Syntactic Atlas of Dutch Dialects – Commentary – Volume II
4 Negation and quantification
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Types of negation
4.1.2 Sentential negation and negative polarity
4.1.3 Focus negation with a quantifier
4.1.4 Historical development
4.1.5 Variation in the form of quantifiers
4.2 Discussion of the literature
4.2.1 General considerations
4.2.2 Sentential negation and negative polarity
4.2.3 Focus negation with a quantifier
4.2.4 Variation in the form of quantifiers
4.3 Discussion of the maps
4.3.1 Sentential negation and negative polarity
4.3.1.1 Sentential negation with only en ‘negpart’ (map 48a)
4.3.1.2 Sentential negation with en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’
4.3.1.2.1 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in declarative main clauses (map 48b)
4.3.1.2.2 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in imperative clauses (map 49a)
4.3.1.2.3 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in interrogative clauses (map 49b)
4.3.1.2.4 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in main clauses – overview (map 50a)
4.3.1.2.5 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in embedded clauses (map 50b)
4.3.1.3. Sentential negation with sentence final niet ‘not’ (map 51a)
4.3.1.4. Negative polarity with en ‘negpart’
4.3.1.4.1 en ‘negpart’… maar ‘but’ in declarative main clauses (map 51b)
4.3.1.4.2 en ‘negpart’in negatively polar embedded clauses (map 52a)
4.3.1.5 en ‘negpart’… (niet ‘not’) in main clauses, embedded clauses and short answers with doen – overview (map 52b)
4.3.2 Focus negation with a quantifier
4.3.2.1 niemand ‘nobody’, niets ‘nothing’ or nergens ‘nowhere’ and en ‘negpart’ (map 53a)
4.3.2.2 niemand ‘nobody’ and niet ‘not’ (map 53b)
4.3.2.3 niemand ‘nobody’ and niet ‘not’, word order variation (map 54a)
4.3.2.4 niemand ‘nobody’, niet ‘not’ and en ‘negpart’ (map 54b)
4.3.2.5 niets ‘nothing’ and niet ‘not’ (map 55a)
4.3.2.6 nergens ‘nowhere’ and niet ‘not’ (map 55b)
4.3.2.7 nooit ‘never’ and niet ‘not’ (map 56a)
4.3.2.8 niemand ‘nobody’, niets ‘nothing’, nergens ‘nowhere’ or nooit ‘never’ and niet ‘not’ – overview (map 56b)
4.3.2.9 geen enkele ‘not a single’ and niet ‘not’ (map 57a)
4.3.2.10 geen ‘no’ and niet meer ‘no more’ (map 57b)
4.3.2.11 niemand ‘nobody’ and geen ‘no’ (map 58a)
4.3.2.12 nergens ‘nowhere’ and geen ‘no’ (map 58b)
4.3.2.13 iemand ‘somebody’ orergens ‘somewhere’ and niet ‘not’ as well as ergens ‘somewhere’ and geen ‘no’ (map 59a)
4.3.2.14 niet veel ‘not much/many’ or niet goed ‘not good’ and geen ‘no’ within a noun phrase (map 59b)
4.3.2.15 iedereen ‘everybody’ or overal ‘everywhere’ and geen ‘no’ with negation having scope over iedereen ‘everybody’ or overal ‘everywhere’ (map 60a)
4.3.3. Quantifiers
4.3.3.1 Forms for iemand ‘somebody’ (map 61a)
4.3.3.2 Forms for niemand ‘nobody’ (map 61b)
4.3.3.3 Forms for iedereen ‘everybody’ (map 62)
4.3.3.4 Forms for iets ‘something’ (map 63a)
4.3.3.5 Forms for niets ‘nothing’ (map 63b)
4.3.3.6 Forms for nergens ‘nowhere’ (map 64a)
4.3.3.7 Forms for ooit ‘ever’ (map 64b)
4.4 Literature on Negation and quantification
Chapter 4
Negation and quantification
4.1 Introduction
The introduction (section 4.1) has five parts. The first three parts (4.1.1 to 4.1.3) introduce the notions of sentence negation, focus negation, and negative polarity. Then the relevant phenomena will be considered from a diachronic point of view (4.1.4) and the variation as to the form of the quantifiers will be discussed (4.1.5). Section 2 discusses the literature and section 3 the maps.
4.1.1 Types of negation
We speak of sentential negation if the negation relates to the whole clause or, in other words, if the complete clause falls within its scope. This is the case in (1), in which negation is expressed with the adverb niet. Henceforth, we will call lexemes like niet negators and the negation that relates to entire clauses will be called sentential.
(1) Ik heb Jan niet gezien.
I have John not seen
‘I have not seen John.’
(1) says that it is not the case that the speaker has seen John. The reason why this is not the case is not indicated. In (2) the sentence is completed with phrases that clarify this.
(2) Ik heb Jan niet gezien, …
a. maar wel Karel.
but affirm Charles
‘but Charles.’
b. maar wel gehoord.
but affirm heard
‘but I have heard him.’
Sentences (1) and (2) both deny that the speaker has seen John, and the negations have the same scope. Scope, however, is not the same as focus. The additions (a) and (b) specify this focus, as distinguished from the presupposition. (3a) represents the presupposition in (2a), while (3b) represents the presupposition in (2b), with x for the focus.
(3) a. I have seen x
b. I have x-ed
It is important to see that focus is not the same as scope: in both readings it is denied that the speaker saw John.
The difference in focus can be made explicit with stress - in (4) this is symbolised with capitals - and focus may also involve a special placement of the focus constituent.
(4) a. Ik heb JAN niet gezien, maar Karel wel.
I have JOHN not seen, but Charles affirm
‘I have not seen JOHN, but Charles.’
b. Niet JAN heb ik gezien, maar Karel.
not JOHN have I seen, but Charles
‘It is not JOHN that I have seen, but Charles.’
Whenever the focus of the negation is explicit, we will speak of ‘focus negation’. Focus negation remains sentential negation. The scope of the negation in (4a), for example, is the whole sentence: just like in (1), the speaker denies that (s)he has seen John.
A different type of focus negation, the type that is of importance for this chapter, is illustrated in (5).
(5) a. Ik heb niemand/niets/geen mens gezien.
I have nobody/nothing/no person seen
‘I have seen nobody/nothing/nobody.’
b. Ik heb Jan nooit/nergens gezien.
I have John never/nowhere seen
‘I have never seen John / I have not seen John anywhere.’
What is special about (5) is that the negation is not expressed by the negator niet, but by semantically richer elements, the negative pronouns niemand ‘nobody’ and niets ’nothing’, the negative adverbs nooit ‘never’ and nergens ‘nowhere’ or the negative determiner geen ‘no’. These constructions combine negation and quantification, and the elements niemand, niets, nooit, nergens¸ and geen, will henceforth be called “negative quantifiers”. It is important to note that in the dialects this type of focus negation does not prohibit the use of a sentential negator. Nor is it compulsory that the quantifier is itself negative: in a limited number of dialects, an existential quantifier such as iemand ‘somebody’ or ergens ‘somewhere’ will become negative in combination with niet. The dialectal sentences (6a) and (6b) have exactly the same meaning as the Standard Dutch sentence (6c) (see section 4.3.2).
(6) a. Ik heb niemand niet gezien. (Sint-Niklaas)
I have nobody not seen
‘I have seen nobody.’
b. Ik heb iemand niet gezien. (Heist-op-den-Berg)
I have somebody not seen
‘I have seen nobody.’
c. Ik heb niemand gezien. (Standard Dutch)
I have nobody seen
‘I have seen nobody.’
Note that in niemand, etc. the negation is expressed morphologically. This is also the case with the prefix on- ‘un-’ in (7).
(7) Jan is ongelukkig.
John is unhappy
‘John is unhappy.’
The difference between (7) and all previous sentences, however, is that (7) is a positive sentence, even though it contains a negative constituent. This is shown in (8): to the negative Ik heb Jan niet gezien (1) or Ik heb niemand gezien (6c) one can add the relevant ‘neither’ phrases en Karel ook niet or en Karel dus ook niet, but not to the positive Jan is ongelukkig.
(8) a. Ik heb Jan niet gezien, en Karel ook niet.
I have John not seen, and Charles also not
‘I have neither seen John, nor Charles.’
b. Ik heb niemand gezien, en Karel dus ook niet.
I have nobody seen and Charles therefore also not
‘I haven’t seen anybody, and I have therefore not seen Charles either.’
c. *Jan is ongelukkig en Karel (dus) ook niet.
John is unhappy and Charles therefore also not
*‘John is unhappy and neither is Charles (therefore).’
A final important dimension concerning negation is that a sentence may contain a sentential negator even though it is does not deny any clause. In most cases there is still a negative flavour to the sentence, a phenomenon that has been studied under the heading of ‘negative polarity’. (9) is a dialect illustration, not with a standard negator niet ‘not’, but with the negator en ‘not’, which is restricted to southern dialects, more particularly to Frans-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen en Oost-Vlaanderen. In order to keep niet and en apart, we refer to the latter as a negative particle (glossed ‘negpart’).
(9) Ik en heb maar drie knikkers.
I negpart have only three marbles
‘I only have three marbles.’
To summarise, we have made a distinction between two types of negative sentences, positive sentences with a negative word, and negatively polar sentences. In this chapter, we will only discuss the negative and the negatively polar sentences. Since the negatively polar sentences always contain a sentential negator, they will be discussed together with the negative sentences containing only a sentential negator, and no negative quantifier (and no negatively focused positive quantifier either, such as in (6b)). The relevant sections (4.1.2, and further 4.2.2 and 4.3.1) are entitled ‘Sentential negation and negative polarity’. As regards focus negation, we will only discuss the type with at least one quantifier, which is almost always a negative quantifier (except in (6b)), accompanied by a sentential negator or not. The relevant sections (4.1.3, and further 4.2.3 and 4.3.2) are entitled ‘Focus negation with a quantifier’.
4.1.2 Sentential negation and negative polarity
In Standard Dutch and in the dialects the main sentential negator is niet ‘not’. It is a neutral sentential negator, differing from a reinforcing negator such as geenszins ‘definitely not’.
(10) Ik heb Jan geenszins gezien.
I have John definitely-not seen
‘I have definitely not seen John.’
In this study, we will restrict ourselves to neutral sentential negators, although the notion of reinforcement does play an important role in in the history of negators (see 4.1.4).
Both in the main clause and in the embedded clause niet is mostly positioned at the end of what could be called ‘the middle part’ of the clause, and hence before the non-finite parts of the verb (main clause) or the complete verb phrase (embedded clause).
(11) a. Ik heb Jan niet gezien.
I have John not seen
‘I have not seen John.’
b. Ik geloof dat ik Jan niet gezien heb.
I believe that I John not seen have
‘I believe that I have not seen John.’
However, this is not to be regarded as an absolute rule. (12) is a test sentence from an earlier atlas project (the ‘RND ’ , Reeks Nederlandse Dialectatlassen, ‘Series Dutch Dialect Atlasses’) which the literature (Koelmans 1970, Braecke 1986) used to illustrate the difference in niet placement. The order in (12b) existed in Middle Dutch and today it is considered typically southern. This kind of word order variation will not be discussed in this study.
(12) a. Lucifer is niet in de hemel gebleven.
