The grammaticalisation of the gaan + infinitive future in spoken Dutch and Flemish. Carol Fehringer

Maat: px

Weergave met pagina beginnen:

Download "The grammaticalisation of the gaan + infinitive future in spoken Dutch and Flemish. Carol Fehringer"

Johannes Pauwels
8 jaren geleden
Aantal bezoeken:

1 The grammaticalisation of the + infinitive future in spoken Dutch and Flemish. Carol Fehringer

2 Go as a future tense expression (FTE) Only lexical/ FTE restricted FTE unrestricted not FTE German Dutch English *Ich gehe in die Wat gaat hij I m going to go Stadt gehen zeggen? into town?ik ga naar de stad

3 Grammaticalisation [I am going] [to marry Bill] Lexical go = I am going somewhere in order to marry B Originally animate subject, proximate future reference To indicates a purpose/goal (= intentional meaning) [I am going to marry Bill] [going to] = unit Grammatical go = FTE competing with will Hopper and Traugott (23)

reference To indicates a purpose/goal (= intentional meaning) [I am going to

4 Grammaticalisation semantic bleaching Inanimate subjects: The tree is going to lose its leaves Motion verbs come and go: I m going to go into town tomorrow Grammatically acceptable. But is this reflected in actual usage? How far down the grammaticalisation path is the future in Dutch?

5 Frequency of as an FTE in NL and VL Examine the relative proportions of the two syntactic FTEs versus in contexts where the two can potentially vary. Lexical restrictions on. Examine FTEs in separate groups determined by observed behaviour: Agent verbs: Non-agent verbs: Motion verbs: hebben, zijn Total FTEs in sub-corpus = 115 doen, zoeken, bellen worden, krijgen, zien, gebeuren komen,

Examine FTEs in separate groups determined by observed behaviour: Agent verbs: Non-agent verbs:

6 Gaan versus in NL GAAN ZULLEN 1 5 AGENT NON-AGENT KOMEN

7 Gaan versus in VL AGENT NON-AGENT MOTION HEBBEN/ZIJN

8 Syntactic constraints on as FTE Following quantitative variationist method of Poplack & Tagliamonte (2), Torres-Cacoullos & Walker (29), Tagliamonte (213). Clause type (main versus subordinate) Grammatical person (1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd ) Subject type (animate vs non-animate) Proximity of future reference (proximate 6 mths) Negation Interrogatives Co-occurrence with temporal adverb And in addition, co-occurrence with particles Red = significant in all groups in NL and VL (p<.5) Blue = significant in only some groups

Clause type (main versus subordinate) Grammatical person (1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd ) Subject type (animate vs non-animate) Proximity of

9 Main vs. subordinate clauses NL % main 3% 94% sub 6% % 8% main 65% sub 35% AGENT NON-AGENT Agent: χ 2 (1)=2.34, p<.1 Non-agent: χ 2 (1)=32.5, p<.1

main 3% 94% sub 6% 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2% 8%

10 Main vs. subordinate clauses VL % 51% % Main 17% 96% 4% Subordinate Main 81% 19% Subordinate AGENT NON-AGENT Agent: χ 2 (1)=5.35, p=.21 Non-Agent: χ 2 (1)=7.14, p=.8

49% 1 8 6 4 2 Main 17% 96% 4% Subordinate 6 4 2

11 Main vs. subordinate clauses VL % 49% % % 27% % 58% 42% main sub main sub MOTION HEBBEN/ZIJN Motion: χ 2 (1)=4.84, p =.28 Hebben/zijn: χ 2 (1)=15.2, p<.1

2 4 3 2 1 73% 27% 15 1 5 32% 58% 42% main sub

12 Grammatical person in NL % 2 62% 5 8% 44% % 1st person 93% 7% 3rd person % 1st person 3rd person AGENT NON-AGENT Agent: χ 2 (1)=25.6, p<.1 Non-agent:χ 2 (1)=8.4, p=.5

2 1 2% 1st person 3rd person AGENT NON-AGENT

13 Grammatical person in VL % % % % 1st person 94% 6% 3rd person % 1person 65% 35% 3 person % 7% 3% 1 person 3 person AGENT NON-AGENT HEBBEN/ZIJN Agent: χ 2 (1)=9.65, p=.2 (Motion: χ 2 (1)=3.36, p=.67) Non-agent: χ 2 (1)=7.38, p=.7 Hebben/zijn: χ 2 (1)= 24.5, p<.1 Persistence? Hoppper (1991)

person AGENT NON-AGENT HEBBEN/ZIJN Agent: χ 2 (1)=9.65, p=.2 (Motion: χ 2 (1)=3.36, p=.

