Definitely possessive: The role of the definite article in possessive structures in varieties of Dutch

J. Scholten

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperOther research output

Abstract

Introduction. Dutch dialects entertain various syntactic configurations that express a possessive relation, but do not contain any morphosyntactic possessive marking in the possessum DP. The possessum is in those cases generally introduced by a definite article. This paper shows, against previous analyses, that inalienability is not crucial and that syntactic properties determine the availability of these constructions. I conclude that a syntactic dependency has to be established between possessor and possessum to get a possessive relation, assigning a purely formal function to the definite article.
Possessive structures. Eastern Dutch dialects use definite articles in various constructions with a possessive interpretation, for instance in external possession constructions with the subject (1) or dative object (2) as possessor and the band lek construction (i.a. Van Bree 1981) with a possessive interpretation between subject and small clause subject (3).
Previous work. Sentences like (1) and (2) have received much attention in the literature (i.a., Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992, Le Bruyn 2014 for French/ English, Lee-Schoenfeld 2007 for German), in which the presence of the definite article is often explained against a background of inalienable possession, since these constructions mostly occur with body parts (i.e. inalienable nouns). However, new data from Dutch dialects, collected through oral interviews and written questionnaires, challenge this generalization.
Inalienability. Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992) and Le Bruyn (2014) have argued that inalienable nouns can be introduced by a definite article because of their inherent relationality. Although their technical implementations are different, their line of reasoning is the same: a possessed noun can lack possessive marking if the relationality of the noun can be established independently. However, the construction in (3) is not restricted to inalienable nouns: de band ‘the tire’ does not entertain an inalienable relation with the subject of the clause. The use of the definite article, and thus the absence of morphological possessive marking, cannot be explained by inalienability alone. In addition, a dative external possession construction can contain an alienable noun as well, as the example from Twente Dutch in (4) shows, adding up to the evidence that inalienability is not the only relevant aspect.
The role of syntax. Le Bruyn (2014) shows that dative external possession constructions are more constrained in English and Dutch than in French. This paper shows that firstly, in eastern Dutch varieties definite articles are commonly used to express possession, as (1) and (2) show. Secondly, this paper shows that in western Dutch varieties external possession is indeed more constrained, in compliance with Le Bruyn (2014). However, Le Bruyn’s claim that certain Dutch predicates do not have a dative construction at all misses a generalization. This paper shows that the availability of dative possessors is determined by the syntactic properties of the construction they appear in. Vandeweghe (1987) observed that dative possessors are more easily available with particle verbs. This fact is supported by data from Rotterdam Dutch (a western variety) in (5), where a dative possessor is possible with a particle verb, whereas it is not with a non-particle verb, like in (2). The syntax of the verb thus determines the availability of a dative possessor. This paper will show a similar contrast between structures with the possessed item either as direct object or as oblique object in a PP. 
Tentative proposal. Le Bruyn’s (2014) line of reasoning is that a possessor does not have to be expressed in a possessed DP, as long as the relationality of the DP can be established independently. This does not work for examples (3) and (4). In addition, the availability of constructions with external possessors depends on syntactic properties. Since the external possession construction is syntactically constrained, I propose that a syntactic dependency has to be established between the possessor and the possessum, whereby the definite article seems to fulfill a purely syntactic function.
Possessive structures with a definite article in varieties of Dutch:
(1) Piet hef vanmorgen de haand'n met zalf doan. Piet has this.morning the hands with cream done‘Piet treated the (=his) hands with cream this morning.’ (Twente Dutch)
(2) Margriet hef 'm vanmorn de haand'n met zalf insmeert.Margriet has him this.morningthe handswithcream in.smeared‘Margriet rubbed his hands with cream this morning.’ (Twente Dutch)
(3) Jan heeft [sc de band lek ].John has the tire punctured‘John has a flat tire.’(eastern Dutch dialects)
Dative external possessor of an alienable noun:
(4) Loes dreai'n 'm in enen de geluudknop noar links.Loes turned him in one the volume knob to left‘Loes suddenly turned his knob left.’ (Twente Dutch)
Dative external possessor with a particle verb:
(5) Marie heeft hem net de rug ingesmeerd.Mary has him just the back in.smeared‘Mary just rubbed his back (with something).’ (Rotterdam Dutch)
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 24 Jun 2016
EventDefiniteness across languages - National Autonomous University of Mexico and El Colegio de México, Mexico City, Mexico
Duration: 22 Jun 201624 Jun 2016
https://sites.google.com/site/definitenessacrosslanguages/

Conference

ConferenceDefiniteness across languages
Abbreviated titleDAL
Country/TerritoryMexico
CityMexico City
Period22/06/1624/06/16
Internet address

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Definitely possessive: The role of the definite article in possessive structures in varieties of Dutch'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this