Lucifer is not in the heaven stayed
‘Lucifer has not stayed in heaven.’
b. Lucifer is in de hemel niet gebleven.
Lucifer is in the heaven not stayed
‘Lucifer has not stayed in heaven.’
What we will study, is the peculiar phenomenon in the southern dialects that two additional neutral sentential negators co-exist with mid-sentence niet. The first one is the word en ‘negpart’. In one particular context en is able to express negation on its own, viz. in elliptical sentences in which the auxiliary verb doen ‘do’ substitutes for a lexical verb (see 4.3.1.1 and map 48a). The construction with en nowadays is restricted to Frans-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen en Oost-Vlaanderen, elliptical sentences with doen ‘do’ are also attested in some dialects in Vlaams-Brabant and Antwerpen (see also map 44b,c).
(13) Statement: Hij slaapt.
he sleeps
‘He sleeps.’
Reply: Hij en doet. (Berlare)
He negpart does
‘He does not.’
However, in most cases en and niet appear together. (14) repeats the sentences of (11), but with the additional en negator. In the SAND data en and niet co-occur in Belgian dialects (see 4.3.1.2. and maps 48b-50b, 52b).
(14) a. ‘k en heb Jan niet gezien.
I negpart have John not seen
‘I haven’t seen John.’
b. Ik geloof dat ik Jan niet gezien en heb.
I believe that I John not seen negpart have
‘I believe that I have not seen John.’
Like niet, en is an adverb, but due to the limited phonetic weight, it is often called a particle (hence the gloss ‘negpart’). As in the case for niet, there are word order restrictions for en. As shown in all examples, en is normally found before the finite verb, but (15) provides instances with en in front of a non-finite verb (another example is (19a)).
(15) a. Ga je vandaag niet en kaarten?
go you today not negpart play.cards
‘Won’t you play cards today?’
(Burridge 1993: 220; = RND test sentence 65)
b. Die werd daar zo duivels van
that became there so devilish of
dat hij niet wou en gaan.
that he not would negpart go
‘This made him so mad that he wouldn’t go.’
(van der Wouden 2007:8)
In addition to en, some dialects have a second ‘additional’ sentential negation. It has the same form as niet, it occurs together with niet (or with a negative quantifier), it is strictly clause-final and is only used when the ‘normal’ niet is not clause-final (see 4.3.1.3.). The construction is attested in the dialect of Aarschot; map 51a shows the spread found in the SAND data.
(16) Ik heb Jan niet gezien niet.
I have John not seen not
‘I haven’t seen John.’
Both the ‘normal’, mid-sentence niet and en (and probably also the clause-final niet) allow for polar usages. As regards the mid-sentence niet, this use is now limited to interrogative sentences. The question in (17) - and also the one in (15a) – is normally used to ask if the hearer is going to play cards and by using niet the speaker makes clear that (s)he expects a positive answer.
(17) Ga je vandaag niet kaarten?
go you today not play.cards
‘Won’t you play cards today?’
The particle en has more non-negative uses. The use with the restrictive adverb maar has already been illustrated in (9), repeated as (18a), but en may also be used in embedded clauses expressing anteriority or comparison (see 4.3.1.4 and maps 51b, 52a).
(18) a. Ik en heb maar drie knikkers. (Brugge)
I negpart have only three marbles
‘I only have three marbles.’
b. Je moet niet komen voordat ik geschreven
you must not come before.that I written
en heb. (Kortrijk)
negpart have
‘You mustn’t come before I wrote.’
c. Marjo heeft nu meer koeien dan ze vroeger en had.
Marjo has now more cows than she earlier negpart had (Overijse)
‘Marjo now has more cows than she had earlier.’
Sometimes, these uses are referred to with the term ‘expletive negation’ (although this term is also used for the clause-final niet in (16) and for the use of en that is illustrated in (19)). The term ‘negative polarity’ is probably better, because it indicates the presence of a negative flavour: (18a) implies that the speaker has no more marbles than three, (18b) implies that the addressee should not come before the speaker will have written a letter, (18c) implies that Marjo did not have as many cows in the past.
For the sake of completeness, we mention that en has one other use that is neither negative nor negatively polar and that is restricted to non-finite verb phrases or embedded clauses. In (19) this use is glossed with ‘PART’ for ‘particle’.
(19) a. Hij zou nog wel en komen.
he would still affirm part come
‘He would still come.’ (Neuckermans 2003:290)
b. Ze vond het raar dat ik dat kleed aan en trok.
she found it strange that I that robe on part put
‘She thought it strange that I put on that dress.’ (Neuckermans 2003:291)
This construction can be found in various non-contiguous Belgian dialects, it is very rare and SAND did not study it systematically.
4.1.3 Focus negation with a quantifier
If a Standard Dutch clause contains a negative quantifier, it cannot contain any additional sentential negator, at least not without changing the meaning.
(20) a. Standard Dutch: *Ik heb niet niemand gezien.
I have not nobody seen
b. Standard Dutch: *Ik heb niemand niet gezien.
I have nobody not seen
meaning: ‘I have seen nobody.’
(21) a. Standard Dutch: Ik heb niet niemand gezien.
I have not nobody seen
meaning: ‘I have seen somebody.’
b. Standard Dutch: ?Ik heb niemand niet gezien.
I have nobody not seen
meaning (with special intonation): ‘I have seen everybody.’’
The fact that negative quantifiers are not combinable with sentential negators, is typical for standard languages in Western Europe. On a worldwide level, however, this restriction is not frequent at all, nor is it for the southern dialects of Dutch. Depending on the dialect, the negative pronoun or adverb may be combined with the sentential negator en or with the sentential negator niet, or with both, and according to some older sources, the clause-final niet could also be added (see 4.3.2.1-8 and maps 53a-56b).
(22) a. Ik en heb niemand gezien. (Wervik)
I negpart have nobody seen
b. Ik heb niemand niet gezien. (Meer)
I have nobody not seen
c. Ik en heb niemand niet gezien. (Deinze)
I negpart have nobody not seen
d. Ik heb niemand niet gezien niet. (Aarschot)
I have nobody not seen not (Pauwels 1958: 443)
e. Ik geloof dat er niemand niet en komt niet. (Aarschot)
I believe that there nobody not negpart comes not
meaning a-d: ‘I have seen nobody.’
meaning e: ‘I believe that nobody is coming.’ (Pauwels 1958: 443)
Whether or not a negative quantifier such as niemand ‘nobody’ can be combined with the negator niet seems to relate to the type of sentence in which the element is used: when discussing the maps, we will regularly refer to differences between ordinary declarative sentences and short answers. For four negative quantifiers (niemand ‘nobody’,niets ‘nothing’, nooit ‘never’, nergens ‘nowhere’), we will give examples of combinations with niet in declarative sentences as in (22), and in short answers as in (23).
(23) A: Wie heeft er de auto meegenomen?
who has there the car taken
‘Who has taken the car?’
B: ‘Niemand niet.
nobody not
‘Nobody.’
A question that arises here is whether niet and niemand form a phrase. Although this has not been examined systematically in the SAND corpus, there are two sections in which relevant information is provided: section 4.3.2.3 (map 54a) on variation in the placement of niet, and section 4.3.2.7 (on the alternation...nooit zo lang niet... ‘never so long not’’ vs. ...nooit niet zo lang... ‘never not so long’; see map 56a). The information does not all point towards the same conclusion. On the one hand, there are (occasional) instances of a negative quantifier and niet co-occurring before the conjugated verb, indicating that they form one phrase. On the other hand, the negative quantifier and niet fairly often occur separated as well.
It is interesting to note that there is a small area in which the positive quantifier may be combined with the sentential negator, in particular with niet. This variant occurs with iemand ‘somebody’ and ieverans ‘somewhere’, but not with iets ‘something’ and ooit ‘sometime’ (see 4.3.2.13).
(24) a. Ik heb iemand niet gezien.
I have somebody not seen
meaning: ‘I have seen nobody.’
b. Ik heb hem ieverans niet gezien.
I have him somewhere not seen
meaning: ‘I have seen him nowhere.’
According to Weijnen (1966: 323), some Holland dialects have the possibility to use the pronoun iet, which normally means ‘something’, with the meaning of ‘nothing’. This is not attested in the SAND data.
Related to the combination of a negative quantifier and a sentential negator illustrated in (22) and (23) is the occurrence of more than one negative quantifier (see 4.3.2.11-12 and maps 58a,b).
(25) Zitten hier nergens geen muizen?
sit here nowhere no mice
meaning: ‘Are they no mice here?’
Sentences like (26) are also related. However, (26) does not show any synthetic negative quantifiers as like ergens or geen, but the analytical constructions niet veel ‘not much’ and niet meer ‘not more’ (see 4.3.1.14 and map 57b).
(26) Ik heb niet veel niet meer gedaan.
I have not much not more done
meaning: ‘Ik have not done much anymore’
What (22), (23), (25) and (26) as well as (14) to (16), discussed in the previous section, have in common is that the negation is being expressed more than once, without the negators neutralising each other. That is why these phenomena are often considered variations on the same theme, which is labelled “multiple negation”, ‘double negation’ or ‘negative concord’.
4.1.4 Historical development
The sentential negator en is the precursor of the sentential negator niet. We may assume that en first appeared alone. Later on, niet was added as a reinforcement, and still later niet began to function as the sole sentential negator, without the reeinforcement effect. This process is known as the “Jespersen cycle”, a hypothesis that enjoys a wide consensus. (27) shows the basic cycle for Dutch; it may be added that the first stage is poorly and even controversially documented for Dutch.
(27) The Jespersen cycle for Dutch:
phase 1: en
phase 2: en … (niet)
phase 3: en … niet
phase 4: (en) … niet
phase 5: niet
In this diachronic hypothesis, sentences such as hij en doet (example (13)) are considered relics of the first phase, and sentences as ’k en heb Jan niet gezien (example (14a)) as relics of the third or fourth phase. From the Jespersen perspective, Standard Dutch is now in the fifth phase. Most linguists point out that the double en … niet strategy survives more successfully in an embedded clause than in a main clause. The en of the non-negative embedded clause and the non-finite verb phrase (example (19)) may also be considered from a Jespersen perspective: it would be a use from which the negative sense has faded completely. The en also survives as the first element in the negative quantifiers niemand ‘nobody’ etc., which have been formed by the fusion of en with iemand ‘somebody’ etc. The clause-final niet may be interpreted in terms of the Jespersen cycle as well, as a variant of normal niet, initially reinforcing the en, and later reinforcing the normal niet. There is, however, another explanation, deriving the clause-final niet from an interrogative particle niet, as we know it from Standard Dutch with neen.
(28) Ga je nu eens ophouden, neen/niet?
go you now once stop no/not
‘Will you stop now, or not?’
In older stages of the language, the mid-sentence niet also had an expletive or negatively polar use, like illustrated in (18) for en. (29) is a seventeenth century example.
