8. The external possessor construction in West Flemish

Haegeman, Liliane

doi:10.1075/la.56.14hae

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I think that-3P.PL / * that-3P.SG those students a boat bought have 'I think that those students have bought a boat.' (Haegeman 2000) (34)…”

Section: Agree Between C 0 and The Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…have 'I think that those students have bought a boat.' (Haegeman 2000) The complementizer in the West Flemish example in (1) has to carry an inflectional affix, -n, when the subject of the embedded clause is plural as in (1b), but not when it is singular as in (1a). The Lubukusu complementizer li is not sensitive to the properties of the embedded subject, but to those of the matrix subject: 2 (2) Lubukusu a. baba-ndu ba-bol-el-a Alfredi ba-li a-kha-khil-e 2-people 2 S-said-AP-FV 1Alfred 2-that 1 S-FUT-conquer 'The people told Alfred that he will win.'…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complementizer Agreement

Koppen

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complementizers agree in phi‐features with the embedded subject in dialects of German and Dutch, in Tense with the embedded clause in Irish and in phi‐features with the matrix subject in certain African languages. These complementizer agreement phenomena will be the main empirical focus of this chapter. In particular it discusses the empirical generalizations and analyses of complementizer agreement itself as well as the relevance of this phenomenon for the theoretical debate on the interaction between the syntactic and the PF module of the grammar, the analysis of agreement, the relation between T 0 and C 0 , and the layout of the left periphery.

show abstract

“…I think that-3P.PL / * that-3P.SG those students a boat bought have 'I think that those students have bought a boat.' (Haegeman 2000) (34)…”

Section: Agree Between C 0 and The Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementizer Agreement

Koppen

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As shown in (ib), goddommes has no -e. element se that Haegeman (2003aHaegeman ( , b, 2004a As Haegeman observes, se is used both for feminine and masculine possessors. It does not seem to be endowed with phi-features that match those of the possessor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Uniformity and diversity in the syntax of evaluative vocatives

Corver

2008

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the internal syntax of evaluative vocative expressions (e.g., You idiot!). This construction superficially consists of a second person pronoun and an epithet noun. It turns out that this construction type has different morphosyntactic manifestations across languages/dialects (abstractly: you NOM idiot!; you ACC/OBL idiot!; your idiot!). The paper aims at giving a uniform account for the 'underlying' syntax of this construction type. It is argued that this construction has the 'underlying' syntax of a possessive noun phrase. More particularly, the second person pronoun starts out as (part of) a PP-predicate and undergoes leftward predicate displacement within the vocative noun phrase. The major dimensions of (morpho)syntactic diversity are related to the following properties: (1) the nature of the predicate displacement operation involved (i.e., predicate inversion and/or predicate fronting); (2) the overtness versus covertness of the small clause head X, which is part of the vocative expression; (3) the case form of the second person pronoun. According to the structural analysis proposed in this article, evaluative vocative expressions form a further illustration of the structural uniformity that is hidden behind superficial diversity.

show abstract

“…Corver 1990, Haegeman 2003 for argumentation), then the difference between the Asten Dutch type dialect and the standard Dutch type concerning ellipsis in the possessor doubling construction becomes straightforward. We have provided the derivation of the standard Dutch example (68) in (76) and the derivation of the Asten Dutch example (69) in (77).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ellipsis in Dutch possessive noun phrases: a micro-comparative approach

Corver

Koppen

2010

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss ellipsis of the possessee in both pronominal possessor constructions (Dutch: zijn boek 'his book') and possessor doubling constructions (Dutch: John z'n boek, John his book 'John's book') from a micro-comparative perspective. More specifically we show, on the basis of an in-depth study of the nominal system of 57 Dutch dialects, that there are two types of possessee ellipsis. In the first type there is a pro which needs to be licensed by gender agreement. In the second type there is an overt pro-form, similar to English one, and hence no ellipsis. Dialects that have the first type of possessee ellipsis can be further divided into two subtypes. The first has gender agreement on the possessive pronoun, the second one does not. Interestingly, possessee ellipsis can take place in the possessor doubling construction only in the former subtype of dialect. We implement this striking generalization by arguing that in the latter type of dialect pro has to move to Spec,DP in order to be licensed. The doubling possessor also has to be merged in Spec,DP. As a consequence, pro and a doubling possessor cannot co-occur and hence possessee ellipsis and possessor doubling are incompatible. In the former type of dialect, i.e., those dialects that do express gender on the possessive pronoun, pro can be licensed by the gender agreement on the possessive pronoun in a position lower than Spec,DP. Hence, in these dialects Spec,DP is available for a doubling possessor and, consequently, possessee ellipsis and possessor doubling can co-occur.

show abstract

8. The external possessor construction in West Flemish

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Complementizer Agreement

Complementizer Agreement

Uniformity and diversity in the syntax of evaluative vocatives

Ellipsis in Dutch possessive noun phrases: a micro-comparative approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About