Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T06:47:30.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

West Flemish Negation and the Derivation of SOV-Order in West Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Liliane Haegeman
Liliane Haegeman
Affiliation:
U.F.R. Angellier, Université Charles de Gaulle – Lille 3, B.P. 149, FR-59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq – Cedex, France. E-mail: l.haegeman@skynet.be
Get access

Abstract

This paper focuses on the expression of sentential negation in West Flemish (WF), which it examines with respect to competing theories for deriving the West Germanic verb-final sentence pattern. The empirical adequacy of three hypotheses proposed to account for the verb-final order in the West Germanic languages is tested: (i) the ‘traditional’ OV analysis with head-final base structures; (ii) an antisymmetric approach with only head-complement order and without V-to-I movement; (iii) an antisymmetric approach with head-complement order, but with V-to-I movement and remnant movement of the projection containing the trace of V. Specifically, the question is asked to what extent these analyses capture the surface distribution of WF negation markers (niet, en and negative quantifiers). The paper shows that the traditional OV analysis is certainly adequate for the description of the data concerned. As far as antisymmetric approaches are concerned, a double movement analysis fares better than antisymmetric approaches without V-to-I movement. The paper also shows that, contrary to what has often been assumed, the WF morpheme en is not necessarily analysed as the head of NegP, the canonical projection to encode sentential negation, but that it could also plausibly be analysed as the head of PolP, a higher functional projection which encodes polarity.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 2002 , pp. 154 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

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

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. A-Chains at the PF-Interface: Copies and ‘Covert’ Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 197–267.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic Change in Germanic. Aspects of Language Change in Germanic with Particular Reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. MIT working papers in linguistics.Google Scholar
Christensen, Kristi Koch. 1986. Norwegian ingen: A Case of Post-syntactic Lexicalization in Scandinavian Dialects. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 53–83.Google Scholar
Cormack, Annabel & Smith, Neil. 1998. Negation, Polarity and V Positions in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 285–322.Google Scholar
Den Besten, Hans & Rutten, Jean. 1989. On Verb Raising, Extraposition and Free Word Order in Dutch. In Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y. & Seuren, P. (eds), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon. Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1996. The Minimal Links of Verb (Projection) Raising. In Abraham, W., Epstein, S., Thráinsson, H. & Zwart, J.-W. (eds), Minimal Ideas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP Order and the Typology of Object Movement in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 369–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, Caterina & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1997. Language Typology and Generative Grammar: a Review of the VO Hypothesis. In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 331–357.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Negative Concord, Negative Heads. In Delfitto, D., Everaert, M., Evers, A. & Stuurman, F. (eds), Going Romance and Beyond. OTS Working Papers. Department of Linguistics, University of Utrecht, pp. 45–82.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1998a. V-Positions and the Middle Field in West Flemish. Syntax. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics 1, 259–299.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1998b. Verb Movement in Embedded Clauses in West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 631–656.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1998c. Extraposed Clauses in the Germanic SOV Languages. Ms. University of Geneva, Chomsky Celebration Website. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1998d. Negation, Tense and V-Movement in West Flemish. Paper presented at the Negation Conference, University of Salford.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000a. Remnant Movement and OV-Order. In Svenonius, P. (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000b. Negative Preposing, Negative Inversion, and the Split CP. In Horn, L. & Kato, Y. (eds), Negation and Polarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–61.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2001a. Antisymmetry and Verb-Final Order in West Flemish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3, 207–232.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2001b. Approaches to OV: West Flemish Negation as Evidence for Double Movement. In Van Oostendorp, M. (ed.), Grammaticamodellen. http://www.meertens.nl/books/progressingrammarGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane en Raffaella Zanuttini. 1991. Negative Heads and the Neg Criterion. Linguistic Review 8, 233–251.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1996. Negative Concord in West Flemish. In Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (eds), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–180.Google Scholar
Hamann, Cornelia. 1993. Notes on Negation in German. Ms. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 1999. Restructuring Infinitives and the Theory of Complementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1995. To Have To Be Dative. In Haider, H., Olsen, S. & Vikner, S. (eds), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 119–137.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob. 1997. Negation and Negative Concord in Middle Dutch. In Forget, Daniel, Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F. & Rivero, M.-L. (eds), Negation and Polarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2001. The Syntax of Yes and No in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55, 141–175.Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de. 1992. Case Configuration and NP Interpretation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Hulk, Aafke and van Kemenade, Ans. 1997. Negation as a Reflex of Clause Structure. In Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F. & Rivero, M.-L. (eds), Negation and Polarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. Covert Movement. Syntax. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics 1, 128–191.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen's Cycle Revisited. In Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. & Warner, A. (eds), Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1995. On Verbs that Fail to Undergo Verb Second. Linquistic Inquiry 26, 137–163.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda and Szabolcsi, A. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975, Dutch as an SOV Language. Linguistic Analysis 1, 111–136.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1994, Predicate Incorporation and Word Order in Dutch. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. & Zanuttini, R. (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar. Georgetown, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 2000. The Word Orders of English and Dutch. Ms. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax. On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1990. The Negative Clitic in Middle High German. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 13–30.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matt. 1999. X(P)-Movement and Word-Order Typology. Direct vs. Inverse Languages. Glow Paper, Berlin 1999.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matt. 2001. Two Types of VO Languages. In Svenonius, P. (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 327–364.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. 2001. Dutch Scrambling and the Strong-Weak Distinction. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4, 39–67.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2001. Quantifier Movement in Icelandic. In Svenonius, P. (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV, pp. 255–293.Google Scholar
Thiersch, Greg. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten: 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1997. V-to-I and Inflection for Person in all Tenses. In Haegeman, L. (ed), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Addison, Longman & Wesley, pp. 255–276.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1998. Absorption: Interpretability and Feature Strength. Ms. Department of English. University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Weiss, Helmut. 2002. A Quantifier Approach to Negation in Natural Languages, or Why Negative Concord is Necessary. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 1998. Infinitives. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wyngaerd, Guido van den. 1989. Object Shift as an A-Movement Rule. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 256–271.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1996. On the Relevance of Tense for Sentential Negation. In Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (eds), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997a. Negation and Clausal Structure. A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997b. Negation and V-Movement. In Haegeman, L. (ed.): The New Comparative Syntax. London: Addison, Longman & Wesley, pp. 214–245.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2001. Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zinsmeister, Heike. 1995. Die Lizenzierung von kein. Ein Vergleich der Syntaktischen Vertaelung von N-phrasen im Dänischen und Deutschen. MA Dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997a. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997b. The Germanic SOV Languages and the Universal Base Hypothesis. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Addison, Longman & Wesley, pp. 246–264.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2001. Syntactic and Phonological Verb Movement. Syntax 4, 34–62.Google Scholar