dissertation.pdf VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT Constructions, constraints, and construal Adpositions in Dutch...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    13-Feb-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    7
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of dissertation.pdf VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT Constructions, constraints, and construal Adpositions in Dutch...

  • Constructions, constraints, and construal

    Adpositions in Dutch

  • Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 Janskerkhof 13 fax: +31 30 253 6406 3512 BL Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: Watanabe Seitei, c. 1920, ‘Two frogs in a pond with reeds’ (detail). Photography: C.P.J. van der Peet bv Japanese Prints. ISBN 978-90-78328-68-1 NUR 616 Copyright © 2008: Maaike Beliën. All rights reserved.

  • VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

    Constructions, constraints, and construal

    Adpositions in Dutch

    ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

    ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus

    prof.dr. L.M. Bouter, in het openbaar te verdedigen

    ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de faculteit der Letteren

    op donderdag 4 december 2008 om 13.45 uur in het auditorium van de universiteit,

    De Boelelaan 1105

    door

    Maaike Laura Beliën

    geboren te Heemskerk

  • promotor: prof.dr. Th.A.J.M. Janssen copromotor: dr. F.C. van der Leek

  • Acknowledgments This has been a most enjoyable project. There are quite a few people who have contributed to it in some way. I would like to take the opportunity to thank them here.

    First of all, I would like to thank Theo Janssen and Frederike van der Leek, perhaps most of all for making me feel that they have enjoyed this project as much as I have. Their comments, suggestions, and constant support have been invaluable. I am grateful to Theo for his relentless optimism, his sharp observations about language data, and his ability to reduce seemingly insurmountable problems to manageable proportions. I am grateful to Frederike for her inspirational classes on cognitive linguistics, for all our discussions over the years, in which she was always three steps ahead of me, and for her meticulously critical eye.

    I would also like to thank the members of my reading committee: Melissa Bowerman, Hubert Cuyckens, Marjon Helmantel, Lachlan Mackenzie, and Arie Verhagen. I am grateful to them for taking the time to read my manuscript.

    The idea for this dissertation arose during the academic year 1994- 1995, when I was an exchange student at UC Berkeley. I am grateful to the faculty and students of the UC Berkeley Linguistics Department for their formative influence on my linguistic thinking, particularly to those whose classes I took: Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay, James Matisoff, Eve Sweetser, and Dan Slobin. I would especially like to thank Eve Sweetser for making me feel very welcome in this bustling intellectual community.

    The bulk of the research presented in this dissertation, carried out during my years at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, project 200-50- 083). I feel very fortunate that I was able to continue the project as a member of the Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication (ACLC) at the University of Amsterdam, and that I am finishing it now at the Institute for Technology and Communication of the Technical University Delft.

    When I started my project at the Vrije Universiteit, I expected it to be me, books, and a computer. Little did I know. I have fond memories of the daily Ph.D./postdoc lunches in the delightful company of Hilde van Aken, Frank Beths, Aleth Bolt, Corrien Blom, Ronny Boogaart, Mirjam Ernestus, Lidewij van Gils, Marjan Huisman, Bettelou Los, Margit Rem and Ariane Zwiers. I also very much enjoyed sharing an office with Ronny Boogaart and Marjan Huisman as well as chatting over coffee with Gert Bos.

  • In 2001 I spent three months as a visiting scholar at the Linguistics Department of UC San Diego, for which I am indebted to Ronald Langacker. I would like to thank him and Gilles Fauconnier for their stimulating classes and their willingness to discuss my work with them. I would also like to thank Tore Nesset, Esther Pascual, Anne Sumnicht, and Inge Zwitserlood for their enjoyable company.

    I also wish to express my gratitude towards my colleagues at the English Department of the University of Amsterdam. I would particularly like to thank Evelien Keizer, who I could always turn to with questions on linguistic, teaching, or other matters. I thank Olga Fischer for her faith in me. Thanks also to the core of the always inspiring language acquisition team: Anne Bannink, Manon van der Laaken, Rosalie Mesker, and Roos van der Zwaard. Special thanks, finally, to Jetty Peterse and Henny de Boer for their warm-hearted contribution to a very pleasant working environment.

    For their interest in my project over the years, I thank Ad Foolen, Wim Honselaar, Marco Last, Enrique Palancar, Esther Pascual, Co Vet, and Sarah van Vliet. I am grateful also to the late Paul Werth for his classes on discourse with their emphasis on authentic language data. I further would like to thank Eric Akkerman for helping me find a suitable language corpus and for showing me how to use it. Thanks also to my new colleagues in Delft for giving me a warm welcome. I am especially grateful to Merel Keijzer and Liza Berry for showing me the ropes and answering all my questions.

    I am grateful to my dear friends Marieke Timmerman and Anna Bekius for agreeing to be my paranimfen. I know that Nelleke Vercouteren would have loved to see this, and I miss her. I thank my parents for their loving support. I would especially like to thank my mother for always being willing to look after Joppe and Wieke when I felt I needed more time to work, and I thank my father for making academia look like a fun line of work. Finally, I want to thank Joppe and Wieke for forcing me to be more efficient with my time, and Bart for giving me extra time to attend conferences or write. Most of all, I thank the three of them for our lovely life together.

  • Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 11 1.1 A long-standing problem in Dutch linguistics .......................... 11 1.2 A different approach.................................................................. 13 1.3 Overview of the study ............................................................... 15 2 Postposition or particle: Constituency tests ........................... 17 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 17 2.2 No verb to form an SCV with ................................................... 18 2.3 Non-subject nominal and adposition not adjacent .................... 18 2.4 Topicalization............................................................................ 20 2.5 Pronominalization ..................................................................... 21 2.6 Passivization.............................................................................. 23 2.7 Auxiliary choice ........................................................................ 24 2.8 Nominalization.......................................................................... 25 2.9 Caused motion........................................................................... 25 2.10 Coordination.............................................................................. 26 2.11 Conclusion................................................................................. 27 3 Previous semantic studies ............................................................. 29 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 29 3.2 Perfective and imperfective....................................................... 29 3.3 Location and direction............................................................... 31 3.4 Four problems ........................................................................... 36 3.5 Conclusion................................................................................. 45 4 Adpositional semantics: The case of over.................................. 47 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 47 4.2 A lexical network analysis of Dutch over ................................. 48 4.3 Dutch over: a single constraint.................................................. 54 4.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................... 54 4.3.2 Linguistic meanings as constraints.................................. 55 4.3.3 Dimensions of trajector and landmark............................. 56 4.3.4 Contact............................................................................. 57 4.3.5 Boundary crossing........................................................... 58 4.3.6 Static or moving trajector ................................................ 61 4.3.7 Covering .......................................................................... 66 4.3.8 A force............................................................................. 66

  • 4.4 Discussion ................................................................................. 69 4.4.1 Methodology ................................................................... 69 4.4.2 Experimental evidence .................................................... 70 4.4.3 Context-independent meanings ....................................... 71 4.4.4 Conventionality ......................................................