(29) Uit vreeze dat de Staet niet strande.
out-of fear that the state not strand
‘for fear the state would run aground.’ (Weijnen 1971: 138)
4.1.5 Variation in the form of quantifiers
This section documents the variation in the form of quantifiers or, in traditional terminology, the indefinite pronouns and adverbs iemand ‘somebody’ and niemand ‘nobody’, iets ‘something’ and niets ‘nothing’, nergens ‘nowhere’ and ooit ‘sometime’. Ergens ‘somewhere’ and nooit ‘never’ are absent: for ergens, the SAND material does not contain any test sentence and for nooit there is no interesting variation. The determiner geen ‘no’ also shows no interesting variation and is thus left out of account. The universal quantifier iedereen ‘everyone’ will also be discussed. Among the variants there are analytical constructions (e.g., geen mens ‘no man’ for niemand ‘nobody’ or van ze leven ‘of his life’ for ooit ‘sometime’), and there are also synthetic constructions which clearly display traces of their analytical origin (iedereen < ieder ‘every’ + een ‘one’ or alleman < alle ‘all’ + man ‘man’). In addition, there are synthetic constructions the origins of which are only partially visible (niemand) or not at all (ergens) (see (30)). As already suggested by this classification, quantifiers are mostly ‘univerbations’ of earlier phrases. In these phrases, the same elements often reoccur. Thus the negative quantifiers of Standard Dutch and most dialects derive from positive existential indefinite forms and the negator (e)n: (e)n + iemand ‘somebody’, for example, leads to niemand ‘nobody’; analogously iets ‘something’, ergens ‘somewhere’ and ooit ‘sometime’ lead to niets ‘nothing’, nergens ‘nowhere’ and nooit ‘never’. The negator en (or rather ne) is also present in the etymology of geen ‘no’, which had the form negheen in Middle Dutch. In their turn, the existential quantifiers iemand, iets, ergens and ooit all stem from Proto Germanic *ajw ‘sometime’:
(30) Etymology of the Standard Dutch quantifiers iemand, iets, ergens and ooit.
iets < *ajw + *wiht ‘thing’ (the s is a remnant of the
ooit < *ajw + *jet ‘yet’
The etymologies in (30) also mention the most important ingredients which may fuse with various particles to form positive quantifiers. On the one hand, these are substantives which may refer to a type in their so-called “generic” uses: mann ‘man’ in iemand ‘somebody’ and wiht ‘thing’ in iets ‘something’. The numeral één, as part of e.g., iedereen ‘everybody’, is also included here. On the other hand, we find interrogative words, such as hwar ‘where’ in ergens ‘somewhere’.
(31) Quantifiers on the basis of a generically used substantive or interrogative word
a. on the basis of a generically used substantive or één
alleman ‘everyone’ < alle ‘all’ + man ‘man’
geeneen ‘nobody’ < geen ‘no’ + één ‘one’
e(n)twien ‘somebody’ < particle et + wien ‘who’ (the
Apart from the obvious differences in the etymology of the various quantifiers, there also are more superficial differences. Some indefinite pronouns, for example, allow diminutives (e.g., ietske instead of iets and nikske instead of niets) or they may be followed by the reinforcing element ‑(st)en (e.g., ergens - ergensten; niets - nieten). Although there is without any doubt a great deal of variation in the way quantifiers are being reinforced, these reinforcing elements will only be discussed if they were spontaneously given during the interviews as a translation for ‘neutral’ quantifiers as iets/niets, iemand/niemand, etc. That is why elements such as niemendal (instead of niets), or geen hond ‘no dog’ (instead of niemand) will not be discussed in this atlas.
4.2 Discussion of the literature
4.2.1 General considerations
General typological studies of negation which enable us to view the Dutch data from a comparative point of view are Dahl (1979), Payne (1985), Dryer (1988), Bernini & Ramat (1992, 1994), Kahrel (1996), Eriksen (2005), Miestamo (2005), and van der Auwera (2006). A comprehensive semantic study is Horn (1989). The neither (ook X niet) test, used in (8) to separate positive sentences from negative ones, was first proposed by Klima (1964) for English. A study on negation in Old Germanic dialects is Coombs (1976). General works on negation in recent or current dialects of Dutch are Koelmans (1967), Jongen (1972), Barbiers (2003), Neuckermans (2003) and Zeijlstra (2004). Haegeman studied a present-day West Flemish dialect in a large number of generative studies (Haegeman 1995, 1998, 2000, 2003; Haegeman & Zanuttini 1991, 1996; Haeberli & Haegeman 1998), which also provide a good idea of how negation is dealt with in generative linguistics (see also Zeijlstra 2004, 2005, 2006). Many detailed descriptions of dialects also mention negation; Overdiep (1940) and Will (2004) deserve special mention.
4.2.2 Sentential negation and negative polarity
As regards sentential negation, there is an enormous literature on the en negator and the ‘Jespersen cycle’. The term “Jespersen cycle” was invented by Dahl (1979) and refers to a study by the Danish Anglicist and general linguist Otto Jespersen, in which the cycle was given special attention (Jespersen 1917), but the English Egyptologist Alan Gardiner (Gardiner 1904) possibly deserves even more credit: he was earlier and he showed that the phenomenon was not restricted to Europe. Meanwhile however, the cycle is best documented for Europe (Horn 1989: 452-459; Bernini & Ramat 1996: ch. 1-3; Haspelmath 1997: 203-205; van der Auwera & Neuckermans 2004; Zeijlstra 2004, 2005). The history of the Dutch en is discussed by Blancquaert (1923), Stoett (1923: 154-167), Stoops (1971), Van der Horst & Van der Wal (1979), De Meersman (1980), Bossuyt (1982), Burridge (1983), Bossuyt (1988: 156-182), Stoops (1988), Paardekooper (1992), Burridge (1993: 178-220), Hoeksema (1997), Beheydt (1998), Van der Wouden (1998), Postma (2002) and Paardekooper (2006). Paardekooper’s article contains a large amount of data and it elicited three reactions (Corver 2007, Haegeman 2007, Van der Wouden 2007). In many studies the oldest Dutch is taken to testify the first stage of the Jespersen cycle, but Postma (2002) criticises this claim.
The construction of en with the substitute doen ‘do’ verb is discussed in Ryckeboer (1986) and in Van Craenenbroeck (2004), and elsewhere in this atlas (in chapter 3, see in particular map 44b,c).
The observation that en … niet survives more easily in the embedded clause was perhaps first formulated by Overdiep (1937: 423) and subsequently often repeated and/or found in other material (Overdiep 1940: 203; Weijnen 1966: 322-323; Pauwels 1958: 454; Van Haeringen 1962; Koelmans 1967: 16; Weijnen 1971: 135; Burridge 1993: 209; Vandekerckhove 1993: 128; compare also Van der Horst & Van der Wal 1979: 16 for the older stages of the language). Some counterindications have been produced (Stoops 1988: 147; Beheydt 1998: 169; and Postma & Bennis 2006, who further show that in Middeldrents, the use of en differs as to whether the verb is an auxiliary or a lexical verb). The sturdier preservation in embedded clauses has been argued to be related to the ‘V2’ principle, the rule that places the finite verb in the second place in the affirmative main clause (Burridge 1983: 38; Neuckermans 2003: 70-76), and to the conservative character of the embedded clause (Neuckermans 2003: 76-78).
The claim that en is not always found before the finite verb can be found in Overdiep (1940: 205), Koelmans (1967: 15), Neuckermans (2003: 288-294), Paardekooper (2006) and Van der Wouden (2007).
Contributions drawing attention to the occurrence of en in not strictly negative but still negatively polar contexts are Van Helten (1885), Overdiep (1933b, 1937: 429), Tavernier (1959), Weijnen (1971: 136-137), Paardekooper (1992), and Postma (2002, 2006). Overdiep (1933a, 1940: 204-205; 1937: 424-26) drew attention to the en which is no longer negative or negatively polar in embedded clauses and non-finite verb phrases, and Neuckermans (2003: 290-294) also discussed this. Overdiep regards the function as rhythmical; Neuckermans (2003) studies this use from a grammaticalisation perspective.
Variation with respect to niet has been studied far less than variation of en. The variable placing of niet in the middle part was treated by Koelmans (1970) and Braecke (1986). As for clause-final niet, Blancquaert (1923) was probably the first to pay any attention to it. The standard reference is Pauwels (1958:435-477) and a more recent contribution is Aerts (1981). Pauwels (1974) offers a specimen from the sixteenth century and is the source for the question-word explanation; van der Auwera & Neuckermans (2004: 474) offer a Jespersen-type explanation. Afrikaans also has a clause-final niet and there are various opinions regarding the possible relationship between the Flemish and the Afrikaans clause-final niet. An important trigger for this discussion was provided by Blancquaert (1923); later discussion involved, among others, Nienaber (1934: 84-162), Pauwels (1958), Nienaber (1965), Pauwels (1974), Den Besten (1986), Nienaber (1994), and Roberge (2000).
4.2.3 Focus negation with a quantifier
As regards focus negation, we first notice of all that there is a huge international literature. The first to use the term “negative concord” was Mathesius (1937); in the recent literature, however, reference is often made to Labov (1972), and also Den Besten (1986) and Ladusaw (1980) are important. The term “negative polarity” was introduced by Baker (1970). Cross-linguistically informed analyses of Dutch are Van der Wouden (1997) and Zeijlstra (2004). A state of the art overview was provided by Van der Wouden (2007). Van Helten (1885) discusses Middle Dutch facts. Some studies focus on very specific dialect constructions: the mainly East Flemish en niemand niet is the central focus in van der Auwera & Neuckermans (2004a, b). A detailed study of the construction niet veel niet meer ‘not much not more’ is Vanacker (1965). Vanacker (1975) and Haegeman (2003) are devoted to niet veel geen ‘not much no’. Zeijlstra (2006) considers constructions such as niemand niet and their possibly phrasal status.
The Brabantic iemand niet ‘nobody’ (but literally ‘somebody not’) was described by Pauwels (1958:457-460), van der Auwera & Neuckermans (2003) and van der Auwera, De Cuypere & Neuckermans (2006). Both in the older and in the more recent work, the origin of this construction is being discussed and there is a consensus that iemand niet must have developed from niemand niet, with an explicit claim in the more recent work that this iemand is the positive iemand quantifier, rather than an n-less variant of the negative niemand quantifier.
4.2.4 Variation in the form of quantifiers
There is an interesting, but more restricted, international literature on quantifiers. An elaborate typological study on indefinite pronouns and adverbs is Haspelmath (1997) (and to a lesser extent also Bhat 2004); Weiss (2002) is cross-linguistic and generative. For the etymologies of the various quantifiers, one can consult the etymological dictionaries of the Dutch language and the Dutch dialects, including De Vries & De Tollenaere (2000), Weijnen (2000), Debrabandere (2002), and Philippa, Debrabandere & Quak (2005). See also Postma (1999:325-327) on geen. Ooit ‘sometime’ has been studied by Hoeksema (1998, 1999). Hoeksema (2002) discusses the use of elements of the type geen + noun as quantifiers replacing niemand. Haegeman (1991) writes about e(n)twa. De Vogelaer & Vandenberghe (2006) offer a survey of the relevant formal variation in the Belgian Dutch dialects.
4.3 Discussion of the maps
4.3.1 Sentential negation and negative polarity
4.3.1.1 Sentential negation with only en (map 48a)
As the sole exponent of negation en probably only survives in short answers with the substitute verb doen ‘do’. The phenomenon is placed in a broader context on map 48a, based on three types of dialogues:
(32) a. A: Hij slaapt.
he sleeps
‘He is sleeping.’
