Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 2

Broekhuis, Hans; Corver, Norbert

doi:10.5117/9789089647313

Cited by 31 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The form cantaré 'will sing' occurs in three cells (6,8 and 9); the other tense forms occur only in one cell. Broekhuis et al (2015) observes for Dutch that it is not clear why will expresses posteriority in cell 8, future in cell 6 and both posteriority and future in cell 9. The same applies to Spanis 4.…”

Section: Architectural Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A binary approach to Spanish tense and aspect: on the tense battle about the past

González

Verkuyl

2017

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The present paper aims at accounting for the Spanish Imperfecto, Perfecto, Pluscuamperfecto and the Indefinido by applying three binary tense oppositions: Present vs Past, Synchronous vs Posterior and Imperfect(ive) vs Perfect(ive). For the sixteen Spanish tense forms under analysis a binary approach leads to covering twelve of them. Their relation with the preterital forms outside the range of the three oppositions is accounted for by two surgical operations: (a) the notion of Imperfect(ive) is severed from the notion of ongoing progress by restricting it to underinformation about completion and by seeing continuous tense forms as involving a more complex semantics; (b) the notion of (non-)stative is strictly severed from interference of information coming from the arguments of a verb. These theoretical moves make the way free for a formal-semantic insight into the interaction of Spanish tense and aspect. It also paves the way for a principled distinction between completion and anteriority. Restricted to tense forms pertaining to the past, our analysis sheds light on the struggle for survival of tense forms outside the binary system. Keywords: tense, aspect, perfecto, pluscuamperfecto, imperfecto, indefinido, completion, aorist, anteriority, stative, nonstative, discrete, continuous, progressive, terminative, durative RESUMEN. El presente trabajo pretende describir y explicar las siguientes formas verbales del castellano: Imperfecto, Perfecto, Pluscuamperfecto e Indefinido aplicando tres oposiciones temporales binarias: Presente vs Pasado, Sincrónico vs Posterior e Imperfecto/imperfectivo vs Perfecto/perfectivo. Este acercamiento binario cubre doce de las dieciséis formas temporales del castellano analizadas. La relación entre las formas verbales que entran en el sistema binario y las formas de pretérito que no entran en el sistema se explica por dos operaciones quirúrgicas: (a) la noción de Imperfecto/imperfectivo se separa de la noción de progresivo continuo, restringiendo el valor del Imperfecto/imperfectivo a la subinformación sobre su terminación e implicando una semántica más compleja para las formas temporales progresivas; (b) la noción de (no) estatividad está estrictamente separada de la interferencia de la información aspectual procedente de los argumentos de un verbo. Estos movimientos teóricos dan vía libre a una comprensión formal-semántica de la interacción del tiempo y del aspecto en castellano. También allana el camino para una distinción argumentada entre las nociones de terminación y anterioridad. Limitado a formas verbales del pasado, nuestro análisis ilumina la batalla por la supervivencia de las formas temporales fuera del sistema binario.

show abstract

Section: Architectural Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A binary approach to Spanish tense and aspect: on the tense battle about the past

González

Verkuyl

2017

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the Dutch language has a standardized progressive, “used to refer to some eventuality during speech time” (Broekhuis et al, , p. 151, for the present tense in [17]). The Simple Present can function as present progressive too in (18), and by placing it in the past tense, that is, past progressive in (19), its use can be reformulated as to refer to some eventuality taking place during an already known period of time in the past.…”

Section: Grammatical Aspect In Spanish English and Dutchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inherent Aspect and L1 Transfer in the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Grammatical Aspect

