[preliminary version, final version in Proceedings of WECOL 1998]
1. Summary
This paper deals with characteristics of complementizer
agreement in Dutch dialects (i.e. dialects spoken in the Netherlands and
in the Dutch speaking region of Belgium).1 In section 2, we will discuss
a number of generalizations that have been made in relation to the phenomenon.
In section 3 we will discuss a number of unsolved questions in relation
to complementizer agreement:
(i) Why do some dialects have complementizer agreement,
others not?
(ii) Why does complementizer agreement generally have
a defective paradigm?
We propose (the beginning of) a solution to the second
problem in section 4. In section 5, we will further modify the initial
proposal.
2. Complementiser Agreement: Some Generalizations
2.1. What is complementizer agreement?
Complementizer agreement involves the phenomenon by which
the agreement ending which appears on the verb also shows up on the complementizer,
intro-ducing a subordinate clause.2 As a result, there is not only agreement
between the subject and the verb as far as person and number are concerned,
but between the subject and the complementizer as well (cf. also De Haan
1997). Although this phenomenon is highly uncommon in the languages of
the world, it is quite popular in German and Dutch dialects. Both German
and Dutch are Verb-Second languages, and this seems to be a necessary condition
for complementizer agree-ment to occur. As said, the present paper only
discusses the phenomenon in the Dutch dialects. Consider the following
examples of complementizer agreement:
(1) Limburg:
veurtot-s tiech de bruk zuu-s
before-2SG you the bridge see-2SG
(2) South Holland:
datt-e ze ziek benn-e
that-3PL they ill are-3PL
2.2. The copy generalization: the agreement ending on
the verb in the sentence in question is copied onto the complementizer.
In early studies dealing with complementizer agreement,
the stand is taken that the agreement ending of the verb in the sentence
in question is simply copied onto the complementizer. This view is reflected
by Beckering Vinckers (1872), for instance, who, in an attempt to explain
the phenomenon, claimed that the so-called 'conjugated conjunctions' are
actually slips of the tongue; a speaker who is uttering a sentence may
anticipate the end of that sentence that is the finite verb , and may thus
prematurely add the agreement ending of the verb to the conjunction. Beckering
Vinckers' explanation of the phenomenon cannot be correct, however, since
it completely ignores the systematic nature of the phenomenon: it is only
agreement endings that re-appear (and never the markers for tense); these
endings only occur on the complementizer (and never on other parts of the
sentence, for instance on the subject or the object); moreover, and as
will be discussed in greater detail below, complementizer agreement is
generally limited to specific forms within the paradigm. To give two examples
of the latter: in Frisian, complementizer agreement only occurs in clauses
with 2SG subjects; in Limburg dialects, it only occurs in 2SG and 2PL.
Similarly, Van Haeringen (1939) explains the phenomenon
by stating that it occurs in an attempt to overcome the distance between
subject and finite verb, a distance which can be quite long in subordinate
clauses in Dutch. By copying the agreement ending of the clause-final verb
onto the clause-initial complementizer, the tension between subject and
finite verb is somewhat relieved. Again, this view reflects the idea that
the agreement ending of the finite verb in the sentence in question is
simply copied onto the complementizer, meaning that the agreement endings
occurring on the verb and on the complementizer should be identical. Cf.
