1 / 36

On marking indefinite nominal ellipsis. Why Frisian does it, and Dutch doesn’t.

On marking indefinite nominal ellipsis. Why Frisian does it, and Dutch doesn’t. Eric Hoekstra. TIN-dag 2012, Utrecht , 3-2-2012. 2. Frisian marks ellipsis of indefinite nouns (in the singular ). Minimal pair indefinite - definite: in tûk-en a smart-NE.SG.INDEF

ely
Download Presentation

On marking indefinite nominal ellipsis. Why Frisian does it, and Dutch doesn’t.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On marking indefinite nominal ellipsis. Why Frisian does it, and Dutch doesn’t. Eric Hoekstra TIN-dag 2012, Utrecht, 3-2-2012

  2. 2. Frisianmarksellipsis of indefinitenouns (in the singular) Minimal pair indefinite - definite: in tûk-ena smart-NE.SG.INDEF de tûk-ethe smart-NE.SG NE = marker of nounellipsis

  3. 3. There are two markers of indefiniteellipsis in Frisian in tûk-ena smart-NE.SG.INDEF in tûk-en-ien a smart-NE.SG.INDEF-one

  4. 4. The markers of indefinitenounellipsis are incompatiblewith the definitearticle * de tûk-enthe smart-N.SG.INDEF * de tûk-en-ienthe smart-N.SG.INDEF-one

  5. 5. The marker of indefinitenounellipsis is insensitiveto gender! In azalea … Ik fyn in readenmoaieran azalea.CG I find a red.NE nicer Dat fiskje … It is in readen that fish.NG it is a red.NE

  6. 6. Dutch does not have a specific marker markingindefinitenounellipsis de slimm-ethe smart-NE een slimm-ea smart-NE (compareFrisian slide 2)

  7. 7. Questions • Under whatcircumstancesdid the indefinitenounellipsis marker –n comeintoexistence in Frisian? • Under whatcircumstancesdid the indefinitepronounien ‘one’ cometobeappendedtothis marker? • Whydidn’t these processes take place in Dutch?

  8. 8. Hypothesis formation The system of indefinite (strong) attributive agreement is involved in explaininghow a marker of indefinitenounellipsiscame in toexistence, seeingthatattributive agreement is normallyusedfornounellipsis as well (Sleeman 1996).

  9. 9. Normallyspeaking … … attributive agreement is usedfornounellipsis ATTRIBUTIVE AGR NOUN ELLIPSIS een grote man => een grote a big man a big

  10. 10. But also, normallyspeaking … … zero agreement maynotbeusedfornounellipsis. In Dutch (countnouns): een groot kind => * een groot a big child a big (Sleeman 1996: 13,17)

  11. 11. Zero agreement maynotbeusedfornounellipsis in English a green tree => * a green => a green one

  12. 12. Zero agreement maynotbeusedfornounellipsis in Frisian in lytshúske => * in lytsa small house a small

  13. 13. Generalisation On the whole, zero attributive agreement of plainadjectivesmaynotbeusedfornounellipsis in Frisian (J. Hoekstra 1999:120), Dutch (andotherGermaniclanguages, see the references in Sleeman 1996). NB Generalisation is subject tosemanticqualifications (validforcountnounsFr, Dutch; notforordinals Eng).

  14. 14. Therefore Let usinvestigatewhere zero agreement is found in the system of attributive agreement. The presence of zero agreement mightjustberelatedto the development of special markers fornounellipsis(hypo).

  15. 15. Zero agreement is found in the indefiniteneuter gender in Modern Frisian intûkmantsjea.INDEF smart man.DIM.NG ittûkemantsjethe.DEF smart man.DIM.NG

  16. 16. Zero agreement is not found in the common gender in Modern Frisian (neitherdefinite nor indefinite) intûkefroua.INDEF smart woman.CG detûkefrouthe.DEF smart woman.CG

  17. 17. Modern Dutch The Modern Dutch facts are the same as the Modern Frisianfacts, as far as zero-agreement is concerned: only in the indefiniteneutersingular. This does not help ustoexplainwhyFrisiandeveloped a nounellipsis marker and Dutch didn’t. Let ustherefore look at older stages of the Frisianlanguage!

