首页> 外文期刊>Morphology >Person and number syncretisms in Dutch
【24h】

Person and number syncretisms in Dutch

机译:荷兰语中的人和数字融合

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The aim of this paper is to make sense of the typologically quite exceptional pattern of person neutralization in the plural as we find it in Dutch verbal paradigms. We argue that Dutch, and most of its dialects, have a structural pattern of syncretism in their verbal paradigm: there are no person-distinctions in the plural. The main question of this paper is: where does this structural pattern of neutralization in Dutch come from, if we cannot explain it as a typologically wellattested pattern? As a first step, note that although the pattern is typologically quite odd, it conforms to another well-known generalization about paradigms: neutralization occurs in the marked half of the paradigm (see e.g. Nevins 2009). Further, we need to explain why this pattern occurs precisely in the Netherlands at this particular point in time. To this, we argue that this pattern arises as the result of a particular language acquisition strategy together with reduced evidence from the input for the fully inflected forms, probably as a result of dialect contact. This reduced evidence causes the third person, being the most frequent form, to dominate the other plural forms. In combination with limited paradigm splitting (Pinker, 1996), this explains the uniform plural that we find in most Dutch dialects.
机译:本文的目的是弄清我们在荷兰语言范式中发现的复数形式的人格中和的类型学上非常特殊的模式。我们认为荷兰语及其大多数方言的言语范式具有结构融合的模式:复数形式中没有人与人之间的区别。本文的主要问题是:如果我们不能将其解释为经过类型学验证的模式,那么荷兰语中和的这种结构模式从何而来?第一步,请注意,尽管该模式在类型上很奇怪,但符合另一种关于范式的众所周知的概括:中和发生在范式的显着一半中(参见Nevins 2009)。此外,我们需要解释为什么这种模式在这个特定时间点恰好发生在荷兰。为此,我们认为,这种模式的产生是由于特定的语言习得策略的结果,再加上来自完全变形形式的输入的证据减少,这可能是由于方言接触所致。证据减少,导致第三人称(最常见的形式)主导其他复数形式。结合有限范式分裂(Pinker,1996),这解释了我们在大多数荷兰方言中发现的统一复数。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号