Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs: A theory-driven corpus investigation
-
Dirk Pijpops
and
Dirk Speelman
Abstract
This article presents the results of a corpus study of the Dutch psychological verbs ergeren ‘to annoy’, interesseren ‘to interest’, storen ‘to disturb’, and verbazen ‘to amaze’. These verbs exhibit a syntactic alternation between their seemingly synonymous transitive and reflexive argument constructions, as in Elizabeth ergert John vs. John ergert zich aan Elizabeth (both: ‘Elizabeth annoys John’). On the basis of current theoretical insights, four hypotheses are formulated predicting the language user’s preferred argument construction. It is argued that the popular agentivity hypothesis, as proposed in studies by, for instance, Dowty, Langacker, and Zaenen, should be broken up into the token- and type-level agentivity hypotheses. Both agentivity hypotheses come with different theoretical entailments, and make distinct predictions about the quantitative data. These data confirm the token-level agentivity hypothesis, while not doing the same for the type-level agentivity hypothesis. Additionally, it is found that stimuli and experiencers that are heavier in terms of informational weight both prompt the use of the reflexive construction, and that the individual preferences of the verbs could not be predicted based on their historical semantic development.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jason Grafmiller, Freek Van de Velde, and Ad Foolen for insightful discussions on the theoretical implications of our data and helpful advice on the operationalizations of the hypotheses. We also owe thanks to three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. Thanks are also due to Isolde Vande Walle and editor-in-chief Hubert Cuyckens for additional remarks which greatly helped to improve this paper. All remaining errors are, of course, are own.
References
Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia. 2014. The psych causative alternation. Lingua 148. 53–79.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010Search in Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2011. AntConc (Computer Software, version 3.3.3). Tokyo: Waseda University.Search in Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1996. A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 1–30.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2Search in Google Scholar
Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida. 2000. Grammatica van het Nederlands [Grammar of Dutch]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2001. The Perplexity of Dat–Nom Verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 47–70.10.1080/03325860117730Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Johanna Barðdal & Shobhana Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.108.09barSearch in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-4.Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29 (2). Dordrecht. 335–370.10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6Search in Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–142.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Andriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352.10.1007/BF00133902Search in Google Scholar
Bennis, Hendrik Johannes. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Tilburg: Tilburg University PhD dissertation.10.1515/9783110889536Search in Google Scholar
Bennis, Hendrik Johannes. 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 84–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2008a. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6(1). 113–144.10.1075/arcl.6.06boaSearch in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2008b. Resolving form–meaning discrepancies in construction grammar. In Jaakko Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.5.02boaSearch in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2014. Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 89–112.10.1515/tl-2014-0003Search in Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax: A minimalist approach to grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Rolf Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerolf Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1). 1–50.Search in Google Scholar
Buis, Maarten L. 2007. Predict and adjust with logistic regression. Stata Journal 7(2). 221–226.10.1177/1536867X0700700206Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Winston. 2014. Extrafont: Tools for using fonts.Search in Google Scholar
Cheung, Candice & Richard Larson. 2015. Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(1). 127–189.10.1007/s11049-014-9259-3Search in Google Scholar
Chung, Taegoo. 1999. External argument and English psychological verbs. Studies in Generative Grammar 9(2). 361–380.Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2006. De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: Een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Ghent: Ghent University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2009. Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences 31(5). 593–611.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Tomothy. 2010. Lectal variation in Constructional Semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 191–221. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226461.191Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1986. Surface subject choice of mental verbs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. New York, 27–30 December.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations : The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovski (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_5Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional Factors, 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language : Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 49–68. Stanford: CSLI Publications.10.1075/cilt.243.07croSearch in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and argument structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
de la Cruz, Juan. 1994. Psych-verbs in old English: From their origin in the lexicon to final syntactic structure. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 28. 37–48.Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Freek Van de Velde. 2013. Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language 37(3). 534–565.10.1075/bct.79.04desSearch in Google Scholar
de Vries, Matthias & Lamert Allard te Winkel. 1998. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal.’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff.Search in Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1982. Some remarks on the ergative hypothesis. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 21. 61–82.Search in Google Scholar
