• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
19.3.Bibliographical notes
quickinfo

Much has been written about the function of (in)definiteness. Highly influential classic studies on this topic are Russell (1905), Strawson (1950), Hawkins (1978), and Heim (1982), which take a semantic or semantic-pragmatic approach; for a good and very brief overview, see Guevara (2014:§2.2). For more detailed overviews of the different logical, semantic and pragmatic approaches, we refer the reader to Keizer (1992a) and Alexiadou et al. (2007: part II). For discussions of the formal semantic aspects of (in)definiteness, the reader is referred to Reuland & Ter Meulen (1989). Other formal semantic discussions of indefiniteness can be found in Diesing (1992) and Ruys (1993).

An overview of the Dutch determiner system can be found in Haeseryn et al. (1997:813ff.). Coppen (1991) discusses the position of determiners, quantifiers and numerals within the Dutch noun phrase from the point of view of the (generative) government-and-binding framework, Montague grammar and computational linguistics; De Jong (1991) does so from the point of view of X-bar theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers. Bhatt (1990) deals with the structure of the noun phrase, the position of determiners and quantifiers, and the role of functional categories; although the discussion is based on data from German, the theoretical considerations are also of interest for Dutch. Parts II and IV of Alexiadou et al. (2007) discuss recent generative approaches to the determiner system and constructions with possessive pronouns and genitive noun phrases, respectively.

A large number of studies on (in)definiteness within the noun phrase have been written within the framework of generalized quantifiers (Barwise and Cooper 1981). For a discussion of Dutch determiners and quantifiers, see De Jong & Verkuyl (1985); De Hoop & De Swart (1990) deals with both English and Dutch. The use of definite and indefinite articles in generic sentences is discussed in detail in Oosterhof (2008). For a discussion of the negative determiner geenno, see Haegeman (1995) and Klooster (2001b). Our implicit assumption that negation is expressed by geenno itself is not uncontroversial; Kobele & Zimmerman (2012) reviews a number of semantic arguments for assuming that geen is a negative polarity item licensed by the presence of an empty negative operator. Finally, a discussion of determiner sharing (with some Dutch data) can be found in Ackema and Szendrői (2002). For further discussion and references, see Chapter 20.

We are grateful to Hans Smessaert (2014) for his review of an earlier version of this chapter: we have used most (but not all) of his more critical comments in preparing the revised version presented here.