B: Hij/’t en doet.
he/it negpart does
‘He isn’t.’
b. A: Hij zal niet komen.
he shall not come
‘He will not come.’
B: Hij/’t en doet.
he/it negpart does
‘He won’t.’
c. A: Slaapt hij?
sleeps he
‘Is he sleeping?’
B: Hij/’t en doet.
he/it negpart does
‘He isn’t.’
The input is thus either a positive sentence, a negative sentence or a question. The short answers all contain doen ‘do’, but they differ in various aspects: as regards their meaning, they are affirmative or negative. They sometimes use a pronoun which is coreferential to the input pronoun (here hij ‘he’), or they contain the neuter het ‘it’. The differences in input, meaning and use of the input pronoun versus the ‘neutral’ het are discussed elsewhere in this atlas (in chapter 3, see in particular map 44b,c). In this context, what is important is the appearance of en, a possibility explicitly discussed during the interviews for all short answers. The map should therefore provide an exhaustive survey of the SAND dialects that have the relevant construction. The map shows all instances of en in short answers, both of hij en doet and of ’t en doet: en still seems to persist as the only exponent of negation, although it is accompanied by niet (’t en doet niet, hij en doet niet) in a small number of locations. In addition, the map displays all sampling points that exemplify short answers with doen in which there can be no en (27 locations in total).
Map 48a shows that positive short answers with doen are found in Frans-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen, Oost-Vlaanderen and Brabant, and sporadically also in the province of Antwerpen. Negative answers with only en are well attested in Oost-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen and Frans-Vlaanderen, even more so in the south of these provinces; only the coastal region and the Waasland region in Oost-Vlaanderen do not display this phenomenon. The negative answers with en ... niet are very uncommon: they are only found in a small number of West Flemish sampling points. Ryckeboer (1986:331-332) also deals with the geographical distribution of en in short answers with doen; however, he points out that not every occurrence of en is the result of a productive use: the short answers with doen are said to develop in the direction of syntactically non-transparent interjections. This en thus forms a part of fossilized phrases, which also explains why the geographical distribution of en on this map differs profoundly from the distribution on the other maps in this chapter.
Both the answers with only en and those with en ... niet can be divided into two subtypes, one with hij ‘he’, the pronoun which is coreferential with the pronoun used in the given test sentence, and one with the ‘neutral’ ’t ‘it’. In dialects having an answer with doen and ’t, the neutral form may be used in answers to questions with any subject. The geographical pattern is clear: the further one moves from the east to the west in Dutch-speaking Belgium, the more the share of the subtype with the neutral ’t decreases to the advantage of the type with the gender and person marked hij. In the extreme west, in Frans-Vlaanderen, the first type has not even been attested. Ryckeboer (1986:330) too, maps this variation, and makes similar observations (see chapter 3 for an in-depth discussion).
4.3.1.2 Sentential negation with en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’
4.3.1.2.1 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in declarative main clauses (map 48b)
Map 48b is primarily based on judgements of the sentences in (33), in which the sentential negator niet is combined with a (mostly optional) second sentential negator en:
(33) a. Ze (en) weet niet dat Marie gisteren gestorven is.
she negpart knows not that Mary yesterday died is
‘She does not know that Mary died yesterday.’
b. Ik (en) ga niet naar school.
I negpart go not to school
‘I am not going to school.’
In each of the Belgian sampling points, at least one of these two sentences was presented to the informants, with the explicit question as to whether the sentence could contain the negator en. Apart from the answers to the test sentences, the map also contains spontaneous cases of en from other test sentences or from spontaneous conversations during the interview. Although these test sentences were not presented in the Netherlands, we can be sure that in the Netherlands the sentential negator en no longer occurs in main clauses. It was not found anywhere in the entire SAND material for the Netherlands, not in the answers given to test sentences that did provide a lot of instances in Flanders, nor in the spontaneous material. In the written questionnaire used as a pilot study, a sentence with en was explicitly presented in the entire Dutch-speaking region; these surveys do not yield any en in the Netherlands either. In his recent study on Zeeland Vlaanderen dialects as spoken in the seventies of the previous century, Will (2004) no longer found any examples of negating en. Koelmans (1967) too discusses the distribution of the negator en in the Netherlands, mainly based on dialect monographs dating back to the 1940’s, and concludes that by then only ‘relics’ were found in various regions of the Netherlands.
Map 48b clearly shows that the en … niet construction is a Flemish phenomenon; it is strongest in the south of Oost-Vlaanderen and in Frans-Vlaanderen. The general impression of the map corresponds well with the findings of Jongen (1972) – about the end of the nineteenth century - and Koelmans (1967) – about the middle of the twentieth century (the RND material).
4.3.1.2.2 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in imperative clauses (map 49a)
The en negator occurs in imperative sentences, but only rarely. Map 49a is based on the following sentence:
(34) (En) vertel maar niet wie zij had kunnen roepen!
negpart tell but not who she had can call
‘Don’t say who she could have called!’
The test sentence was presented as a translation task in all sampling points in Belgium and Frans-Vlaanderen, without en in the test sentence. 10 translations contain the en negator. An imperative sentence without niet (en past op! ‘don’t take care!’) did not provide any instances.
Clause-initial imperative en is very rare. The explanation is that imperative sentences normally start with an imperative verb, and that it is impossible or at least difficult to put something in front of the verb (but see SAND Volume 1, map 95b for exceptions of the type Dat doe maar! lit. ‘That do please’, a construction mainly occurring in eastern Noord-Brabant and along the eastern border of the Netherlands). The few cases are typical for Frans-Vlaanderen. However, we must stress that in Frans-Vlaanderen these test sentences were offered in French, with a French negative ne on the first sentence place, which might have lead to interference from French. Nevertheless, the imperative en was also attested in the southern part of West-Vlaanderen, where this influence seems less or not at all obvious.
4.3.1.2.3 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in interrogative clauses (map 49b)
The questionnaire contained a large number of questions that could in principle contain an en negator:
(35) a. (En) heeft Gunther (niet) gebeld?
negpart has Gunther not phoned
‘Hasn’t Gunther phoned?
b. Waarom (en) kom je niet?
why negpart come you not
‘Why don’t you come?’
c. Maar (en) kom je niet?
but negpart come you not
‘But aren’t you coming?’
These sentences differ from each other in various respects. Sentence (a) is a negative question with a clause-initial en. This sentence was presented in most sampling points in which en occurred in other environments, i.e., in the larger part of Dutch-speaking Belgium. Informants were asked whether en could occur, and the answer was positive in two places. Because the sentence was not presented everywhere, we cannot exclude a wider distribution. Sentences (b) and (c) are negative questions with a clause-intial word other than en. Both sentences were offered with en, and there were instances of either type at all of the sampling points.
Map 49b shows that this phenomenon mainly occurs in Oost-Vlaanderen. The type with clause-initial en is very rare: just like the imperative, the polar question normally begins with a finite verb. In questions that start with something other than the verb, such as polar questions beginning with the conjunction maar ‘but’ and questions beginning with wanneer ‘when’, the negator en occurs more frequently, in the wanneer question more frequently than in the polar question beginning with maar (14 times as compared to 9 times).
4.3.1.2.4 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in main clauses – overview (map 50a)
The earlier maps showed the occurrence of en in combination with the negative niet in various types of main clauses, i.e., in declarative, interrogative and imperative clauses. Map 50a is the combination of maps 48b, 49a, and 49b. The map shows that the core region for declarative and interrogative en … niet is the southern part of Oost-Vlaanderen: the interrogative en … niet is virtually restricted to this region, always in places where the declarative en … niet occurs. The latter is more widely spread in West-Vlaanderen and Frans-Vlaanderen. The imperative en … niet seems to be a different matter: it is typical of Frans-Vlaanderen. All of the dialects with en ... niet in imperatives also have en ... niet in declarative main clauses. The hypothesis often found in the literature that word order is an explanatory factor for the distribution of the negation particle is supported by the map: sentences with a verb in the second place (i.e., declarative sentences) are more easily used with en than sentences with a clause-initial verb (i.e., imperatives and interrogatives).
4.3.1.2.5 en ‘negpart’… niet ‘not’ in embedded clauses (map 50b)
Embedded clauses also contain negation particles. Sentence (36) is an example.
(36) Pas op dat je niet (en) valt!
take.care that you not negpart fall
‘Be careful that you don’t fall!’
For all of the Belgian SAND sampling points at least one test sentence (usually sentence 36), but often a few more, were used to explicitly check the insertability of the sentential negator en in the negative embedded clause. In the Netherlands, this question was not explicitly asked, but there is no negating en in the SAND material, neither in the answers to the test sentences nor in the spontaneous material, so we may safely conclude that it has vanished in the Netherlands (see also the discussion of map 48b). Hence, map 50b probably gives an exhaustive picture of the SAND dialects with a negative en in the embedded clause.
The map shows that the construction of the embedded clause ...niet en... is more widespread than the main clause construction with en ... niet. Apart from Frans-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen en Oost-Vlaanderen, the construction also occurs in Brabant and, to a lesser extent, in Limburg. These findings are found in the literature, and relate to the fact that the embedded clause verb appears in clause-final position.
4.3.1.3 Sentential negation with sentence final niet ‘not’ (map 51a)
From the literature, we know that in certain dialects a sentential negator niet is added at the end of the clause. This phenomenon was tested in the SAND interviews with sentence (37a), which was presented as a ‘judgement + translation task’. A variant of this phenomenon is the occurrence of ook niet ‘also not’ at the end of the clause (example 37b). This sentence was presented in all locations in which a negative quantifier could be combined with niet, i.e., in 184 sampling points, and again the strategy was to ask the informants to judge the relevant sentence and, if the pattern was judged grammatical, to translate it. It is possible that map 51a does not display all of the locations where this phenomenon is found. However, the locations where we asked for the occurrence of ook niet at the end of the sentence are evenly spread all over the entire Dutch-speaking region; so there are no entire regions for which information is lacking.
(37) a. Hij wil geen soep (niet) meer eten niet.
he wants no soup not more eat not
‘He doesn’t want to eat any more soup.’
b. Els wilt niet
dansen en
ze wil
Els wants not dance and she wants
niet zingen (ook niet).
not sing also not
‘Els doesn’t want to dance or sing.’
Despite the small number of attested cases, map 51a clearly shows that the simple clause-final niet, which in the literature is mainly ascribed to Brabant, indeed only occurs in Brabant, at least for Belgium. It is interesting to note that it also occurs in Oost-Nederland (Overijssel). Ook niet is also mainly found in Belgian Brabant, but there are additional attestations. Because of the unsystematic survey, the phenomenon might be more widely spread than what is shown on the map (some unsystematic screening reveals that the pattern also occurs in the eastern part of Noord-Brabant).
4.3.1.4 Negative polarity with en ‘negpart’
4.3.1.4.1 en ‘negpart’… maar ‘only’ in declarative main clauses (map 51b)
In the literature consulted, attention was focused on the combination of en and maar in the Gent dialect (since Overdiep 1933b); this en … maar construction was investigated in the interviews.
(38) a. ‘t (en) was maar net goed genoeg.
it negpart was only just good enough
‘It was barely good enough.’
b. Ik (en) heb maar drie spekken.
I negpart have only three sweets
‘I only have three sweets.’
