File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

Supplementary

Book Chapter: Tracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy copying

TitleTracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy copying
Authors
Issue Date2014
PublisherJohn Benjamins
Citation
Tracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy copying. In Taavitsainen, I ... (et al) (Eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, p. 213–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014 How to Cite?
AbstractWhile the so-called “nominative-and-infinitive” (NCI) is no longer a productive construction in Dutch, the grammar of Present-day Dutch still contains a small set of lexically substantive NCI patterns, most notably geacht worden te and verondersteld worden te. Like their English formal equivalent be supposed to, these Dutch patterns can instantiate both evidential and deontic constructions, the latter being the most frequent one in Dutch. This paper focuses on the history of these deontic uses. We show that, with both patterns, the deontic use did not really take off until well into the second half of the 20th century and argue against an analysis in terms of grammaticalization along an (unlikely) ‘evidential to deontic’ path. Instead we present a language-contact hypothesis which attributes the development of the deontic uses of Dutch geacht worden te and verondersteld worden te to polysemy copying or distributional assimilation, English be supposed to providing the model. Additional evidence for the influence of English on this domain of Dutch grammar comes from the newly emerging lexically substantive NCI pattern verwacht worden te ‘be expected to’.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193323
ISBN
Series/Report no.Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 243

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorColleman, Ten_US
dc.contributor.authorNoel, Den_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-20T02:49:43Z-
dc.date.available2013-12-20T02:49:43Z-
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.identifier.citationTracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy copying. In Taavitsainen, I ... (et al) (Eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, p. 213–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014en_US
dc.identifier.isbn9789027256485en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/193323-
dc.description.abstractWhile the so-called “nominative-and-infinitive” (NCI) is no longer a productive construction in Dutch, the grammar of Present-day Dutch still contains a small set of lexically substantive NCI patterns, most notably geacht worden te and verondersteld worden te. Like their English formal equivalent be supposed to, these Dutch patterns can instantiate both evidential and deontic constructions, the latter being the most frequent one in Dutch. This paper focuses on the history of these deontic uses. We show that, with both patterns, the deontic use did not really take off until well into the second half of the 20th century and argue against an analysis in terms of grammaticalization along an (unlikely) ‘evidential to deontic’ path. Instead we present a language-contact hypothesis which attributes the development of the deontic uses of Dutch geacht worden te and verondersteld worden te to polysemy copying or distributional assimilation, English be supposed to providing the model. Additional evidence for the influence of English on this domain of Dutch grammar comes from the newly emerging lexically substantive NCI pattern verwacht worden te ‘be expected to’.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherJohn Benjaminsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofDiachronic Corpus Pragmaticsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPragmatics & Beyond New Series, 243-
dc.titleTracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy copyingen_US
dc.typeBook_Chapteren_US
dc.identifier.emailNoel, D: dnoel@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityNoel, D=rp01170en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros227020en_US
dc.identifier.spage213en_US
dc.identifier.epage236en_US
dc.publisher.placeAmsterdamen_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats