Abstract
The Dutch dialects display massive variation in their verbal paradigms. Traditionally, this variation has been explained as the result of developments in phonology, such as deletion of inflectional endings such as schwa, –t and –n, and pragmatics, such as the replacement of the 2sg. pronoun du with the honorific jij, which caused the s-ending to disappear. More recently, it has been proposed that morphology, more specifically paradigmatic structure, plays a role as well: the patterns of syncretism that are found in the verbal paradigms of the Dutch dialects, are believed to be manifestations of natural patterns of syncretism (e.g., Bennis & MacLean 2006). This article shows that these morphological accounts lack cross-linguistic support, and discusses data from Dutch that argue against paradigmatic structure as an explanatory factor. The focus lies on the 2pl.-data, where the shift of –t to –e(n) in Hollandic dialects has been argued to be the clearest example of a morphologically-driven change (Aalberse 2007). But this development too is better explained as the result of an interplay of pragmatic and prosodic factors, viz. the rise of the 2pl. pronoun jullie and the avoidance of a stresh clash occurring by the use of jullie in post-verbal position.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.