the following examples which seem to be in harmony with this view ('MP'
stands for 'modal particle'):3
(3) North Holland:
azz-e je morgenavond even ankomm-e
when-2SG you tomorrow evening MP come-2SG over
(4) North Holland/South Holland:
toen-e me kwamm-e
when-1PL we came-1PL
(5) North Holland/South Holland:
(ze zegge) datt-e ze ziek benn-e
(they say) that-3PL they sick are-3PL
(6) Flanders (Belgium):
(et werk) da-n de kinders gemaakt e-n
(the work) that-3PL the children made have-3PL
(7) Groningen:
(ik wait nait) of-s toe kom-s
(I know not) if-2SG you (2SG) come-2SG
(8) Groningen:
az-n koin nait in et laand blievm will-n
when-3PL cows (3PL) not in the land stay want-3PL
(9) Overijssel (Enschede):
(ik weet nig) of-s toe kom-s
(I know not) if-2SG you (2SG) come-2SG
(10) Limburg:
(iech waet neet) boe-t ger zee-t
(I know not) where-2PL you (2PL) are-2PL
2.3. The inversion generalization: the ending on the complemen-tizer
is identical to the agreement ending on the verb in inver-sion
As becomes clear from the endings on the complementizer
in dialects spoken in the eastern parts of the Netherlands, however, the
copy generalization, discussed above, cannot be correct. It concerns a
vast area (i.e. large parts of the Provinces of Drente, Overijssel and
Gelderland) that have a 123PL ending -t (cf. Hol 1955). Cf. in this light
the following examples, taken from Van Haeringen (1958):
(11) ik geleuve datt-e wy et mit hum maar es prebeer-t
I believe that-1PL we it with him MP MP try-1PL
(12) azz-e wy de turf niet verkoopn kun-t
if-1PL we the peat not sell can-1PL
In the eastern dialects in question, complementizer agreement only occurs in 1PL. Obviously, in these dialects the agreement ending of the verb, ending in -t , is not identical to the ending on the complementizer, which ends in -e . This means that complementizer agreement does not simply entail the phenomenon by which the agreement ending of the verb in the sentence in question is copied onto the complementizer. As Van Haeringen (1958) rightly noted, it is actually the agreement ending of the verb in inversion (which is the verb form in absentia) which is added to the complementizer. Naturally, this can only be observed by considering dialects in which the agreement ending of the verb in inverted order is different from the ending in non-inverted order. The eastern dialects from which the examples in (11) and (12) are taken represent such dialects. In these dialects the 1PL verb ending in non-inverted order is different from the 1PL verb form in inverted order; in inverted order it ends in -e , and in non-inverted order it ends in -t . Cf. (13):
(13) a. wy speul-t
we play-1PL
b. speul-e wy
play-1PL we
In short, the ending which is added to the complementizer
is identical to the agreement ending of the finite verb in inversion. For
the eastern dialects under discussion this means that in clauses with a
1PL subject the complementizer ends in -e , hence datt-e /*dat- t and azz-e
/*as-t .
3. Unsolved mysteries in relation to complementizer
agreement
The above inversion generalization does not exhaustively
characterize complementizer agreement, however. Actually, there are quite
a number of un-solved mysteries in relation to the phenomenon. One of these
mysteries concerns the geographical distribution of complemetizer agreement
within the Dutch speaking area, another concerns the distribution within
the paradigm of verbal endings.
3.1. Defective geographical distribution
Remarkably enough, complementizer agreement does not
occur within all regions or dialects within the Dutch area (i.e. the Netherlands
and Dutch speaking Belgium). Put differently, although Verb-Second seems
to be a necessary condition for complementizer agreement to take place,
and although all Dutch dialects meet this condition, the phenomenon does
not occur throughout the Dutch speaking area.4
First, we should distinguish between a western part and
an eastern part where complementizer agreement does occur, and an area
in between where the phenomenon is absent. The latter area involves the
Dutch Provinces of Utrecht, North Brabant, and a large part of the Province
of Gelderland, and the Belgian Provinces of Antwerp and Brabant.
Second, the western and the eastern part where complementizer
agreement does occur can be further subdivided. As far as the western part
of the area is concerned, a northern part and a southern part can be distinguished
where complementizer agreement does occur. The northern part involves the
dialects spoken in the Provinces of North and South Holland (Van Haeringen
1939). The southern part involves the isles of Zuid-Beveland (Hoekstra
1993) and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (De Visser & Goeman 1979) in the Province
of Zeeland, the Flemish dialects in the Province of French Flanders, West
Flanders, and the eastern part of East Flanders (Vanacker 1949; De Schutter
1997). Between the northern and the southern part, however, there is a
region where complementizer agreement is absent. This involves the isles
of Goeree-Overflakkee (in the Province of South Holland), and Schouwen-Duiveland
and Noord-Beveland (in the Province of Zeeland).