References

  • Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. MIT: PhD thesis.
  • Ackema, Peter & Kriszta Szendröi. 2002. Determiner sharing as an instance of dependent ellipsis. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 3-34.
  • Aguilar-Guevara, Ana. 2014. Weak definites. Semantics, lexicon and pragmatics, Utrecht University: PhD thesis.
  • Alberti, Gábor & Judit Farkas. 2018. Modification. In Noun and Noun Phrases, volume 2, eds. Gábor Alberti and Tibor Laczkó, 775-895. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrases in the generative perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Audring, Jenny. 2009. Reinventing Pronoun Gender. Free University: PhD thesis.
  • Barbiers, Sjef et al. 2005. Syntactische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten [Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects], Volume I. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159-220.
  • Bennis, Hans. 2015. Korterlands. Anarchie in schrijftaal. Amsterdam: Pometheus/Bert Bakker.
  • Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Marcel Den Dikken. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 85-117.
  • Bhatt, Christa. 1990. Die Syntactische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.
  • Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Broekhuis, Hans. 2002. Voornaamwoorden: mag het wat helderder en makkelijker? In In verband met Jan Luif, ed. Jan Stroop: CD-Rom University of Amsterdam.
  • Broekhuis, Hans & Leonie Cornips. 1997. Inalienable possession in locational constructions. Lingua 101: 185-209.
  • Broekhuis, Hans, Leonie Cornips & Maarten De Wind. 1996. Inalienable possession in locational constructions. Some apparent problems. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, eds. Crit Cremers and Marcel Den Dikken, 37-48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems. In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, 17-54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Carlson, Greg & Rachel Shirley Sussman. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical and comnputational perspectives, eds. Stephan Kepser and Marga Reis, 71-85. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Coppen, Peter-Arno. 1991. Specifying the noun phrase. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
  • Cornips, Leonie. 1991. Possessive object constructions in Heerlens. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983, eds. Frank Drijkoningen and Ans van Kemenade, 21-30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Cornips, Leonie. 1994. Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. University of Amsterdam: PhD thesis.
  • Corver, Norbert. 1992. "Bij Marie in de nek": interne structuur en extractiegedrag. Gramma/TTT 1: 21-40.
  • Corver, Norbert & Ora Matushansky. 2006. Reflexive vs. pronominal possessive, docplayer.net/21102649-At-our-best-when-at-our-boldest-tin-dag-february-4-2006.html.
  • Corver, Norbert & Marjo Van Koppen. 2010. Ellipsis in Dutch possessive noun phrases: a micro-comparative approach. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 29: 99–140.
  • Corver, Norbert, Marjo Van Koppen & Huib Kranendonk. 2013. De nominale woordgroep vanuit dialectvergelijkend perspectief. Variaties en generalisaties. Nederlandse Taalkunde 18: 107-137.
  • De Hoop, Helen, Guido Vanden Wyngaerd & Jan Wouter Zwart. 1990. Syntaxis en semantiek van de van die-constructie. Gramma 14: 81-106.
  • De Jong, Francisca. 1991. Determiners: features and filters. Utrecht University: PhD thesis.
  • De Jong, Francisca & Henk Verkuyl. 1985. Generalized quantifiers: the properness of their strength. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 21-43. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  • De Rooij, Jaap. 1989. Zo'n dingen zeggen ze hier (niet). In Album Moors. Een bundel opstellen aangeboden aan Joseph Moors ter gelegenheid van zijn 75e verjaardag, eds. S. Theissen and J. Vromans, 181-201. Luik: CIPL.
  • De Swart, Henriëtte. 2001. Weak readings of indefinites: type shifting and closure. The Linguistic Review 18: 69-96.
  • De Vos, Lien. 2009. De dynamiek van hersemantisering. In perspectiven op het genus in het Nederlands (Taal en Tongval themanummer 22), eds. Leonie Cornips and Gunther De Vogelaer, 82-110.
  • De Vries, Mark. 2010. Topicverschuiving, dat/het gaat niet vanzelf. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15: 210-212.
  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause, 2nd revised edition: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Farkas, Donka & Henriëtte De Swart. 2008. Formal and semantic markedness of number. Paper presented at the "LUSH bare workshop 2". Leiden, June 26, 2008.
  • Geerts, Guido et al. 1984. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst first edition. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
  • Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech acts: Syntax and Semantics 3, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
  • Grondelaers, Stefan et al. 2023. Why do we say them when we know it should be they? Twitter as a resource for investigating nonstandard syntactic variation in The Netherlands. Language Variation and Change 35: 223-245.
  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Haeseryn, Walter et al. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst, 2nd, revised edition. Groningen: Nijhoff.
  • Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
  • Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachusetts: PhD thesis.
  • Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. linguistic Inquiry 11: 679-708.
  • Hoeksema, Jack. 2013. Book review: Syntax of Dutch. Noun and Noun Phrases, volumes 1 and 2. Lingua: 385-390.
  • Hoeksema, Jack 2009. The swarm alternation revisited. In Theory and Evidence in Semantics, eds. Erhard W. Hinrichs and John Nerbonne. Stanford: CSLI.
  • Hoekstra, Teun & Pim Wehrmann. 1985. De nominale infinitief. Glot 8: 257-275.
  • Hornstein, Norbert. 1984. Logic as grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Janssen, Theo. 1976. Hebben-konstrukties en indirekt-objektkonstructies. University of Nijmegen: PhD thesis.
  • Keizer, Evelien. 1992a. Reference, predication and (in)definiteness in functional grammar: a functional approach to English copular sentences. Free University (Amsterdam): PhD thesis.
  • Keizer, Evelien. 1992b. Predicates as referring expressions. In Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective, eds. Michael Fortescue et al. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  • Klooster, Wim. 2001b. Geen: over verplaatsing, negatie en focus. Nederlandse taalkunde 6: 54-84.
  • Kobele, Gregory M. & Malte Zimmermann. 2012. Quantification in German. In Handbook of quantifiers in natural language, eds. Edward L. Keenan and Denis Paperno, 227-283. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Komen, Erwin. 2013. Finding focus: a study of the historical development of focus in English. Radboud Universiteit: PhD thesis.
  • Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications.
  • Longobardi, Giuseppi. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609-665.
  • May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Oosterhof, Albert. 2008. The semantics of generics in Dutch and related languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Paardekooper, P.C. 1986. Beknopte ABN-syntaksis, 7th, revised edition. Eindhoven: P.C. Paardekooper.
  • Postma, Gertjan. 1984. The Dutch pronoun diens; distribution and reference properties. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984, eds. Hans Bennis and W.U.S. Van Lessen Kloeke, 147-157. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.
  • Postma, Gertjan. 1995. Zero semantics. A study of the syntactic conception of quantificational meaning. Leiden University: PhD thesis.
  • Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT Press.
  • Reuland, Eric & Alice Ter Meulen (eds). 1989. The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479-493.
  • Ruys, Eduard. 1993. The scope of indefinites. Utrecht University: PhD thesis.
  • Scholten, Jolien. 2018. The ins and outs of external possession. A micro-comparative perspective. Utrecht University: PhD thesis.
  • Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1998. Possessors, articles and definiteness. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, 55-86.
  • Smessaert, Hans. 2014. Telwoorden en kwantoren: syntaxis versus semantiek. Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics 19: 77-86.
  • Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1950. On referring. Mind 59: 322-344.
  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89-102.
  • Van Bergen, Geertje et al. 2011. Leve hun! Waarom hun nog steeds hun zeggen! Nederlandse Taalkunde 16: 2-29.
  • Van Bree, Cor. 1981. Hebben-constructies en datiefconstructies binnen het Nederlands taalgebied: een taalgeografisch onderzoek. Leiden: Leiden University.
  • Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. De nominale constituent. Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
  • Van den Toorn, Maarten C. 1981. Nederlandse grammatica, 7. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff: 7th revised edition.
  • Van der Wal, Marijke & Cor van Bree. 2008. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands, 5th revised edition. Houten: Spectrum.
  • Van Kampen, Jacqueline. 2010a. Anaforische middelen voor topicverschuiving. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15: 189-212.
  • Van Kampen, Jacqueline. 2010b. Topicverschuiving dankzij expliciete topicstelling. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15: 213-215.
  • Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1994. PRO-legomena. Distribution and Reference of infinitival subjects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Zwarts, Joost. 2008. Some remarks on bare coordination. Paper presented at the "LUSH bare workshop 2". Leiden, June 26, 2008.
  • readmore
    References:
      report errorprintcite