  18. 18. Indefiniteagreement in Old Frisian

  19. 19. Observationindefinite agreement in Old Frisian It is insensitiveto gender in the nominative: thusthere was no gender distinctionforindefinite agreement. Remember the marker of nounellipsis in Modern Frisian is alsoinsensitiveto gender (slide 5) This looks promisingso let us turn next toEarly Modern Frisian (1550-1800).

  20. 20. Attributive agreement in Early Modern Frisian Indefiniteattributive agreement was zero in the common gender and the neuter gender: in leegh buwckan empty stomach-CG in leechliifan empty body-NG

  21. 21. Observationsabout zero agreement in Early Modern Frisian It is insensitivetogender. It is indefinite. It is singular.

  22. 22. Observationsabout the marker of nounellipsis in (Early) Modern Frisian It is insensitiveto gender. It is indefinite. It is singular.

  23. 23. What does the marker of indefinitenounellipsisderivefrom? The indefinite marker –enderivesfrom the indefinitearticle: (Sytstra & Hof 1925:97, Verdenius 1939:107, Tamminga 1963:266, Van der Meer 1987:98). (The authors do notseemtoconsiderellipsisseparately.)

  24. 24. Example of incorporationof the indefinitearticle so swiett-in droom so swiet-a dream The indefinitearticle was reanalysed as indefiniteattributive agreement (andattributive agreement is normallyusedfornounellipsis– providedit is not zero). No gender distinction.

  25. 25. Observationsabout the indefinitearticle It is insensitiveto gender. It is indefinite. It is singular.

  26. 26. Law of supplyanddemand Indefinite agreement was zero or –en in Early Modern Frisian. Zero agreement couldnotbeusedforellipsis. But –encouldandwas subsequentlyused as a marker of nounellipsis.

  27. 27. Subsequentdevelopmentattributive agreement Zero indefinite agreement for common gender disappearedfromFrisian in the course of the 19th century (J. Hoekstra 2000), bringingit more in line with Dutch. -EN attributive agreement forall genders disappearedfromFrisian in the course of the 19th century. Only –EN as nounellipsissurvived.

  28. 28. The pronoun IEN ‘one’ was appendedto the marker of nounellipsis Lackof identitybetween the marker of nounellipsisandattributive agreement may have caused the reinforcement of the nounellipsis marker by the indefinitepronounien ‘one’ (speculation).

  29. 29. Observationsabout the indefinitepronounien ‘one’ It is insensitiveto gender. It is indefinite. It is singular. (It has neutralsemantics) => Seemslike a prettyidealcandidatetobeappendedto the nounellipsis marker –n.

  30. 30. Semantics of ien ‘one’ Like the marker of nounellipsis(andlikeindefinite agreement)ien ‘one’ canbeusedbothfor persons andthings. Ik ha iensjoenI have oneseen Der leitien op ‘e dykthere lies one on the street (whereien‘one’ canbe a person or a thing)

  31. 31. Semantics of Dutch een ‘one’ Dutch een ‘one’ cannotreferto persons * Er ligt een op straat There lies one on street“There is somebodylying on the street.” Semantics of Dutch een ‘one’ preventsitsreanalysis as a marker of nounellipsis, as itcannotreferto persons.

  32. 32. Featural make-up of Dutch een ‘one’ incompatiblewith agreementas agtis usedfor persons (andthings) * een houten een * een rode eena woodenonea red one een van houtoneof wood

  33. 33. Whydidn’t Dutch develop a marker of nounellipsis out of the indefinitearticle? Becauseitdidn’t have zero agreement in the singular independent of gender. Hencethere was no featural harmony between zero agreement and the indefinitearticle.

  34. 34. Indefinite agreement in Middle Dutch Dit is dus een onderscheid tussen sterk en zwak, waarbij men echter heeft te bedenken dat de nominatief vrouwelijk, ook bij sterke flexie, normaliter op -e uitgaat. (De Vooys 1967:64)http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/vooy001nede01_01/vooy001nede01_01_0006.php (cf. slide 18) Van Loey (1959:149-151) shows the distinctionbetweenweakand strong is muddled in Middle Dutch. Hence no marker of indefiniteellipsisdeveloped.

  35. Tosum: whyFrisian but not Dutch has a marker of indefinitenounellipsis

  36. Tosum: why Fr, not Dutch re-uses a pronounforindefnounellipsis

More Related