Similarly, the eastern part of the Dutch speaking area
can be divided into two areas where complementizer agreement does occur,
and an area in between where it is absent. Specifically, both the northern
and the southern part do have complementizer agreement: the northern part
concerns the Provinces of Friesland, Groningen, and the eastern parts of
the Provinces of Drenthe, Overijssel and Gelderland (Beckering Vinckers
1872; Klatter 1933; Van Ginneken 1939; Van Haeringen 1958; Van der Meer
1991; De Haan 1997); the southern part concerns the Province of Limburg,
particularly the southern region (Van Ginneken 1939). Between these two
parts, however, there is, again, an area where complementizer agreement
is absent. At present, we do not have a ready explanantion for the remarkable
distribution of complementizer agreement throughout the Dutch-speaking
area.
3.2 Defective paradigmatic distribution
Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that in the
areas and dialects in which complementizer agreement does occur, it is
rarely the full paradigm of verbal endings (123SG and 123PL) which appears
on the complementizer. Put differently, complementizer agreement generally
has a defective paradigm.5 Moreover, it appears that different dialects
exhibit different preferences for specific forms within the paradigm.6
Cf. the following list of complementizer agreement in various Dutch dialects
(cf. also the examples under (1)-(12) that were given above):
(14) North Holland: 2SG -e + 123PL -e
South Holland: 123PL -e
Zeeland Flanders: 1SG -n + 123PL -n
Friesland: 2SG -st
Groningen: 2SG -st + 123PL -n
Overijssel: 2SG -s
Eastern dialects: 1PL -e
Limburg 2SG -s + 2PL -t
In sum, we can ask ourselves at least the following two
questions:
(i) Is there a system in the defectivity of complementiser
agreement paradigms?
(ii) Why do some dialects have complementiser agreement,
others not?
3.3 Comparing complementizer agreement with verb agreement
In some sense, complementizer agreement seems to be parasitic
on verb agree-ment. We find dialects with verb agreement but without complementizer
agree-ment. However, we do not find dialects with complementizer agreement
but without verb agreement.
Verb agreement in West-Germanic can be either synthetic
or analytic. Consider the t-ending in the following paradigm:
(15) Main verb lopen 'to run'
present past
1S loop liep
2S loopt liep
3S loopt liep
PL lope liepe (official PL spelling: -en)
The -t encodes person/number information, on the one hand,
and tense information, on the other. Thus the -t says: you're dealing with
a singular form, second or third person, and you're dealing with a present
tense form. As the -t encodes both person/number information and tense
information, it is commonly referred to as a synthetic ending. The plural
ending, on the other hand, does not encode tense information. It just says:
you are dealing with a plural. Hence it is an analytic inflection.
Thus verbal agreement can be either synthetic or analytic.
Does complementiser agreement have all the properties of verb agreement?
No, it does not. In order to come to grips with the remarkable paradigmatic
distribution of complementizer agreement it is important to stress the
fact that the agreement between the complementizer and the verb always
involves person and number, never tense (cf. already Van Haeringen 1958).
Put differently, complementizer agreement never depends on marking for
tense, but on marking for person and number only. The net result is that
the agreement ending that is added to the complementizer is the same in
both present tense sentences and preterite sentences.
By taking the latter fact as a starting-point, we will
propose a new generali-zation which may bring us to a closer understanding
of the fact that complemen-tizer agreement generally has a defective paradigm.
We will elaborate upon this proposal in the following section.