One of the two sentences was presented in all locations where the en negator had been attested; this resulted in 33 hits. Map 51b shows that the combination is more widely spread than Gent. Examples were found in Oost-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen and Frans-Vlaanderen. The distribution hardly differs from the one in map 48b, where en … niet was used in the main clause: so almost all dialects with main clause en … niet also make use of en … maar.
4.3.1.4.2 en ‘negpart’ in negatively polar embedded clauses (map 52a)
It is known from the literature that en may also occur in various types of negatively polar embedded clauses, such as embedded clauses following comparatives (39a,b) and embedded clauses expressing anteriority (39c).
(39) a. Hij is veel slimmer dan dat hij
he is much cleverer than that he
er uit (en) ziet.
there out negpart see
‘He is much smarter than he looks.’
b. Marjo heeft nu meer koeien dan ze vroeger (en) had.
Marjo has now more cows than she earlier negpart had
‘Marjo now has more cows than she had earlier.’
c. Je moet niet komen voor dat ik geschreven (en) heb.
you must not come before that I written negpart have
‘You mustn’t come before I have written.’
In the sampling points in which en … niet was allowed in embedded clauses, informants were asked whether their dialects allowed for these constructions. It seems that both constructions are attested, but they are rare.
Map 52a shows that the constructions occur in a few places in the southern part of West-Vlaanderen and Oost-Vlaanderen. In embedded clauses expressing anteriority, polar en is rarer than in comparative clauses; moreover, all dialects with polar en in the anteriority clause also allow it in the comparative clauses. In comparatives the relevant dialects use different conjunctions, but as far as one can judge from the limited manifestations, the choice of the conjuction does not seem to be relevant: in Meilegem en is used after the conjunction dat ‘that’ (Hij is slimmer dat hij er uit en ziet), in Geraardsbergen, Ninove en Overijse after as dat ‘as that’ (Hij is slimmer as dat hij er uit en ziet), in Strijpen, Merelbeke, Waregem, Kooigem en Poperinge after of dat ‘whether that’ (Hij is slimmer of dat hij er uit en ziet) and in Overijse after dan ‘than’ (Marjo heeft nu meer koeien dan ze vroeger en had).
There is an older map dealing with negatively polar en in anteriority clauses in Paardekooper (1992:341). In RND sentence 30 (Ik kan toch niet komen voor ik klaar ben ‘I can’t come before I am ready’), Paardekooper finds some 13 examples of this phenomenon, 12 of which are located in the southwestern part of the Dutch-speaking region (the Belgian provinces Oost-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen). In addition, seven examples of a polar niet were found (four in Friesland, two in the river delta and one in Belgian Limburg). Because the RND sentence did not explicitly ask for the use of negative elements in this context, it is likely that at the time of the RND survey the phenomenon was more widespread.
4.3.1.5 en ‘negpart’… (niet ‘not’) in main clauses, embedded clauses and in short answers with doen – overview (map 52b)
Map 52b provides a summary of the occurrence of the negative and negatively polar en in three types of clauses: main clauses, embedded clauses and short answers with doen. The core region for en is the southern part of Oost-Vlaanderen, where each of the three phenomena is well attested. There are fewer instances for West-Vlaanderen and Frans-Vlaanderen. Further to the east, in the dialect regions of Brabant and Limburg, only the use in the embedded clause occurs.
The map may be compared with older maps by Koelmans (1967) and Jongen (1972). Based on RND data, Koelmans (1967) comes to comparable conclusions: negative en is still very strong in the south of the Belgian province of Oost-Vlaanderen, and also frequently occurs in Frans-Vlaanderen, southern West-Vlaanderen and northeastern Oost-Vlaanderen. In Vlaams-Brabant, northern West-Vlaanderen and just outside these regions, we find sporadic manifestations of en. On the basis of the 19th century material, Jongen (1972) shows a somewhat wider spread: negative en is regularly found in the entire Belgian part of the dialect region of Brabant, everywhere in Oost-Vlaanderen and in Belgian Limburg. Jongen (1972) also discusses material that was collected in 1940, resulting in a wider distribution than found in Koelmans (1967).
All in all, the discrepancies between the different maps are small, and probably due to the fact that the relevant data were collected at various points in time. The maps show that for a considerable time now the sentential negator en is only found in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, and no longer in the Netherlands. Within the dialect region Vlaanderen and to a lesser extent also in Brabant, the productivity increases in the south. This generalisation does not apply to Limburg, however.
4.3.2 Focus negation with a quantifier
4.3.2.1 niemand ‘nobody’, niets ‘nothing’ or nergens ‘nowhere’ and en ‘negpart’ (map 53a)
In some dialects a quantifier may occur in combination with the sentential negator en. All test sentences in (40) were presented to the informants without any sentential negator.
(40) a. Er (en) wil niemand (niet) dansen.
there negpart wants nobody not dance
‘Nobody wants to dance.’
b. Niemand (en) heeft dat ooit gewild of gekund.
nobody negpart has that ever wanted or been.able
‘Nobody has ever wanted that or been able to do it.’
c. ’t Schijnt dat ze niets (en) mag eten.
it seems that she nothing negpart may eat
‘It seems that she may not eat anything.’
d. (En) zitten hier nergens geen muizen?‘
negpart sit here nwehere no mice
‘Are there no mice here?’
Map 53a looks almost identical to the one showing en in combination with niet in declarative main clauses: the phenomenon almost exclusively occurs in Frans-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen and Oost-Vlaanderen, even more so in the southern part of these regions.
4.3.2.2 niemand ‘nobody’ and niet ‘not’ (map 53b)
Map 53b is based on a large amount of data, both grammaticality judgment tasks with niemand niet and translation questions with niemand. The occurrence in complete sentences (example 41a) as well as in short answers (example 41b) was studied.
(41) a. Er wil niemand (niet) dansen.
there wants nobody not dance
‘Nobody wants to dance.’
b. A vraagt: Wie heeft de auto meegenomen?
A asks who has the car with-taken
A asks: ‘Who has taken the car?’
B antwoordt: Niemand (niet).
B replies nobody not
B replies: ‘Nobody.’
In both cases, for at least one test sentence the possibility to add niet was explicitly asked for. The map therefore provides us with an exhaustive picture of the occurrence of niemand niet in the entire Dutch-speaking region.
The map shows that niemand niet is found everywhere in Belgium, least, however, in West-Vlaanderen. The fact that there was only one location in West-Vlaanderen with niemand niet in short answers shows that this use is very marginal, at least in short sentences. In Frans-Vlaanderen, niemand niet is nearly unknown. In the Netherlands, there are limited and isolated cases in all provinces but Groningen. Iemand niet is typical for a small region in Brabant to the north of Aarschot, where the pattern was first observed by Pauwels (1958).
All in all, niemand niet occurs less often in short answers than in sentences, but this generalisation cannot be used for the individual sampling points: especially in the Netherlands, there are a limited number of locations where niemand niet only occurs in short answers and not in full sentences.
4.3.2.3 niemand ‘nobody’ and niet ‘not’, word order variation (map 54a)
The following map, map 54a, displays the word order variation in the placement of niemand niet. For the sake of completeness, the map also shows in which sampling points niemand ... niet occurs, irrespective of the parameters studied here. The questionnaire contained three sentences with the quantifier niemand as clause-initial subject, which were presented for translation. In such sentences there are several possibilities for the placement of niemand and niet. The two most important ones are the following: niemand and niet occur together before the verb (42a) or they may be separated by the verb (42b).
(42) a. Niemand (niet) heeft mij gezien.
nobody not has me seen
b. Niemand heeft mij (niet) gezien.
nobody has me not seen’
‘Nobody has seen me.’
Of the sampling points with niemand ... niet, only a minority places the quantifier niemand at the beginning of the sentence, viz. 21 sampling points in or near the Belgian province of Vlaams-Brabant. In all other sampling points, a clause-initial niemand is not spontaneously combined with niet (in 17 Belgian sampling points there is no initial niemand at all). In 18 of the 21 sampling points niet follows the finite verb, for example in niemand heeft mij niet gezien ‘nobody has seen me’; in 3 separate locations, both niemand and niet occur before the finite verb (for example, niemand niet heeft mij gezien ‘noboby has seen me’).
4.3.2.4 niemand ‘nobody’, niet ‘not’ and en ‘negpart’ (map 54b)
Map 54b is based on maps 53a and 53b shown earlier (see section 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2), and it displays the combination of a negative quantifier niemand with either en or niet, or with both, in the sentence Er (en) wil niemand (niet) dansen (=40). It further shows that en niemand niet mainly occurs in the southern part of Oost-Vlaanderen. In almost all locations where both en and niet may be combined with niemand, we note that both elements occur together in the same sentence, thus involving three different negative elements in one sentence.
4.3.2.5 niets ‘nothing’ and niet ‘not’ (map 55a)
Map 55a is based on complete sentences such as (43a), presented as a translation task during the interviews, and the short answer in (43b), presented as a grammaticality judgement task; the entire Dutch-speaking area was investigated.
(43) a. ’t Schijnt dat ze niets (niet) mag eten.
it seems that she nothing not may eat
‘It seems that she may eat nothing’
b. A vraagt: Wat is rond en vierkant tegelijk?
A asks what is round and square simultaneously
A asks: ‘What is circular and square at the same time?’
B antwoordt: Niets (niet).
B replies nothing not
B replies: ‘Nothing.’
The map suggests that niets niet does not occur anywhere in full sentences, since all the examples occur in short answers. This conclusion is not justified, however, for the possibility of using niets niet in sentences was not explicitly investigated for in the SAND interviews. Moreover, it seems that after other quantifiers (such as niemand) niet is more frequent in sentences than in short responses. Although there is doubt about the reliability of some of the answers, due to the isolation of many of the attestations on the map, it is obvious that the use of niet after niets does occur, albeit rarely. This becomes clear when one compares the number of attestations of niets niet in short answers with the examples of niemand niet or nooit niet in short answers: the questioning technique used is the same, but there is a far smaller number of examples with niets niet.
The SAND material does not contain any examples of the combination iets niet ‘niets’, lit. ‘something not’ nor of iet ‘something’ as an equivalent for niets, as mentioned by Weijnen (1966: 323) for Holland.
4.3.2.6 nergens ‘nowhere’ and niet ‘not’ (map 55b)
Map 55b shows the analysis of the grammaticality judgments for sentence (44a) and for the short answer in (44b).
(44) a. We konden nergens (niet) zitten in die volle zaal.
we could nowhere not sit in that full room
‘We could not sit anywhere in that crowded room.’
b. A asks: Waar groeit het geld aan bomen?
where grows the money at trees
‘Where does money grow on trees?’
B answers: Nergens (niet)
nowhere not
‘Nowhere.’
The second sentence was tested for the entire Dutch-speaking region, unfortunately the first was not – especially for West-Vlaanderen there is a disturbing lack of data. However, we need to mention that West-Vlaanderen is not a very productive region as regards the use of niet after negative quantifiers; we do not therefore expect a wide spread of nergens niet in full sentences in West-Vlaanderen, also because the use of nergens niet in short answers is relatively uncommon in this region. In any case, the map suggests that nergens niet is a common option in the larger part of Belgium and fairly uncommon in the Netherlands. We find exactly as many examples of nergens niet in sentences as we do in short answers. Considering the methodological problems mentioned, i.e., the fact that the phenomenon was studied systematically for short answers but not for sentences, it again seems that niet occurs more frequently in sentences than in short responses. Just like for niemand niet there is a small part of the Brabant region where the negative quantifier is exchanged for a positive one, yielding iemand niet lit ‘somebody not’.