14 Animacy of subject % 46% 59% 41% % animate non-animate WORDEN/KOMEN % 51% 29% χ 2 (1) =.17, p=.679 (VL) Also non significant: animate ZIJN non-animate Worden/komen (NL): χ 2 (1) =.15, p=.694 χ 2 (1) = 1.83, p=.1 Gaan (VL): χ 2 (1) = 2.62, p=.15 Persistence?

15 Proximity of future reference only with non-agent verbs NL VL 74% 26% 63% 37% Proximate Non-Prox NON-AGENT % 45% 74% 26% Proximate Non-Prox NON-AGENT NL: χ 2 (1)=15.9, p<.1 VL: χ 2 (1)=15.34, p<.1 Persistence? Why not hebben/zijn?

4 3 2 1 55% 45% 74% 26% Proximate Non-Prox NON-AGENT NL: χ 2

16 Gaan in declarative sentences (a feature of NL?) Number of interrogatives too small to test in all categories other than Agent. Only significant in NL % % 34% 22% Interrogative Declarative χ 2 (1)=7.31, p=.7 AGENT

categories other than Agent. Only significant in NL.

17 Particles Most frequent particles in the sub-corpus: maar ook even nou eens wel dan toch

18 Particles in NL % % 45% 55% % 43% 16% % Particle No particle Particle No particle AGENT NON-AGENT Agent: χ 2 (1)=14.68, p<.1 Non-Agent: χ 2 (1)=43.5, p<.1

19 Particles in VL % % % 32% 9% % 3% 35% Particle No particle Particle No particle AGENT NON-AGENT Agent: χ 2 (1)=18.1, p<.1 Non-Agent: χ 2 (1)=2.76, p<.1

20 Particles in VL % % % 4% % 66% 32% % 1 2 particle no particle particle no particle MOTION HEBBEN/ZIJN Motion: χ 2 (1)=17.27, p<.1 Hebben/zijn:χ 2 (1)=5.12, p=.24

21 Grammaticalisation path of go FTE Ger NL VL Eng lexical go highly-grammaticalised go Restricted to certain verb groups. No co-occurrence with Some persistence in proximate TR Wider range of verb groups. Some persistence in proximate TR, person and animacy of subject No restriction to verb groups. No persistence. Commonalities E, NL, VL: /go in subordinate clauses /will in first person Feature of NL and VL: co-occurring with particles

22 Selected references Beheydt, Griet. 25. Future time reference English and Dutch compared. In Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera, Dirk Geeraerts (eds.), Dirk Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Fehringer, Carol & Karen P. Corrigan. In press. The rise of the going to future in Tyneside English. Evidence for grammaticalisation. English World Wide. Hilpert, Martin. 28. Germanic future constructions: a usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J On some principles of grammaticisation. In Elisabeth Closs (ed.), Approaches to grammaticalisation, vol. 1, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 23. Grammaticalisation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraaikamp, Margot. 29. Dat gaat anders worden! Gaan als hulpwerkwoord van de toekomende tijd. Onze Taal 78. Nesselhauf, Nadja. 21. The Development of Future Time Expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of Forms or Change in Discourse? English Language and Linguistics 14: Poplack, Shana, and Sali Tagliamonte. 2. The Grammaticalization of Going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change: Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 23. BE GOING TO Versus WILL/SHALL. Does Syntax Matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31: Ten Cate, Abraham P Bemerkungen zum deutschen und niederländischen Futur. In Eberhard Klein (ed.), Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb. Linguistisches Kolloquium 24. Tübingen: Niemeyer Torres-Cacoullos, Rena, and James A. Walker. 29. The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language 85:

Vergelijkbare documenten

Handouts - lesson 4 - #dutchgrammar - 9 april the verb. het werkwoord. regular verb conjugation

Handouts - lesson 4 - #dutchgrammar - 9 april the verb. het werkwoord. regular verb conjugation #dutchgrammar for beginners - lesson 4 1 the verb het werkwoord 2 to watch ik kijk jij kijkt u kijkt hij kijkt zij kijkt het kijkt wij jullie zij 3 most verbs end with: -en first person singular: without