4. A New Generalization
Just like the verb, the complementizer agrees with the
subject. A close inspec-tion of complementizer agreement and verb agreement
yields an astonishing result. It turns out that the agreement ending that
is added to the complementizer is the same in clauses in the present tense
and clauses in the past tense. Put differently, the ending added to the
complementizer agrees with both the agreement ending of the present tense
verb and the preterite verb. This means that the complementizer never expresses
tense information. Therefore, complementizer agreement is never synthetic.
This leads us to the following two conditions on complementizer
agreement:
(16) The PNT condition
Complementizer agreement can be agreement for Person
and Number but it may not express tense
(17) The homophony condition
Complementizer agreement must be homophonous to verbal
agreement
The corollary of these two conditions is the following generalization.
(18) The Identity Generalization (to be revised)
Complementizer agreement only occurs when the agreement
ending of the inverted verb in the present tense is identical to the agreement
ending of the inverted verb in the preterite
This generalization explains the defectiveness of the
paradigms of dialects with complementizer agreement that have been discussed
in the previous sections. In Frisian, for instance, the agreement ending
for 2SG is identical in present tense and preterite (-st ). As expected,
Frisian has complementizer agreement in 2SG. However, the agreement ending
in 123PL is not identical in present (-e ) and in the preterite (-n ).
As expected, Frisian has no complementizer agreement in the plural.
In the Groningen area, however, the ending for 123PL
in present tense and preterite verbs is identical (-n ). Indeed, different
from Frisian, the Groningen dialects do have complementizer agreement in
the plural.
In the eastern dialects that have complementizer agreement
in 1PL (cf. section
2.3: wy speult 'we play' but speule wy 'play we', hence
datte wy 'that we') we expect, on the basis of the condition above, that
the agreement ending reads -e in preterite 1PL, and this is indeed the
case. Cf. the following examples taken from Van Haeringen (1958):
(19) a. speul-e wy 'play we' (present 1PL)
b. bet-e wy 'bit we' (preterite 1PL)
In 3PL,7 however, the present tense ending is not identical to the preterite ending. Cf. the following examples (Van Haeringen 1958):
(20) a. speul-t ze 'play they' (present 3PL)
b. beet-n ze 'bit they' (preterite 3PL)
Hence, in 3PL complementizer agreement is absent in the
dialects in question.
All in all, the generalization formulated under (18)
explains the defective paradigms of the dialects that have been discussed
in the present paper. Cf. the table below that sums up the facts:
Table 1: Verb agreement and complementizer agreement in Dutch dialects.
We compare present and past forms within a person/number
combination.
present and past => comp agreement
present and past => no comp agreement
North Holland
2SG: -E and -E => comp agreement for -E
3SG: -T and ZERO => no comp agreement
123PL: -E and -E => comp agreement for -E
South Holland
3SG: -T and ZERO => no comp agreement
123PL: -E and -E => comp agreement for -E
Zeeland Flanders
1SG: -N and -N => comp agreement for -N
123PL: -N and -N => comp agreement for -N
Friesland
2SG: -ST and -ST => comp agreement for -ST
3SG: -T and ZERO => no comp agreement
123PL: -E and -EN => no comp agreement
Groningen
2SG: -ST and -ST => comp agreement for -ST
3SG: -T and ZERO => no comp agreement
123PL: -N and -N => comp agreement for -N
Overijssel
3SG: -T and ZERO => no comp agreement
1PL: -E and -E => comp agreement for -E
3PL: -T and -N => no comp agreement
Limburg
2SG: -S and -S => comp agreement for -S
3SG: -T and ZERO => no comp agreement
2PL: -T and -T => comp agreement for -T
The data on complementizer agreement that we have at our
disposal at present appear to corroborate our hypothesis that complementizer
agreement only occurs if the agreement ending of the present tense verb
is identical to the agreement ending of the preterite verb.
Zero-agreement also provides evidence for or against
our account, of course. Although it is logically possible that a dialect
does not have verb agreement, whereas it does have comp agreement, we predict
that if the verb-agreement in inversion is zero, then the comp agreement
must also be zero. In all dialects discussed above, the predictions concerning
zero-agreement are borne out.
