Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T09:13:49.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicting Constraints in the Comparative Cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2016

Lukas Reinarz ,
Hugo de Vos  and
Helen de Hoop
Lukas Reinarz*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
Hugo de Vos*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
Helen de Hoop*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
*
Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands [lukas.reinarz.ling@outlook.com] [hugodevos.vos@student.ru.nl] [h.dehoop@let.ru.nl]
Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands [lukas.reinarz.ling@outlook.com] [hugodevos.vos@student.ru.nl] [h.dehoop@let.ru.nl]
Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands [lukas.reinarz.ling@outlook.com] [hugodevos.vos@student.ru.nl] [h.dehoop@let.ru.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Present-day Dutch shows an alternation reflecting a transition from the use of the comparative particle dan ‘than’ toward the particle als ‘as’ in comparisons of inequality. We argue that this transition—as well as the replacement of denn/dann by als in Early New High German, and als ‘as’ by wie ‘how’ in present-day German—results from a conflict between two competing principles, Economy and Iconicity. The conflict between these two constraints in German and Dutch gives rise to a cycle, in which having two particles—one for each construction—and having one particle for both, comparatives and equatives, alternate over time.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 28 , Special Issue 4: New Directions in Comparative Germanic Linguistics , December 2016 , pp. 403 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2016 

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

Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, De Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda, & van der Ham, Margreet. 2005. Syntactische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten Deel 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2012. Comparison constructions. Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Claudia, Maienborn, von Heusinger, Klaus, & Portner, Paul, 1341–1389. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Campbell, Robin N., & Wales, Roger J. 1969. Comparative structures in English. Journal of Linguistics 5. 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2009a. Cyclical change, an introduction. van Gelderen 2009b, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly (ed.). 2009b. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Haeringen, Coenraad B. 1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, & Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, ed. by van der Auwera, Johan, with Dónall, P. Baoill, Ó, 277–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. Areal influence on grammaticalization. Language contact and language conflict, ed. by Pütz, Martin, 55–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Petra. 1995. Comparatives and categorial grammar. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Petra, de Hoop, Helen, Krämer, Irene, de Swart, Henriëtte, & Zwarts, Joost. 2010. Conflicts in interpretation. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Henkelmann, Peter. 2006. Constructions of equative comparison. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 59. 370–398.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy, & de Hoop, Helen. 2013. The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013. 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huydecoper, Balthazar. 1730. Proeve van taal- en dichtkunde [edn. van Lelyveld, Frans & Hinlopen, Nicolaes, Leiden: A. en J. Honkoop, 1782–1794].Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt. 1977. Adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions in English: A study in gradience. Studia Linguistica XXXI. 38–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2010. Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte 224. 467–493.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2013. Mehr als (wie) die Summe seiner Teile. Vergleichspartikeln in den Dialekten Hessens mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von als wie . Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 80. 261–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laker, Stephen. 2008. The English negative comparative particle. Transactions of the Philological Society 106. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2010. Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19. 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerch, Eugen. 1942. Ist schöner wie ein Sprachfehler? Zum Streit die Berechtigung der Sprachregelung. PBB 65. 329–372.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations. Constraining co-variation. Case, valency and transitivity, ed. by Leonid, Kulikov, Malchukov, Andrej, & de Swart, Peter, 329–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna J. 1983. Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 675–694.Google Scholar
Plessis, Hans G. W. du. 1977. Die vergelykingskonstruksie in Afrikaans. Taalfasette 22. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2006. Van groter dan naar groter als-structurele oorzaken voor het verval van het comparatieve voegwoord dan . Nederlandse Taalkunde 11. 2–22.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2013. Similatives and the argument structure of verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 1101–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, George W. 1923. The comparison of inequality. The semantics and syntax of the comparative particle in English. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University dissertation.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1984. The comparative compared. Journal of Semantics 3. 143–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, Jan. 2011. De lange arm van de grammatici. Praagse perspectieven 7. Handelingen van het colloquium van de sectie Nederlands van de Karelsuniversiteit te Praag, op 24 en 25 maart 2011, ed. by Hrnčířová, Zdenka, Krol, Ellen, Mercks, Kees, Pekelder, Jan, & Ultzen, Jesse, 137–153. Prague: University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word-order change and grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 2001. Vergleichte und Vergleichen: eine Studie zu Form und Funktion der Vergleichsstrukturen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2015. The meaning of German wie in equative comparison. Unpublished manuscript, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.Google Scholar
Wellwood, Alexis. 2015. On the semantics of comparison across categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corpora and Other Data Sources

Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [Spoken Dutch Corpus]. Available at http://lands.let.ru.nl/cgn/.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad. Available at www.nrc.nl.Google Scholar
WNT (Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal [Dictionary of Dutch Language]). 1884. Available at http://gtb.inl.nl/.Google Scholar