4.3.2.7 nooit ‘never’ and niet ‘not’ (map 56a)
Map 56a is based on sentences such as (45a), offered in the entire Dutch-speaking region as a translation task, and on the grammaticality judgements for short answers in (45b), also tested for the entire region.
(45) a. Als jullie zo losbandig leven, dan leven jullie
if you so frivolously live then live you
nooit (niet) zo lang als ik.
never not so long as I
‘If you live that frivolously, then you will never live as long as me.’
b. A vraagt: Wanneer zal de wereldvrede komen?
A asks when will the worldpeace come
A asks: ‘When will there be world peace?’
B antwoordt: Nooit (niet).
B replies never not
B replies: ‘Never.’
The method used again ensures that the results for the use of nooit niet in short answers are most likely to be reliable, while the use of nooit niet in sentences is probably more widespread than is shown on the map. The map shows that as a short answer nooit niet is allowed almost everywhere, with the exception of West-Vlaanderen and Frans-Vlaanderen. In a full sentence, nooit niet mostly occurs in Belgian Brabant and Oost-Vlaanderen, although we cannot exclude the presence in a wider region.
The test sentence in (45a) also yields information on the question as to whether the combination nooit niet is to be regarded as one phrase, since there are two different orderings: dan leven jullie nooit niet zo lang and dan leven jullie nooit zo lang niet. Both word orders are attested: the first was found 7 times (spread over Oost-Vlaanderen, Antwerpen, Vlaams-Brabant and Belgian Limburg); the second was found 12 times (in the same provinces). Just like in section 4.3.2.3, the SAND data do not provide an unambiguous answer to the question whether or not negative quantifiers and niet form a phrase.
4.3.2.8 niemand ‘nobody’, niets ‘nothing’, nergens ‘nowhere’ or nooit ‘nooit’ and niet ‘not’ – overview (map 56b)
Map 56b summarises the data for the use of niet with negative quantifiers in short answers, as displayed in maps 53b, 55a, 55b and 56a. The elicitation method was identical in each of the four cases: the informants were always explicitly asked whether it was possible to add niets in the short answer. Thus we basically obtain an exhaustive list of the SAND dialects in which the patterns are found. The map shows that niet after short answers with negative quantifiers is especially strong in the dialects of Oost-Vlaanderen, Brabant and Limburg. Especially nooit niet is frequent; niemand niet and nergens niet are somewhat less frequent, and niets niet is relatively rare.
4.3.2.9 geen enkele ‘not a single’ and niet ‘not’ (map 57a)
Informants for the entire Dutch-speaking region were asked whether they accept the combination of geen enkele ‘not a single’ and niet in short responses.
(46) A vraagt: Welke koeien heeft hij gemolken?
A asks which cows has he milked
A asks: ‘Which cows has he milked?’
B antwoordt: Geen enkele(niet).
B replies no single not
B replies: ‘Not a single one.’
Map 57a shows that the short answer geen enkele niet was found in various regions, but also that is rare.
4.3.2.10 geen ‘no’ and niet meer ‘no more’ (map 57b)
The SAND materials contain no direct information on the occurrence of geen ‘no’ with niet ‘not’ in complete sentences. However, there was a grammaticality judgement task, presented in the entire Dutch-speaking region, aiming to check whether geen co-occurs with niet meer ‘no more’ (map 57b).
(47) Hij wil geen soep (niet) meer eten.
he wants no soup not more eat
‘He does not want to eat any more soup.’
Geen soep niet meer is generally used in Brabant and Oost-Vlaanderen, and widespread in West-Vlaanderen, Frans-Vlaanderen and Limburg, and uncommon in the Netherlands. In two locations, we also found geen soep niet (in Stokkem and Borgharen). The combination geen soep niet, without meer, was not explicitly presented and might possibly be more widespread. Vanacker (1965:42) however, talks about the dialect of Antwerpen showing that geen soep niet is not used in Antwerpen, contrary to geen soep niet meer. Hence the combination of geen soep with niet appears more uncommon than geen soep with niet meer.
Vanacker (1965:43) also deals with a construction with niet veel ‘not much/many’ and niet meer ‘no more’. The use of the pattern niet veel X niet meer is found in Oost-Vlaanderen, Vlaams-Brabant, Antwerpen and the western part of Limburg, and there are also isolated instances outside this region. Outside these areas niet veel X meer is used. All in all, Vanacker’s map is almost identical to ours.
4.3.2.11 niemand ‘nobody’ and geen ‘no’ (map 58a)
Map 58a shows whether niemand may be combined with geen, as an alternative for niet in geen/niet pijn ‘no/not pain’ (see also map 58b, on the nergens geen construction). Sentence (48) was presented for translation in Belgium and in Frans-Vlaanderen.
(48) Wendy probeerde om niemand (niet/geen) pijn te doen.
Wendy tried to nobody not/no pain to do
‘Wendy tried not to hurt anyone
Since this was a translation task and additional negative elements as niet and/or geen in combination with niemand are usually optional, the map certainly does not provide an exhaustive survey of the variation. Thus the additional negative geen is absent in many Belgian locations, and there are very few dialects for which several possibilities are attested. Although the answers produce a clear geographical pattern, the possibility remains that the pattern is more widespread than shown on map 58a.
Niemand niet seems to occur mostly in the centre of Dutch-speaking Belgium; niemand geen more to the west and east of this region. Indeed in Brabant niemand niet pijn ‘nobody not pain’ is chosen (or iemand niet pijn ‘somebody not pain’, in the small region where it is possible to replace niemand niet by iemand niet), while Limburg, West-Vlaanderen and Oost-Vlaanderen opt for niemand geen pijn ‘nobody no pain’. A variant used in Frans-Vlaanderen is geen pijn aan niemand ‘no pain to nobody’.
4.3.2.12 nergens ‘nergens’ and geen ‘no’ (map 58a)
The SAND questionnaire checked whether and where the combination of nergens ‘nowhere’ and geen ‘no’ occurs. This was done with a ‘grammaticality judgement + translation’ task as indicated in (49).
(49) Zitten hier nergens (geen) muizen?
sit here nowhere no mice’
‘Aren’t there any mice here?’
The task was presented in the entire Dutch-speaking region. Map 58b thus gives an exhaustive picture of the dialects in which the relevant pattern is found. The map shows that nergens geen is accepted almost everywhere. Only in the Brabant region where nergens niet ‘nowhere not’ is replaced by ergens niet ‘somewhere not’ (see map 55b) ergens geen ‘somewhere no’ occurs instead of nergens geen ‘nowhere no’.
4.3.2.13 iemand ‘somebody’ or ergens ‘somewhere’ and niet ‘not’ as well as ergens ‘somewhere’ and geen ‘no’ – overview (map 59a)
Map 59a provides a summary of the combinations of iemand with niet (map 53b-cf. 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.11) and of ergens with the negative elements niet and geen, as shown on maps 55b and 58b (cf. 4.3.2.6 and 4.3.2.12). The construction as a whole has the meaning of the corresponding negative quantifier (i.e., ergens niet/geen means ‘nowhere’ and iemand niet ‘nobody’). The combination iemand geen was not elicited during the interviews.
The map clearly documents the Brabantic subregion where ergens and iemand occur with niet and/or geen, while the rest of Brabant opts for nergens niet/geen and niemand niet/geen. Both the choice of the negative element and that of the quantifier affect the distribution: ergens geen is more widespread than ergens niet; iemand niet seems less widespread than ergens niet.
4.3.2.14 niet veel ‘not much/many’ or niet goed ‘not good’ and geen ‘no’ within a noun phrase (map 59b)
In some dialects an additional negative geen may be inserted after negative constructions such as niet goed ‘not good’ and niet veel ‘not much/many’. Map 59b is based on grammaticality judgements for the sentences in (50).
(50) a. Jan (en) heeft niet veel (geen) geld (niet) meer.
John not has not much no money no more
‘John does not have much money anymore.’
b. Hij spreekt niet goed (geen) Frans.
he speaks no good no French
‘He does not speak French very well.’
Informants were asked whether geen could be inserted. The questions were only presented in Belgium, but it is unlikely that the phenomenon would show up in the Netherlands.
The map shows that the combination of niet veel or niet goed with geen within the same noun phrase only occurs in West-Vlaanderen and Frans-Vlaanderen. In both cases, there is an almost identical geographical pattern. Vanacker (1975:132) also discusses the pattern niet veel geen +noun, and he also places this construction in the southwest, with most examples in Frans-Vlaanderen and to a lesser extent in the west and north of West-Vlaanderen. This construction is not found outside of this region.
4.3.2.15 iedereen ‘everybody’ or overal ‘everywhere’ with geen ‘no’ with negation having scope over iedereen ‘everybody’ or overal ‘everywhere’ (map 60a)
In many places in the Dutch-speaking region, speakers accept sentences such as in (51), in which the negator has a universal quantifier in its scope.
(51) a. Iedereen is geen vakman.
everyone is no professional
‘Not everyone is a professional.’
b. Hij heeft overal geen vrienden.
he has everywhere no friends
‘He does not have friends everywhere.’
Both were presented in the entire region as ‘grammaticality judgement + translation’ tasks. Map 60a shows that Iedereen is geen vakman is widely accepted. Hij heeft overal geen vrienden is less acceptable: Frans-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen, Zuid-Holland and Utrecht, the eastern part of the province of Antwerpen and the southern part of Belgian Limburg, among others, are regions where the pattern does not occur. Even in the regions where Hij heeft overal geen vrienden occurs, it is found with a lower density than Iedereen is geen vakman. Due to the various differences between the sentences, it is not easy to explain the different distribution: the quantifiers are different (iedereen vs. overal), but the word order is different too. The widely accepted Iedereen is geen vakman has the universal quantifier in clause-initial position, allowing for focus intonation, which seems to be beneficial for the right scope. In any case, both constructions are found in large parts of the Dutch-speaking region.
4.3.3 Quantifiers
4.3.3.1 Forms for iemand ‘somebody’ (map 61a)
The equivalents for the existential quantifier iemand were taken from test sentence (52).
(52) ’t Lijkt wel of er iemand in de tuin staat.
it seems affirm or there somebody in the garden stands
‘It seems as if somebody is standing in the garden.’
For almost all sampling points, the material contains at least one translation. The resulting map, map 61a, shows that Standard Dutch iemand is fairly widespread in the Dutch-speaking region. Iemes is mainly found in Limburg, so it is a (south)eastern form. The form een(e(n)) principally occurs in the north, southwest and southeast. The diminutive eentje is a fairly local, Noord-Holland variant of een(e(n)). One typically southwestern form is e(n)twien, occurring in Frans-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen. Entwiemand, occurring only once, is probably a contamination of iemand and e(n)twien. The existence of entwiemand is confirmed by dialect dictionaries (e.g., Moeyaert 2005).
