Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:44:26.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic variation, parameters, and social distribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Leonie Cornips
Leonie Cornips
Affiliation:
Meertens Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article concerns the interrelation between the theoretical status and the social dimensions of syntactic variation in Heerlen Dutch. I discuss syntactic variation in Heerlen Dutch, which consists of (i) a range of dative constructions that are acceptable in the Heerlen dialect but unacceptable in Standard Dutch and (ii) Standard Dutch variants of the dative constructions that are rare in the Heerlen dialect. The theoretical primitive causing syntactic variation is taken to be the different values or settings of a parameter. Although all local dialect constructions in Heerlen Dutch seem superficially similar because they are construed with a dative NP or the reflexive zich, I argue that these constructions must be attributed to two distinct parameters. The different social distributions of dative constructions in Heerlen Dutch are a confirmation that two distinct parameters are involved.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almagro, Angel Miguel. (1993). Semantic information in se-constructions in Spanish. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics 16:136–154.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language 7:457–492.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. (1975). Dynamics of a Creole system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. (1984). Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brassé, Paul, & Schelven, Willem van. (1980). Assilimilatie van vooroorlogse immigranten, drie generates Polen Slovenen Italianen in Heerlen. 'S-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, & Cornips, Leonie. (1994). Undative constructions. Linguistics 32:173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25:257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. (1992). Syntactic interference in a bilingual community: The use of the reflexive in intransitive variants of causative verbs. Intercultural Communication Studies 2:23–41.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. (1994). Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie, & Hulk, Aafke. (1996). Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French. Studia Linguistica 50:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geerts, Guido, Haeseryn, Walter, de Rooy, Taap, & van den Toorn, Maarten (Eds). (1984). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, & Goldberg, Richard. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65:203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. (1985). Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Guéron, J., Obenauer, H.G., & Pollock, J.Y. (Eds.), Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 43–86.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. (1986). Le verbe avoir. In Coopmans, P., Bordelois, I., & Smith, B.D. (Eds.), Formal parameters of generative grammar. II, Going Romance. Dordrecht: ICG Printing. 83–105.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. (1991). Introduction to Government & Binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John. (1984). Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20:303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. (1993). Dialect levelling in Limburg. Structural and sociolinguistic aspects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. (1992). Aspect and theta theory. In Roca, I.M. (Ed.), Thematic structure. Its role in grammar. Berlin: Foris. 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hout, , Angeliek van, . (1996). Events semantics of verb frame alternations. A case study of Dutch and its acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. (1996). Measuring out, telicity, and quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:305–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongeneel, Jacob. (1884). Dorpsspraak van Heerle vormenleer en woordenboek. Heerlen: Van Hooren.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1:199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. (1995). Unaccusativity. At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. (1989). Observing and analysing natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mulder, René. (1992). The aspectual nature of syntactic complementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Nishida, Chiyo. (1994). The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker. Linguistics 32:425–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. (1991). Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. (1992). The syntax of event structure. In Levin, B. & Pinker, S. (Eds.), Lexical conceptual semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. 47–82.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. (1987). The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Foris: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, & Williams, Edwin (Eds.). (1987). Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singler, John Victor. (1988). The homogeneity of the substrate as a factor in pidgin/creole genesis. Language 64:27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, & Kaufman, Terrence. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, & Zubizarreta, Maria Louisa. (1992). The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23:592–652.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. (1996). The problem of syntactic variation. In Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S., & Solomon, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 177–192.Google Scholar