den Boon, Ton & Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. 14th edn. Antwerpen/Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicography.Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 296–321. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110292022-015Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1996. Psychological predicates and the syntax-semantics interface. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 131–147. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8. 1–27.10.18637/jss.v008.i15Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.). 2010. Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR]). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226461Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics 3. 37–74.10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2013. The semantics of syntactic choice: An analysis of English emotion verbs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110307474Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2015. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–125.10.3366/cor.2015.0068Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International journal of corpus linguistics 9(1). 97–130.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griSearch in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Search in Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde Van Aken, Vicky Van den Heede & Dirk Speelman. 2000. Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV-corpus of written Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5(4). 356–363.Search in Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap De Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.Search in Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank. 2013. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 4.0-0.Search in Google Scholar
Herschensohn, Julia. 1992. Case marking and French psych-verbs. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 16(1). 21–40.10.1075/li.16.1.03herSearch in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric. 1987. Korte binding en polariteit bij psych-werkwoorden en ditransitieven [Short binding and polarity with psych-verbs and ditransitives]. Tabu: bulletin voor taalwetenschap 17. 85–89.Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Annear Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Buhlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan. 2006. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics 7(3). 355–373.10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011Search in Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 1995. The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic Analysis 25. 95–120.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kang, Young-Se. 1986. Korean syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried & Hans Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.4.05kaySearch in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Laura Michaelis. 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 2271–2296. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Kelling, Carmen. 2003. French psych verbs and derived nouns. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Nominals: Inside and out, 151–179. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Klein, Katarina & Silvia Kutscher. 2005. Lexical economy and case selection of psych-verbs in German. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 282, Theories des Lexicons [Working papers of the SFB 282, Theory of the Lexico n]. Nr. 122. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf, Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. https://ids-pub.bsz-bw.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/3417 (accessed 3 February 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Klooster, Wim. 2001. Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands: Een volledig overzicht [Grammar of contemporary Dutch: A complete overview]. Den Haag: Sdu.Search in Google Scholar
Kordini, Valia. 2001. Psych verb constructions in Modern Greek: A semantic analysis in the hierarchical lexicon. Essex: Univerisity of Essex PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kuhn, Max. 2008. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. Journal of Statistical Software 28(5). 1–26.10.18637/jss.v028.i05Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 236–287.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol.2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lasch, Agathe, Conrad Borchling, Gerhard Cordes & Dieter Möhn. 1956. Mittelniederdeutsches Handwörterbuch. Neumünster: Wachholtz.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Jason Grafmiller. 2012. Do you always fear what frightens you? In Tracy Holloway King & Valeria de Paiva (eds.), From quirky case to representing space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, 21–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4). 850–883.10.1353/lan.2006.0213Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76.10.1515/tl-2014-0001Search in Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Wim Goedertier, Frank Van Eynde, Louis Boves, Jean-Pierre Martens, Michael Moortgat & Harald Baayen. 2002. Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project. Proceedings of the third international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC). 340–347. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2002/ (accessed 3 February 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1898. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 3rd edn. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Frans Debrabandere, Arend Quak, Tanneke Schoonheim & Nicoline van der Sijs. 2009. Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pijnenburg, Wilhelmus. 2001. Vroegmiddelnederlands woordenboek: Woordenboek van het Nederlands van de dertiende eeuw in hoofdzaak op basis van het Corpus-Gysseling [Early Middle Dutch dictionary: Dictionary of 13th century Dutch mainly based on the Gysseling Corpus]. Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie.Search in Google Scholar