4.3.3.2 Forms for niemand ‘nobody’ (map 61b)
Map 61b displays the various equivalents of niemand in test sentences as (53):
(53) a. Er wil niemand (niet) dansen.
there wants nobody not dance
‘Nobody wants to dance.’
b. Niemand heeft dat ooit gewild of gekund.
nobody has that ever wanted or been.able
‘Nobody has ever wanted that or been able to do it.’
There is information for almost all sampling points. Some of the variants are reminiscent of the equivalents given on the previous map for iemand: niemand resembles iemand, niemes resembles iemes, and niet een and geeneenresemble een(e(n)) and eentje. In all three cases, the geographical distribution is fairly similar: the form with the widest spread is the Standard Dutch niemand, which is found everywhere in the Dutch-speaking region. The variant niemes is found in some twenty places in the east, mainly in (Dutch) Limburg. In the north (also in Friesland) niet een is used. The form geeneen, and gender-marked morphological variants such as geenene(n) and genenene(n), is especially frequent in the north, northeast and southwest of the Dutch-speaking region, but it also occurs outside of this region. All other forms also have the element geen, and are not straightforward equivalents of one of the variants for iemand. The occurrences of geen mens are concentrated near the Maas and the Rijn, but further away from these rivers geen mens is also sporadically found. Geen man is used in the Belgian province of Antwerpen and in Noord-Brabant. Of course, phrases like geen mens and geen man may serve as reinforced negators in many other places. During the SAND interviews the reinforcing negative elements were not elicited; hence the map only displays locations where niemand was spontaneously translated with a combination of geen and a noun. Finally, quantifying expressions such as geen and geen enkele are used in the southeast of the Dutch-speaking region. In one sampling point where there seems to be no translation for niemand, iemand niet is used to express the same meaning.
4.3.3.3. Forms for iedereen ‘everybody’ (map 62a)
The questionnaire contained several test sentences with the universal quantifier iedereen, such as (54) and Iedereen is geen vakman (= 51a). There is information for more or less every sampling point.
(54) Ik vind dat iedereen moet kunnen zwemmen.
I find that everybody must can swim
‘I think that everybody must be able to swim.’
The most important variants are iedereen, alleman and elkeen. Iedereen is the Standard Dutch form used almost everywhere in the Dutch-speaking region, also in the dialects; alleman is a predominantly southern variant, but it also occurs in two locations in Overijssel; and elkeen (and variants such as elkeneen, elkendeen) are used both in the north and in the southwest. The map further shows some forms that were only given once: alle mensen in Visvliet (Groningen), een ieder in Hooghalen (Drenthe), elk in Zuid-Sleen (Drenthe) and ieder in Huizen in Noord-Holland.
4.3.3.4 Forms for iets ‘something’ (map 63a)
All of the test sentences with iets, such as (55), were exclusively tested in (parts of) Belgium, so map 63a only covers a part of the Dutch-speaking region. In view of the limited variation for niets on the following map, we do not expect a great deal of variation for the Netherlands.
(55) Dat is iets wat heel mooi is.
that is something what very beautiful is
‘That is something very beautiful.’
The most widely spread forms are iet and iets. Iet frequently occurs in Brabant, but it is also found in Limburg. Iets is the dominant form in Limburg and Oost-Vlaanderen. The equivalent of the negative niks/nieks, i.e., iks/ieks, does not occur in the SAND materials. A diminutive ietske is found in seven locations. In the west, there is a variant that is not related to the other ones, e(n)twat. E(n)twat is originally a combination of a particle et with a question word, similar to e(n)twien shown on map 61a.
4.3.3.5 Forms for niets ‘nothing’ (map 63b)
Map 63b shows the translations for the negative quantifier niets in sentences like ‘t Schijnt dat ze niets mag eten ‘It seems that she can’t eat anything’ (=43a). For this sentence too, a translation is available in a large majority of the sampling points.
What is striking on the map is the large uniformity of responses: the Standard Dutch forms niets and niks (or nieks) cover the larger part of the Dutch-speaking region. In the Dutch sampling points, niets and niks/nieks are probably used interchangeably. The map contains more instances of niks/nieks, but niets is also found in all areas. In Belgium, niks/nieks is the dominant form in the east, i.e., in the provinces of Limburg, Antwerpen and Vlaams-Brabant. Further to the west, the use of niets and the variant without /s/, niet, is dominant. Apart from niks/nieks, niets and niet, the variants nikske/niekske and nieten are found. Nikske/niekske is a diminutive form of niks/nieks; nieten consists of niet and ‑en, which is possibly the negator en.
4.3.3.6 Forms for nergens ‘nowhere’ (map 64a)
The questionnaire contains various (translation) tasks with the negative quantifier nergens. However, nergens is mostly used in a non-standard way and the translation does not necessarily contain nergens itself. Thus in the test sentence Zitten hier nergens geen muizen? (= 48) for example, nergens geen is often translated by ergens. That is why there are some sampling points on map 64a for which no information is available, although, all in all, the map provides a good coverage.
The map displays a considerable amount of variation, but from an etymological point of view all forms stem from the same basic form. For example, certain components of the Standard Dutch nergens, i.e., negative ne + *ajw ‘ever’ + *hwar-gin ‘where-particle’ + adverbial –s, also occur in the other (fairly) frequently occurring forms nearne (Friesland), nieverans (mainly Oost-Vlaanderen, Antwerpen and Vlaams-Brabant), nievers (West-Vlaanderen and Oost-Vlaanderen) and nowers (Frans-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen). Some less frequent variants are clearly derived from these forms (nergensten from nergens, nowersten from nowers), or they seem to be very local contaminations (neggenand in Zundert in Noord-Brabant, and nergenans in Walshouten in Vlaams-Brabant). The only form that is radically different is geentwaar, attested in Bray-Duinen in Frans-Vlaanderen, an adverb that is unknown from the literature. The form is particularly instructive because it supports the hypothesis that the etymology of western forms with question words, such as e(n)twien and e(n)twat, is no longer transparent for many contemporary speakers. While the forms historically consist of e(n)t + question word, the existence of geentwaar suggests that the forms were reanalysed as an indefinite article een + twien, twat or twaar (see also Haegeman 1991).
4.3.3.7 Forms for ooit ‘ever’ (map 64b)
The only test sentence with the existential quantifier ooit ‘ever’ is (56).
(56) Niemand heeft dat ooit gewild
nobody has that ever wanted
‘Nobody has ever wanted that.’
It was presented everywhere. However, a great many of translations of this sentence lack an equivalent for ooit, because the presence of the quantifier niemand yielded translations with nooit (or an equivalent). Thus there are gaps on map 64b, which can only be filled partially by searching for more attestations of the mapped variants in the entire SAND corpus.
However, it is clear that ooit is fairly uncommon in Belgium outside Limburg and Antwerpen. Especially in the Belgian part of the Brabant dialect region, but also in Oost-Vlaanderen and Limburg, alternatives with leven ‘life’ are found, i.e., van zijn leven, van leven, van mijn leven and in zijn leven. Data are lacking for many sampling points in West-Vlaanderen, but the partial information on the map indicates that there too the combinations with leven are the normal equivalent for ooit. The combinations with leven were initially prepositional phrases, but there is evidence that the etymology is no longer equally transparent for all speakers: both van zijn leven and van mijn leven are used with all types of subjects, regardless of person, number and gender. Thus constructions like (57) are very common.
(57) Jij hebt van zijn leven nog in de mijnen gewerkt.
you have of his life still in the mines worked
‘You once worked in the mines.’
4.4 Bibliography negation and quantification
Aerts, J. (1981). ‘Zuidafrikaanse zinnen met dubbele ontkenning en overbodige eind-nie in het Turnhouts dialekt.’ Taxandria51-53. 101-111.
Baker, C.L. (1970). ‘Double negatives.’ Linguistic Inquiry 1. 169-186.
Barbiers, S. (2003). ‘Microvariation in negation in varieties of Dutch.’ In S. Barbiers, L. Cornips & S. van der Kleij (eds.) Syntactic Microvaration. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut Electronic Publications in Linguistics 2, http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/
Beheydt, G. (1998). Het gebruik en de vorm van de negatie in het Zuidelijke Nederlands in een diachronisch perspectief (15de–20ste eeuw) MA-thesis Catholic University of Leuven..
Bernini, G. & P. Ramat (1992). Le frase negative nelle lingue d’Europa. Bologna: Il Mulino.
– (1996). Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bhat, D.N.S. (2004). Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blancquaert, E. (1923). ‘Over de dubbele ontkenning en nog wat.’ Handelingen van het Vlaamse filologencongres 6. 60–69.
Bossuyt, A. (1982). Aspekten van de geschiedenis van de negatieve zin in het Nederlands. Ph.D.-thesis Free University of Brussels.
– (1988). Principles of a functional theory of language change. Manuscript Free University of Brussels.
Braecke, C. (1986). ‘“Zuidnederlandse” volgorde in vier constructies: een zelfde analytische tendens?’ In M. Devos, & J. Taeldeman (eds.) Vruchten van z’n akker. Opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V.F. Vanacker hem aangeboden bij zijn afscheid van de Rijksuniversiteit Gent. Gent: Ghent University Seminar for Dutch Linguistics. 33-45.
Burridge, K. (1983). ‘On the development of Dutch negation.’ In H. Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983. Dordrecht: Foris. 31-40.
– (1993). Syntactic change in Germanic: Aspects of language change in Germanic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Coombs, V.M. (1976). A Semantic Syntax of Grammatical Negation in the Older Germanic Dialects. Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Corver, N. (2007). ‘Meer over negatief meer: een reactie op Piet Paardekooper.’ Neerlandistiek.nl 7.04.
Dahl, Ö. (1979). ‘Typology of sentence negation.’ Linguistics 17. 79–106.
De Brabandere, F. (2002). West-Vlaams etymologisch woordenboek. De herkomst van de West-Vlaamse woorden. Amsterdam / Antwerpen: L.J. Veen.
De Meersman, A. (1980). ‘Ontkenningen in ouder Nederlands.’ Studia Germanica Gandensia 21. 5–14.
Den Besten, H. (1985). ‘Die doppelte Negation in Afrikaans und ihre Herkunft.‘ In N. Boretzky, W. Enninger & T. Stolz (eds.) Akten des 1. Essener Kolloquiums über “Kreolsprachen und Sprachkontrakte” vom 26.1.1985 an der Universität Essen. Bochum: Brockmeyer. 9-42.
– (1986). ‘Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans.’ In P. Muysken & N. Smith (eds.) Substrata versus Universals in Creole Languages. Papers from the Amsterdam Creole Workshop, April 1985. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 185-230.
De Vogelaer, G. & R. Vandenberghe (2006). ‘ ‘Iemand’ of ‘etwien’, ‘ieveranst’ of ‘ergens’: een taaltypologisch perspectief op onbepaalde voornaamwoorden en bijwoorden.’ In J. De Caluwe & M. Devos (eds.) Structuren in talige variatie in Vlaanderen. Gent: Academia Press. 91-114.
De Vries, J. & F. De Tollenaere (2000). Etymologisch Woordenboek. Onze woorden, hun oorsprong en ontwikkeling (twenty first edition). Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
Dryer, M.S. (1988). ‘Universals of negative position.’ In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Worth (eds.) Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 93-124.
Eriksen, P.K. (2005). On the Typology and the Semantics of Non-Verbal Predication. Dissertation University of Oslo.
