004. De plaats van de persoonsvorm in de hoofdzin: verandering of status-quo? Schatbewaarder van de taal. Liber amicorum Johan Taeldeman, ed. by De Caluwe, Johan, Devos, Magda, Van Keymeulen, Jacques, & De Schutter, Georges, 235–244. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
De Caluwe, Johan. 2006. Tussentaal als natuurlijke omgangstaal in Vlaanderen. Structuren in talige variatie in Vlaanderen, ed. by De Caluwe, Johan & Devos, Magda, 19–34. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
De Caluwe, Johan, Delarue, Steven, Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie, & Lybaert, Chloé (eds.). 2013. Tussentaal. Over de talige ruimte tussen dialect en standaardtaal in Vlaanderen. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2008. (De)grammaticalisation as a source for new constructions: The case of subject doubling in Dutch. Constructions and language change, ed. by Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele, 229–257. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2010. Does grammaticalisation need analogy? Different pathways on the “pronoun/agreement marker”-cline. Grammaticalisation: Current views and issues, ed. by Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke, & König, Ekkehard, 221–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debrabandere, Frans. 1976. De SVf-woordorde in zinnen met aanloop. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie & Dialectologie 50. 87–97.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2015. Adverbials and the left periphery: Syntax and Information Structure in the History of German. The 17th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DiGS17) abstract. http://conference.hi.is/digs17/files/2014/08/abstract_demske.pdf, accessed on May 28, 2016.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda, & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2005. West-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Bryan. 2012. Initial subordinate clauses in Old French: Syntactic variation and the clausal left periphery. Lingua 122. 1021–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Kemenade, Ans van, Koopman, Willem, & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8. 1–27. Available at http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/, accessed on May 16, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike, Cornips, Leonie, Ganuza, Natalia, Nistov, Ingvild, & Opsahl, Toril. 2013. Urban vernaculars in contemporary northern Europe: Innovative variants of V2 in Germany, Norway and Sweden. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 119. Available at https://www.academia.edu/6173009/WP119_Freywald_Cornips_Ganuza_Nistov_and_Opsahl_2014._Urban_vernaculars_in_contemporary_northern_Europe_Innovative_variants_of_V2_in_Germany_Norway_and_Sweden, accessed on May 28, 2016.Google Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike, Cornips, Leonie, Ganuza, Natalia, Nistov, Ingvild, & Toril, Opsahl. 2015. Beyond verb second—a matter of novel information structural effects? Evidence from Norwegian, Swedish, German and Dutch. Language, youth and identity in the 21st century: Linguistic practices across urban spaces, ed. by Nortier, Jacomine & Svendsen, Bente A., 73–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria (ed.). 2000. Linguistics: An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Ganuza, Natalia. 2008. Syntactic variation in the Swedish of adolescents in multilingual urban settings. Subject-verb order in declaratives, questions and subordinate clauses. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, Marinel. 1980. An analysis of the rise of SOV patterns in Dutch. Current issues in linguistics theory, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth C., Labrum, Rebecca, & Shepherd, Susan C., 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie, & Van Keymeulen, Jacques. 2014. Dialectcompetentie en functionaliteit van het dialect in Vlaanderen anno 2013. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 130. 117–139.Google Scholar
Goeman, Ton, van Oostendorp, Marc, van Reenen, Pieter, Koornwinder, Oele, van den Berg, Boudewijn, & van Reenen, Anke. 2008. Morfologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten: Deel 2 (=MAND 2008). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, Ciro, & Haegeman, Liliane. 2016. Frame setters and the microvariation of subject-initial V2. Paper presented at the Syntax-Discourse Interface Conference held at the Centre de Lingüística Theòretica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, November 10–11, 2016. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003226/current.pdf, accessed on May 16, 2017.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Universals of language, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Observations on the loss of verb second in the history of English. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Zwart, Jan-Wouter & Abraham, Werner, 245–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, & Greco, Ciro. 2018. West Flemish V3 and the interaction of syntax and discourse. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 21. 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, de Rooij, Jaap, & van den Toorn, Maarten. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (E-ANS 2012). Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff. Available at http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/index.html, accessed on May 22, 2016.Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E., Jr., with contributions from Charles Dupont and many others. 2016. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 3.17-4. Available at https://www.statmethods.net/interface/packages.html.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2014. De plaats van het voorzetselvoorwerp. Nederlandse Taalkunde 19. 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hook, Peter. 1976. Is Kashmiri an SVO language? Indian Linguistics 37. 133–142.Google Scholar