5. Sharpening up the Identity Generalization
We have claimed that the complementizer agreement ending
must be homo-phonous with the agreement ending of the verb. But verbs constitute
a large class. It is hardly conceivable that a grammatical condition checks
on all mem-bers of the class of verbs. It is far more likely that only
a characteristic closed subset of all verbs is concerned. Hence we suggest
the following revision of the homophony condition:
(21) The Identity Generalization (revised)
Complementizer agreement only occurs when the agreement
ending of the inverted auxiliary in the present tense is identical to the
agreement ending of the inverted auxiliary in the preterite
We will now go on to provide three pieces of evidence
for the Identity Generalization, as restricted to auxiliaries.
1. Consider first the dialects of South Holland. Main
verbs do not exhibit a singular/plural opposition in the past whereas auxiliaries
do. Interestingly, complementizer agreement behaves as if the main verbs
did not exist:
(22) PAST SG and PAST PL
C-agt: ZERO and -E
Aux: ZERO and -E
Weak verbs: -E and -E
Put differently, weakly conjugated main verbs because
of their past tense constitute a counterexample to the unrevised homophony
condition, but not to the final version.
2. Limburg facts similarly support the claim that the
auxiliaries (being a subclass of the strong verbs) are relevant, not just
all verbs. In the Limburg dialects, the 2PL verb forms end in -T as far
as present tense verbs and irregular past tense verbs (this includes all
auxiliaries) are concerned. However, the 2PL of regular PAST tense verbs
does not end in -T, but in ø:
(23) Present tense irregular (hence all auxiliaries):
a. kin-t ger 'can you'
b. * kin ger
(24) Present tense regular:
a. woen-t ger 'live you'
b. * woen ger
(25) Past tense irregular (hence all auxiliaries):
a. waor-t ger 'were you'
b. * waor ger
(26) Past tense regular:
a. * woende-t ger 'lived you'
b. woende ger
Not withstanding the fact, then, that the 2PL agreement
ending is absent on regular past tense verbs, complementizer agreement
does occur in 2PL thanks to the fact that it does occur on irregular preterites
among which auxiliaries). This supports the final version of the Identity
Generalization.
3. Facts from Standard Dutch provide a third piece of
evidence for the proposed revision of the Identity Generalization:
(27) Standard Dutch present past
Weak verbs, 13PL -E and -E
Strong verbs, 13PL -E / -N and -N
This is the reverse case of South Holland and Limburg.
In South Holland, the auxiliaries, and only the auxiliaries made possible
complementiser agreement. In Standard Dutch, the auxiliaries and only the
auxiliaries block complementiser agreement.
Notice that we capitalize on the fact that all auxiliaries
are strong verbs. Of course, we could also restrict the Identity Generalization
to strong verbs. However, the notion 'strong verb' seems to us a less basic
notion than 'auxiliary'. There are several reasons for this. The notion
'strong verb' is restricted to Indo-European, the notion 'auxiliary' is
presumably relevant to all languages of the world. Furthermore, there is
no relation between the notion 'strong verb' and the notion 'complementizer'.
However, there is a relation between the notion 'auxiliary' and the notion
'complementizer' (Paardekooper 1961). We could even go one step further
and suppose that not all auxiliaries but only one is relevant, for example,
the verb zijn 'be'. We will leave this for future research.
6. Notes
* We would like to thank the audience at the Meertens
Symposion 1994 on Complementizer Agreement and the audience at the Western
Conference on Linguistics 1998 for stimulating questions and discussion.
1. This article is a revised version of Hoekstra &
Smits (1997).
2. Never co-ordinate clauses.
3. The examples were taken from Van Ginneken (1939),
Van Haeringen (1939, 1958), De Vries (1940), and from a corpus of spoken
Maastricht (Provinc of Limburg) gathered in 1997.