Pijnenburg, Wilhelmus & Tanneke Schoonheim. 2009. Oudnederlands Woordenboek [Old Dutch Dictionary]. Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse lexicografie.Search in Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2014. A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Published online, ahead of print.10.1515/cllt-2013-0027Search in Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen. 2008. Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal: Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands [Between spoken and standard language: A corpus-based investigation to the situational, regional and social spread of some morphosyntactic features of spoken Belgian Dutch]. Dissertation University of Leuven.Search in Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Martin. 1970. On the Surface Verb “Remind”. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 37–120.Search in Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2002. Proto-roles and case selection in optimality theory. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282, Theory des Lexicons, 122.Search in Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2004. Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariaton bei psychischen Verben [Proto-roles and verb type: Case variation with the psychological verbs]. In Rolf Kailuweit & Martin Hummel (eds.), Semantische Rollen, 377–401. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2006. Mismatches in semantic-role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking, 53–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2002. Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 28. 269–280.10.3765/bls.v28i1.3842Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1974. A transderivational constraint on Richard? In Michael W. La Galey, Robert A. Fox & Anthony Bruck (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 551–558.Search in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110900019.205Search in Google Scholar
Saravanja, Lidija. 2011. Argumentna struktura psiholoških glagola u hrvatskom jeziku [The argument structure of psychological verbs in Croatian]. Suvremena Lingvistika 37(2). 241–257.Search in Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.18speSearch in Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk & Dirk Geeraerts. 2009. Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch “doen” and “laten.” In Ted Sanders & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 173–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110224429.173Search in Google Scholar
Stallings, Lynne, Maryellen MacDonald & Padraig O’Seaghdha. 1998. Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 392–417.10.1006/jmla.1998.2586Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin & Achim Zeileis. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (307) http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/307 (accessed 3 February 2017).10.1186/1471-2105-9-307Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis & Torsten Hothorn. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/25 (accessed 2 February 2017).10.1186/1471-2105-8-25Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Benedikt Heller & Melanie Röthlisberger. 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2). 109–137.10.1075/eww.37.2.01szmSearch in Google Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne. 2012. Making choices: Modelling the English dative alternation. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2004. De Middelnederlandse onpersoonlijke constructie en haar grammaticale concurrenten: Semantische motivering van de argumentstructuur [The Middle Dutch impersonal construction and her grammatical competitors: Semantic motivation of the argument structure]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9(1). 48–76.Search in Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, Vol. 1, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110366273.141Search in Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop. 1985. Verkenning van de onpersoonlijke constructies [Exploration of the impersonal constructions]. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 101. 35–63.Search in Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Search in Google Scholar
van Eerten, Laura. 2007. Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [On the Corpus of Spoken Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 12(3). 194–215.Search in Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi. 2015. Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar. The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4). 613–632.10.1515/cog-2014-0074Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert Junior. 2004. Semantic macroroles in role and reference Grammar. In Rolf Kailuweit & Martin Hummel (eds.), Semantische Rollen, 62–82. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Vanhoe, Henk. 2002. Aspects of the syntax of psychological verbs in Spanish: A lexical functional analysis. In Miriam Butt & Tracy H. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 373–389. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Venables, William & Brian Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. 4th edn. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2Search in Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology 14(2–3). 213–251.10.1515/lity.2010.009Search in Google Scholar
Verwijs, Eelco & Jacob Verdam. 1991. Middelnederlandsch woordenboek. Zedelgem: Zedelgem Flandria Nostra.Search in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Willems, Annelore & Gert De Sutter. 2015. Reassessing the effect of the complexity principle on PP Placement in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20(3). 339–366.10.5117/NEDTAA2015.3.WILLSearch in Google Scholar
Willems, Annelore & Gert De Sutter. 2016. Understanding PP placement in written Dutch: A corpus-based multifactorial investigation of the principal syntactic, semantic and discursive determinants. In Johannes Wahle, Marisa Köllner, Harald Baayen, Gerhard Jäger & Tineke Baayen-Oudshoorn (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference on quantitative investigations in theoretical linguistics. Tübingen. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/64864 (accessed 3 February 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Byong-Seon. 1994. Morphosyntactic phenomena of Korean in Role and Reference Grammar: Psych-verb construction, inflectional verb morphemes, complex sentences, and relative clauses. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 129–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_9Search in Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of the German language]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872163Search in Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511977763Search in Google Scholar
Appendix Examples in Table 2
| Wij | storen | niemand | en | zelf | worden | we | ook | niet | gestoord. |
| we | disturb | no-one | and | self | are | we | also | not | disturbed |
‘We do not disturb anyone and we are not disturbed ourselves.’