Hoppenbrouwers, Cor. 1990. Het regiolect. Van dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg. 2001. Word order change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Bengt. 1951. Inversion in English with special reference to the Early Modern English period. Uppsala: Almqvist.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Jürgen, & Van Hoof, Sarah. 2013. Hyperstandardisation in Flanders: Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics 23. 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahle, David, & Wickham, Hadley. 2013. ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5. 144–161. Available at http://journal.r-project.org/archive/2013-1/kahle-wickham.pdf, accessed on May 16, 2017.Google Scholar
Kern, Friederike, & Selting, Margret. 2006. Einheitenkonstruktion im Türkendeutschen: Grammatische und prosodische Aspekte. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25. 239–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1994. Old English. A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. by Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A., 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liver, Ricarda. 2009. Deutsche Einflüsse im Bündnerromanischen. Deutsch und seine Nachbarn, ed. by Elmentaler, Michael, 133–148. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13. 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend, Swann, Joan, Deumert, Ana, & Leap, William L.. 2009. Introducing sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Opsahl, Toril. 2009. “Egentlig alle kan bidra!” En samling sosiolingvistiske studier av strukturelle trekk ved norsk i multietniske ungdomsmiljøer i Oslo. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1994. Transformational grammar: From rules to principles and parameters. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, Piet. 1955. Syntaxis, spraakkunst en taalkunde. Den Bosch: L.C.G. Malmberg.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2008. Doubling as splitting. Microvariations in syntactic doubling, ed. by Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf, & Lekakou, Marika, 37–68. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlett, Paul. 2007. The syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryckeboer, Hugo. 2004. Frans-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Saelens, Jorien. 2014. Topicalizering zonder inversie: een ingveonisme? Een corpusstudie van de inversiealternantie in het Frans- en West-Vlaams. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Sollid, Hilde, & Eide, Kristin M.. 2007. On verb second and the sa-construction in Mainland Scandinavian L2. Nordlyd 34. 7–28.Google Scholar
Steiner, Britanny. 2014. The evolution of information structure and verb second in the history of French. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana dissertation.Google Scholar
Swieczkowski, Walerian. 1962. Word order patterning in Middle English. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 1982. “Ingwäonismen” in Flandern. Die Leistung der Strataforschung und der Kreolistik. Typologische Aspekte der Sprachkontakte, ed. by Ureland, Per Sture, 277–296. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: University Press.Google Scholar
Vanacker, Valeer-Frits. 1967. Syntaktische Daten aus franzözisch-flämischen Tonbandaufnahmen. Verhandlungen des 2en Internationalen Dialektologen-kongresses. Special Issue of Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 3-4, ed. by Schmidt, Ludwig Erich, 844–855. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Vanacker, Valeer-Frits. 1977. Syntactische overeenkomsten tussen Frans-Vlaamse en Westvlaamse dialekten. De Franse Nederlanden. Les Pays-Bas Français 1977. 206–216.Google Scholar
Vance, Barbara, Donaldson, Bryan, & Steiner, Devan. 2009. V2 Loss in Old French and Old Occitan: The role of fronted clauses. Romance linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the Thirty Ninth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Colina, Sonia, Olarrea, Antxon, & Carvalho, Ana Maria, 301–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2000. Structurele en sociale aspecten van dialectverandering. De dynamiek van het Deerlijkse dialect. Gent: KANTL.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, Roxane. 2006. De morfosyntaxis van de Middelnederlandse adverbial bindwoorden in synchroon en diachroon perspectief. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University dissertation.Google Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy. 2010. Grammatica van de Nederlandse zin. Antwerpen: Apeldoorn.Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2009. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemyns, Roland. 1971. Enkele aspecten van het 16e-eeuwse Brugs van Willem Weydts. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis XXV. 345–356.Google Scholar
Zepeda, Ofelia. 1983. A Tohono O’odham grammar. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Reeks Nederlandse dialectatlassen (RND). Available at http://www.dialectzinnen.ugent.be/reeks-nederlandse-dialectatlassen/Google Scholar
Reeks Nederlandse dialectatlassen (RND). Available at http://www.dialectzinnen.ugent.be/reeks-nederlandse-dialectatlassen/Google Scholar