4. Note that in Standard Dutch, complementizer agreement
is absent as well. It is not unlikely that this should not be attributed
to structural factors (cf. section 4 below), but to cultural factors instead.
Specifically, it is claimed that due to the strong normativeness of standard
languages, natural processes such as complementizer agreement develop far
less easy in such languages than in dialects ( which are generally far
less normative) (cf. Van Marle 1996).
5. However, for a number of Flemish dialects it is claimed
that complementizer agreement is applied throughout the paradigm (cf. e.g.
De Schutter 1997; Haegeman 1992).
6. Note, by the way, that another distinction should
be made. This involves the fact that within some areas complementizer agreement
is optional, whereas in other areas it is obligatory. Specifically, complementizer
agreement is generally optional, the only two exceptions being Frisian
(2SG) and the Limburg dialects (in 2SG; in 2PL it seems to be optional).
We will not deal with the problem of the optionality of complementiser
agreement here.
7. At present, we do not have any data at our disposal
concerning the agreement ending for preterite verbs in 2PL.
7. References
Beckering Vinckers, J. 1872. Phonetische voorbarigheid,
een middel ter verklaring van smiins. Taal en Letterbode 3, 165-171.
Ginneken, J. van. 1939. De vervoeging der onderschikkende
voegwoorden en voornaamwoorden. Onze Taaltuin 8, 1-11.
Haan, G. de. 1997. Voegwoordcongruentie in het Fries.
In. E. Hoekstra & C. Smits (eds), Vervoegde voegwoorden . Amsterdam:
P.J.Meertens-Instituut, 50-67.
Haegeman, L. 1992.
Haeringen, C.B. van. 1939. Congruerende voegwoorden.
Reprinted in Van Haeringen (1962). Neerlandica . Verspreide opstellen.
The Hague: Daamen, 246-259.
Haeringen, C.B. van. 1958. Vervoegde voegwoorden in het
oosten. Reprinted in Van Haeringen (1979). Gramarie . Utrecht: HES, 309-318.
Hoestra, E. 1993. Some implications of number agreement
on COMP. In F. Drijkoningen & K. Hengeveld (eds), Linguistics in the
Netherlands 1993 . Amsterdam: Benjamins, 61-68.
Hoekstra, E. & C. Smits. 1997. Vervoegde voegwoorden
in de Nederlandse dialecten. In E. Hoekstra & C. Smits (eds), Vervoegde
voegwoorden . Amsterdam: P.J.Meertens-Instituut, 6-29.
Hol, A.R. 1955. Het meervoud van het praesens in onze
oostelijke dialecten. Taal en Tongval 7, 160-175.
Klatter, J. 1933. Dialectstudie en syntaxis. Onze Taaltuin
2, 73-84.
Marle, J. van. 1996
Meer, G. van der. 1991. The 'conjugation' of subclause
introducers: Frisian -st . NOWELE 17, 63-84.
Schutter, G. de. 1997. Incorporatie-in-C in de Vlaamse
en de Brabantse dialecten. In E. Hoekstra & C. Smits (eds), Vervoegde
voegwoorden . Amsterdam: P.J.Meertens-Instituut, 31-49.
Vanacker, F. 1949. Over enkele meervoudsvormen van voegwoorden.
Taal en Tongval 1, 32-45, 77-93, 108-112.
Visser, M. de & A. Goeman. 1979. Voegwoord, relatief
partikel en persoonsvorm in een dialect. Een geval van schijnbare kongruentie
bij voegwoorden in de 1e persoon enkelvoud. Taal en Tongval 31, 222-241.
Vries, W. de. 1940. Congruerende voegwoorden. Tijdschrift
voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 59, 78-79.
Eric Hoekstra & Caroline Smits
Meertens Institute
Po Box 94264
1090 GG Amsterdam
e-mail: ehoekstra@fa.knaw.nl
Caroline.Smits@Meertens.knaw.nl