| Tony | Herreman | interesseert | ons | wel. |
| Tony | Herreman | interests | us | well |
‘Tony Herreman does interest us.’
| De | Arabische | wereld | ergerde | zich | indertijd | dood | aan | de | grote |
| the | Arabic | world | annoyed | itself | at.the.time | dead | to | the | large |
| Israeli | delegation. |
| Israelische | delegatie |
‘The Arabic world was, at the time, extremely annoyed by the large Israeli delegation.’
| Zowel | de | gemeente | Maasbracht | als | de | ondernemers | […] | ergeren |
| Both | the | municipality | Maasbracht | as | the | entrepreneurs | annoyed |
| zich | over | het | wrak | […] |
| themselves | about | the | wreckage |
‘Both the municipality of Maasbracht and the entrepreneurs […] were annoyed by the wreckage […].’
| Auto’s | interesseren | me | eigenlijk | niet | zo | veel. |
| Cars | interest | me | actually | not | that | much |
‘Actually, car’s don’t really interest me that much.’
| Wat | ons | verbaasde | was | de | hoge | kostprijs | van | het | apparaat, |
| What | us | amazed | was | the | high | cost | of | the | machine |
| rond | het | half | miljoen. | |
| around | the | half | million |
‘What amazed us, was the high cost of the machine, about half a million.’
| […] | wanneer | hij | zich | ergert | aan | het | breken | met | de | regel | […] |
| when | he | himself | annoys | to | the | breaking | with | the | rule |
‘When he is annoyed by the breaking of the rule,…’
| Je | houdt | namelijk | weinig | vrienden | over | als | ned.-belgië |
| You | hold | namely | few | friends | left | if | the Netherlands-Belgium |
| je | geen | bal | interesseert. |
| you | no | ball | interests |
‘You see, you won’t be left with many friends if the soccer game the Netherlands vs. Belgium doesn’t interest you at all.’
| […] | omdat | hij | zich | ergerde | aan | het | gegroet. |
| because | he | himself | annoyed | to | the | greeting |
‘Because all the greeting was annoying him.’
| De | landelijke | politiek | interesseert | me | geen | klap. |
| The | national | politics | interests | me | no | smack |
‘National politics do not interest me at all.’
| Eén | dag | vergaderen | met | de | raad | van | bestuur - | je | ergert |
| one | day | meeting | with | the | board | of | management | you | annoy |
| je | gek | aan | de | inefficiëntie. |
| yourself | crazy | to | the | inefficiency |
‘Have a meeting of one day with the executive board, and you’ll be driven crazy by the inefficiency.’
| Die | hypocrisie | stoort | me | enorm, | want | ik | schrijf | slechts |
| That | hypocrisy | disturbs | me | immensely | because | I | write | only |
| over | de | vragen | die | kinderen | stellen. |
| about | the | questions | those | children | pose |
‘That hypocrisy bothers me immensely, because I only write about the questions that children ask.’
| Dat | jou | iets | ergert | … | is | weer | een | ander | verhaal. |
| that | jou | something | annoys | is | again | a | other | story |
‘That something annoys you, is another story altogether.’
| Ik | ergerde | er | mij | een | beetje | aan | dit | soort | dingen. |
| I | annoyed | there | myself | a | bit | to | that | kind | things |
‘That kind of stuff annoyed me a bit’.