Gardiner, A.H. (1905). ‘The word.’ Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41. 130-135.
Haeberli, E. & L. Haegeman (1999). ‘Negative concord and verb projection raising in Old English and West Flemish.’ In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, G. Tottie & W. van der Wurff (eds.) Negation in the History of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 101-119.
Haegeman, L. (1991). ‘Enkele opmerkingen over de analyse van eentwa en het Westvlaams van Guido Gezelle.’ Taal & Tongval 43. 159-168
– (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
– (1997). ‘The syntax of n-words and the neg criterion.’ In D. Forget, P. Hirschbühler, F. Martineau & M.L. Rivero Forget (eds.) Negation and Polarity. Syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 115-137.
– (1998). ‘Verb movement in embedded clauses in West Flemish.’ Linguistic Inquiry 29. 631-656.
– (2000). ‘Negative preposing, negative inversion, and the split CP.’ In L. Horn & Y. Kato (eds.) Negation and Polarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21-61.
– (2003). ‘Some notes on DP-internal negative doubling.’ In S. Barbiers, L. Cornips & S. van der Kleij (eds.) Syntactic Microvaration. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics 2, http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/
– (2007). ‘Generatieve syntaxis en microanalyse van een dialect: een reactie op Piet Paardekooper.’ Neerlandistiek.nl 7.03.
Haegeman, L. & R. Zanuttini (1991). ‘Negative heads and the Neg criterion.’ The Linguistic Review 8. 233-251
– (1996). ‘Negative concord in West Flemish.’ In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (eds.). Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 117-180.
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hoeksema, J. (1997). ‘Negation and Negative Concord in Middle Dutch.’ In D. Forget, P. Hirschbühler, F. Martineau & M.L. Rivero Forget (eds.) Negation and Polarity. Syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 139-158.
– (1998). ‘On the (non)loss of the polarity sensitive Dutch ooit.’ In R.M. Hogg & L. van Bergen (eds.) Historical linguistics 1995. Selected papers from the 13th international conference on historical linguistics, Manchester, August 1995. Volume 2: Germanic linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 101-114.
– (1999). ‘Aantekeningen bij ooit, deel 2: De opkomst van niet-polair ooit.’ Tabu 29. 147-172.
– (2002). ‘Minimaliseerders in het Standaardnederlands. Tabu 32. 105-174.
Horn, L.R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst.
Jongen, R. (1972). ‘Nog eens over de verbreiding van het ontkennende “en” of: welke is de bruikbaarheid van de RNDA?’ De Nieuwe Taalgids 65. 51-57.
Kahrel, P. (1996). Aspects of Negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Klima, E.S. (1964). ‘Negation in English.’ In J.A. Fodor & J.J. Katz (eds.) The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 246-323.
Koelmans, L. (1967). ‘Over de verbreiding van het ontkennende en.’De Nieuwe Taalgids 60. 12-18.
– (1970). Over de plaats van het zinsdeel niet. Taal & Tongval 22. 10-15
Labov, W. (1972). ‘Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar.’ Language 48. 773-818.
Ladusaw, W. (1980). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York: Garland Press.
Mathesius, V. (1937). ‘Double negation and grammatical concord.’ In Mélanges de linguistique et de philology, offerts à Jacq. van Ginneken à l’occasion du soixantième anniversaire de sa naissance (21 avril 1937). Paris: Klincksieck. 79-83.
Miestamo, M. (2005). Standard Negation. The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Moeyaert, C. (2005). Woordenboek van het Frans-Vlaams. Leuven: Davidsfonds.
Neuckermans, A. (2003). Negatie in de Vlaamse dialecten. Manuscript Ghent University.
Nienaber, G.S. (1934). Oor die Afrikaanse tal. ’n bydrae oor sy ontwikkeling na aanleiding van enige versterkingsyses. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
– (1965). ‘Iets naders oor die ontkenning in Afrikaans.’ In P.J Nienaber (ed.). Taalkundige opstelle. Kaapstad: Balkema. 22-38.
– (1994). ‘Khoekhoe en Afrikaans in gesprek.’ Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrift vir Taalkunde. Supplement 21.
Overdiep, G.S. (1933a). ‘Dialectstudie en syntaxis: een overgangsklank.’ Onze Taaltuin 2. 44-45.
– (1933b). ‘Negatie en andere syntactische vormen in de Gentsche volkstaal.’ Onze Taaltuin 2. 161-170. [ook in Overdiep 1947: 46-55]
– (1937). Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.
– (1940). De volkstaal van Katwijk aan zee. Antwerpen: Standaard.
– (1947). Volkstaal en dialectstudie. Antwerpen: Standaard.
Paardekooper, P.C. (1992). ‘Ik en kan niet komen voor ik klaar en ben.’ De Nieuwe Taalgids 85. 336-345.
– (2007). ‘Bloei en ondergang van onbeperkte e/en, vooral dat bij niet-woorden.’ Neerlandistiek.nl 6.02.
Pauwels, J.L. (1958). Het dialect van Aarschot en omstreken. Brussel: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.
– (1974). ‘Expletief nie en andere herhalingswoorden als zinsafsluiters.’ In F.F. Oldendal (ed.) Taalkunde - ’n lewe. Studies opgedra aan prof. W. Kempen by geleentheid van sy 65st verjaardag. Kaapstad: Tafelberg. 73-76.
Payne, J.R. (1985). ‘Negation.’ In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 197-242.
Philippa, M., F. Debrabandere & A. Quak (2005). Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. F-Ka (eds.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Postma, G. (1999). ‘De negatieve polariteit van het syntactische ghe- partikel in het Middelnederlands.’ Nederlandse Taalkunde 4. 310-329.
– (2002). ‘De enkelvoudige clitische negatie in het Middelnederlands en de Jespersen-cyclus.’ Nederlandse taalkunde 7. 44-82.
– (2006). 'Van groter dan naar groter als: structurele oorzaken voor het verval van het comparatieve voegwoord dan.' Nederlandse Taalkunde 11. 2-22.
Postma, G. & H. Bennis (2006). ‘Variatie in negatie: het gedrag van het negatieve cliticum in het Middeldrents van rond 1400.’ Taal & Tongval 58. 148-166.
RND = E. Blancquaert & W. Pée (1925-1982). Reeks Nederlandse Dialectatlassen. 17 vol. (eds.). Antwerpen: De Sikkel.
Roberge, P. (2000). ‘Etymological Opacity, Hybridization, and the Afrikaanse Brace Negation.’ American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 12. 101-176.
Ryckeboer, H. (1986). ‘Het hulpwerkwoord doen in replieken.’ In M. Devos & J. Taeldeman (eds.) Vruchten van z’n akker. Opstellen van (oud-)medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V.F. Vanacker hem aangeboden bij zijn afscheid van de Rijksuniversiteit Gent. Gent: Ghent University Seminar for Dutch Linguistics. 321-337.
Stoett, F.A. (1923)3 Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Stoops, Y. (1972). ‘Iets over de dubbele negatie bij Willem Ogier.’ Taal & Tongval 23. 142-152.
– (1988). ‘Het negatiepartikel en in een laat-zestiende-eeuwse Antwerpse kroniek.’ In J.A. van Leuvensteijn (ed.) Uitgangspunten en toepassingen. Taalkundige studies over Middelnederlands en zestiende-en zeventiende eeuws Nederlands. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. 141-156.
Tavernier, C. (1959). ‘Over negatie en expletief en in het Gents dialect.’ Taal & Tongval 11. 245-252.
Vanacker, V.F. (1965). ‘Tegenstellingen bij een negatiesyntagme in de Zuidnederlandse dialekten.’ Taal & Tongval 17. 41-50.
– (1975). ‘Substantiefgroepen met dubbele ontkenningen in zuidwestelijke dialecten.’ In G. Kazemier & P. P. J. van Caspel (eds.) Taal- en letterkundig gastenboek voor Prof. Dr G. A. van Es. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. 127-133.
Van Craenenbroeck, J. (2004). Ellipsis in Dutch dialects (Dissertation Leiden University). Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.
Vandekerckhove, R. (1993). ‘Dialectverlies in West-Vlaanderen? De vitaliteit van het Deerlijkse dialect.’ In F. Hinskens, C. Hoppenbrouwes & J. Taeldeman (eds.) Dialectverlies en Regiolectvorming [Themanummer Taal & Tongval 6]. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. 120-135.
van der Auwera, J. (2006). ‘Why languages prefer prohibitives.’ Journal of Foreign Languages 1. 1-25.
van der Auwera, J. & A. Neuckermans (2003). ‘On the typology of no one, a view from Brabantic.’ Leuvense Bijdragen 92. 223-228.
– (2004a). ‘Een Oost-Vlaamse driedubbele negatie.’ In S. Barbiers, M. Devos & G. De Schutter (eds.) Dialectsyntaxis in bloei [Themanummer Taal & Tongval 15-16]. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. 143-157.
– (2004b). ‘Jespersen’s Cycle and the Interaction of Predicate and Quantifier Negation in Flemish.’ In B. Kortmann (ed.) Typology meets dialectology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 454-478.
van der Auwera, J., L. De Cuypere & A. Neuckermans (2006). ‘Negative indefinites: A typological and diachronic perspective on a Brabantic construction.’ In T. Nevailanen, J. Klemola & M. Laitinen (eds.) Types of variation. Diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 305-319.
Van der Horst, J.M. & M.J. van der Wal (1979). ‘Negatieverschijnselen en woordvolgorde in de geschiedenis van het Nederlands.’ Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 95. 6–37.
Van der Wouden, T. (1997). Negative Contexts. Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.
– (1998). ‘On the development of marked negation systems: the Dutch situation in the seventeenth century.’ In R.M. Hogg, L. van Bergen (eds.) Historical linguistics 1995. Selected papers from the 13th international conference on historical linguistics, Manchester, August 1995. Volume 2: Germanic linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 311-329.
– (2007). ‘Meer over dubbele ontkenningen: een reactie op Piet Paardekooper.’ Neerlandistiek.nl 7.02.
Van Haeringen, C.B. (1963). Neerlandica: verspreide opstellen. Den Haag: Daamen.
Van Helten, W.L. (1885). ‘Over enkele eigenaardigheden in het gebruik van nie, noit, nemmer, ne of en.’ Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 5. 235-244.
Weijnen, A.A. (1966). Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum, Prakke & Prakke.
– (1971). Schets van de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Asse: Van Gorcum, Prakke & Prakke.
– (2003). Etymologisch dialectwoordenboek (second edition). Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers.
Weiss, H. (2002). ‘Indefinite pronouns. Morphology and syntax in cross-linguistic perspective.’ In H. Simon & H. Wiese (eds.) Pronouns - grammar and representation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 85-107.
Will, G. (2004). Zeeuws of Vlaams. (Morfo-)syntactische verschijnselen in de dialecten van Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. Dissertation Ghent University.
Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord (Dissertation University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.
– (2005). ‘What the Dutch Jespersen Cycle may reveal about Negative Concord.’ In M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha, K. Yoshimura (eds.) Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 2. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 143-158.
– (2006). ‘Emphatic Multiple Negative Expressions in Dutch.’ In S. Barbiers et al. (eds.) Papers presented at Workshop on Syntactic Doubling, Amsterdam, March. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/projecten/edisyn/Papers_workshop-on-Doubling.html.