González

Hernández

2018

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to show that the use of Spanish grammatical aspect is biased by inherent aspect depending on the learner's first language (L1). It considers both the Lexical Aspect Hypothesis (LAH; Andersen, 1986, and his followers) and the L1 Transfer Hypothesis (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008; McManus, 2015), and it compares the use of Spanish past tenses by L1 Dutch and L1 English learners at first stages of acquisition. Differences in grammatical aspect in both L1 and the second language (L2) predict that learners will have difficulties acquiring grammatical differences such as the contrast between the Preterit and the Imperfect. Recent studies claim that not all learners are biased by the traditional Vendlerian lexical aspect typology (Domínguez et al., 2013; González, 2013), which may mean that refinement of the LAH is necessary. For our study, L1 English and Dutch learners of Spanish performed the same written production task, which involved the retelling of a story after watching a muted video. The results, based on an approximate binomial distribution analysis, show that the use of both the Preterit and the Imperfect by English‐speaking learners is biased by dynamicity contrasts. Furthermore, their overuse of Preterit to complete the written task shows L1 transfer from the English past tense, which can be uttered in perfective and imperfective contexts. On the other hand, the results of L1 Dutch speakers show that the use of Spanish grammatical aspect is biased by the terminative‐durative classification, and that they prefer the Present Perfect in perfective contexts, also showing L1 transfer.

show abstract

“…A number of researchers (especially Hoekstra & Roberts 1993;Broekhuis & Corver 2015; see also Steinbach 2002;Lekakou 2005a;Pitteroff 2014) have claimed that IM attribute a property to the instrument, location or time referred to by the (nominal inside the) adverbial PP. In other words, these analyses of IM assume that what functions as the logical subject of the middle sentence is what we have called the additional modifier, i.e.…”

Section: Disposition Ascriptions To the (Nominal Inside The) Ppmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(34) German a. Es i feiert sich gut [in dieser Disko] i it celebrates refl well in this disco 'One can celebrate well in this disco.' 11 Although neither Hoekstra & Roberts (1993) nor Broekhuis & Corver (2015) make reference to the notion of a disposition, we take it that their assumptions about the meaning of IM are compatible with a dispositional approach. Lekakou (2005a) and Pitteroff (2014) do assume a dispositional semantics for middles.…”

Section: Disposition Ascriptions To the (Nominal Inside The) Ppmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…it sits easily on this chair 'One sits comfortably in this chair.' Dutch respectively), on which most research has focused (among others, see Fagan 1992;Hoekstra & Roberts 1993;Ackema & Schoorlemmer 1994;2006;Steinbach 2002;Lekakou 2005a;Pitteroff 2014;Broekhuis & Corver 2015). PM feature a referential DP in subject position and are based on a transitive verb (or, more neutrally, a verb with a transitive variant).…”

Section: Introduction: (Im)personal Middlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

This is personal: Impersonal middles as disposition ascriptions

Lekakou

Pitteroff

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop an analysis of impersonal middles which capitalizes on the observed similarities between personal and impersonal middles, and on Lekakou's (2004;2005a) treatment of the former as disposition ascriptions. The following questions are addressed: (i) What is the disposition ascribed to in impersonal middles? (ii) What is the function of the obligatory subject pronoun? (iii) Why is a modifier needed, in addition to the manner/evaluative adverbial? By having a closer look at what types of additional modifiers are acceptable in impersonal middles, it is argued that the disposition in impersonal middles is ascribed to an event(uality), rather than an event participant. This is done via the non-omissible it-type pronoun that functions as the syntactic subject of the clause. We argue that this pronoun in impersonal middles is also the semantic subject, and that it indirectly refers to the event denoted by the verbal predicate, via an association relation with the vP. Impersonal middles, then, are not truly impersonal: they, too, feature a referential subject. The only difference between personal and impersonal middles relates to what the dispositional subject is: an event participant, or the event proper. We also show that the additional modifier is required for pragmatic reasons, namely in order to restrict the generalization made by the generic operator present in impersonal middles.

show abstract

Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 2

Cited by 31 publications

References 36 publications

A binary approach to Spanish tense and aspect: on the tense battle about the past

A binary approach to Spanish tense and aspect: on the tense battle about the past

Inherent Aspect and L1 Transfer in the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Grammatical Aspect

This is personal: Impersonal middles as disposition ascriptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About