| En | op | het | internet | vond | ik | vrienden | met | wie | ik | kon | praten |
| And | on | the | internet | found | I | friends | with | whom | I | could | talk |
| over | wat | mij | interesseerde. |
| about | what | me | interested |
‘And on the internet, I found friends with whom I could talk about the things that interested me.’
| Taihuttu | ergert | zich | eraan | dat | de | afgelaste | wedstrijden |
| Taihuttu | annoys | himself | thereto | that | the | cancelled | games |
| zo | laat | worden | ingehaald. | ||||
| so | late | are | rescheduled |
‘Taihuttu is annoyed that the canceled games are rescheduled so late.’
| Dat | de | inhoud | ervan | bij | "buitenstaanders" | bekend | was, |
| that | the | contents | thereof | with | outsiders | known | were |
| ergerde | hem. | ||||||
| annoyed | him |
‘That its contents were known to “outsiders” annoyed him.’
| Al | besef | ik | dat | ik | daar | moeilijkheden | mee | krijg, | maar | dat |
| Although | realize | I | that | I | there | difficulties | with | get | but | that |
| interesseert | me | niet. |
| interests | me | not |
‘Although I realize that that will get me into trouble, but I don’t care about that.’
| Wat | me | nu | vooral | stoort, | is | het | feit | dat | we | twee | goals |
| What | me | now | especially | disturbs | is | the | fact | that | we | two | goals |
| weggeven | uit | eigen | fout. |
| away-give | from | own | fault |
‘What is especially bothering me now, is the fact that we give two goals away, which were our own fault.’
Variance Inflation Factors (VIF)
Variance Inflation Factors of the regression model in Table 4 (r.l. = reference level).
| Explanatory variable | level | VIF | Explanatory variable | level | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verb | interesseren | r.l. | Tense | present | r.l. |
| ergeren | 1.88 | past | 1.12 | ||
| storen | 1.86 | future | 1.08 | ||
| verbazen | 2.25 | conditional | 1.05 | ||
| Stimulus-Topicality | third person pronoun | r.l. | Negation | without | r.l. |
| first-person | 1.33 | with | 1.11 | ||
| second-person | 1.16 | Stimulus-Number | singular | r.l. | |
| definite noun | 2.13 | plural | 1.33 | ||
| indefinite noun | 1.62 | Register | r.l. | ||
| subordinate clause | 2.27 | chat | 1.32 | ||
| Experiencer-Topicality | first person | r.l. | informal speech | 1.29 | |
| second person | 1.24 | formal speech | 1.37 | ||
| third person pronoun | 1.37 | formal speech | 1.37 | ||
| definite noun | 1.42 | mass newspaper | 1.75 | ||
| indefinite noun | 1.16 | quality newspaper | 1.38 | ||
| Country | Belgium | r.l. | |||
| the Netherlands | 1.19 | ||||
| Stimulus-Animacy | proposition | r.l. | |||
| animate | 2.58 | ||||
| inanimate | 1.89 | ||||
| concrete | 2.67 | ||||
| event | 1.73 | ||||
| abstract | 2.25 |
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area
- Against a unitary clause-final focus: Evidence from Russian and Polish
- Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements
- The position of Piedmontese on the Romance grammaticalization cline
- Variation and phonological change: The case of yeísmo in Spanish
- Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs: A theory-driven corpus investigation
- Global features of online communication in local Flemish: Social and medium-related determinants
- Book Reviews
- Dixon, R.M.W.: Are some languages better than others?
- Duanmu, San.: A theory of phonological features.
- Jaszczolt, Kasia M.: Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area
- Against a unitary clause-final focus: Evidence from Russian and Polish
- Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements
- The position of Piedmontese on the Romance grammaticalization cline
- Variation and phonological change: The case of yeísmo in Spanish
- Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs: A theory-driven corpus investigation
- Global features of online communication in local Flemish: Social and medium-related determinants
- Book Reviews
- Dixon, R.M.W.: Are some languages better than others?
- Duanmu, San.: A theory of phonological features.
- Jaszczolt, Kasia M.: Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language.
