Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T20:30:54.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Copy Raising in English, German, and Dutch: Synchrony and Diachrony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2016

Marjolein Poortvliet
Marjolein Poortvliet*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
*
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford, Walton Street, Oxford OX1 2HG, UK [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study discusses copy raising in English, German, and Dutch from both a synchronic and diachronic perspective. Synchronically, copy raising has the same purpose in all three languages: to mark direct evidence. However, the languages differ in whether they allow their ‘seem’-verbs to appear in copy-raised constructions: English seem can copy raise, German scheinen cannot, whereas the status of Dutch lijken is undecided. This difference is explained by the diachronic development of these verbs: English seem has developed the furthest along the grammaticalization cline of ‘seem’-verbs, German scheinen is the most conservative in its development, and Dutch lijken has developed quite late, but is quickly catching up to English seem. Even though it is too early to tell, this distribution hints at a Van Haeringen pattern.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 28 , Special Issue 4: New Directions in Comparative Germanic Linguistics , December 2016 , pp. 370 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in typological perspective. Studies in evidentiality (Typological Studies in Language 54), ed. by Alexandra, Y Aikhenvald. & Dixon, Robert M. W., 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Richard III. Proceedings from the Main Session of the Thirty-Eighth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 1, ed. by Mary, Andronis, Debenport, Erin, Pycha, Anne, & Yoshimura, Keiko, 31–46. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as resource management. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, & Toivonen, Ida. 2007. Copy raising, perception reports, and the semantics of raising and control. Paper presented at University of Oslo, November 21, 2007. Available at http://users.ox.ac.uk/∼cpgl0036/slides/asudeh-oslo-2007.pdf, accessed on July 19, 2016.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, & Toivonen, Ida. 2012. Copy raising and perception. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 321–380.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily, & Flickinger, Dan. 1999. Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics, ed. by Gosse, Bouma, Hinrichs, Erhard, Kruijff, Geert-Jan, & Oehrle, Richard, 3–19. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2014. Syntax of Dutch: Adjectives and adjective phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Brook, Marisa. 2015. Syntactic categories informing variationist analysis: The case of English copy raising. Paper presented at the Eighty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America held in Portland, OR, January 8–11, 2015. Abstract available at http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/ExtendedAbs/article/view/3001/2741, accessed on July 19, 2016.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie. 2010. Een digitaal compilatiecorpus historisch Nederlands. Lexikos 20. 123–142.Google Scholar
Darzi, Ali. 1996. Word order, NP-movements, and opacity conditions in Persian. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1992. Raising constructions in Haitian Creole. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 191–231.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, & Smirnova, Elena. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Bruce. 2008. Dutch: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Egmond, Marie-Elaine. 2004. Copy raising in Dutch. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury undergraduate thesis.Google Scholar
Featherstone, Sam. 2005. Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics 43. 667–711.Google Scholar
Fujii, Tomohiro. 2005. Cycle, linearization of chains, and multiple case checking. Proceedings of Console XIII, ed. by Sylvia, Blaho, Vicente, Luis, & Schoorlemmer, Erik, 39–65. Leiden: Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Fujii, Tomohiro. 2007. Cyclic chain reduction. The copy theory of movement, ed. by Corver, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo, 291–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 1996. English perception verbs. London, UK: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas, & Holmes, Jasper. 2007. History of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics 11. 1–29.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2007. Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics 19. 129–150.Google Scholar
van Haeringen, Coenraad. 1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard, & Buscha, Joachim. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik. Munich: Langenscheidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1994. Layers of predication. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Houët, Henriëtte. 1996. Prisma Grammatica Nederlands. Utrecht: Het Spectrum B.V. Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 1976. Raising in Modern Greek: A copying process. Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, vol. 2, ed. by Hankamer, Jorge & Aissen, Judith, 241–281. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2014. English copy raising constructions: Argument realization and characterization condition. Linguistics 52. 167–203.Google Scholar
Klooster, Wim. 2001. Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands-een volledig overzicht. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Klosa, Annette. 2001. Richtiges und gutes Deutsch, vol. 9 of Der Duden. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. This construction looks like a copy is optional. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 343–346.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2011. Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 779–813.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom. 1984. Predication and raising. Proceedings of NELS 14, ed. by Jones, Charles & Sells, Peter, 236–252. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, & Sells, Peter. 1988. Control and A-chains in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, John. 1998. Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 149–189.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 349–357.Google Scholar
Poortvliet, Marjolein. 2014. Evidentiality in Dutch. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oxford. Available at https://www.academia.edu/25636527/Evidentiality_in_Dutch, accessed on May 26, 2016.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric, & Runner, Jeffrey T. 2001. Richard returns: Copy raising and its implications. Proceedings from the Main Session of the Thirty-Seventh Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 1, ed. by Mary, Andronis, Ball, Chris, Elston, Heidi, & Neuvel, Sylvain, 453–468. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica, & Hyams, Nina. 2014. The acquisition of syntactically encoded evidentiality. Language Acquisition 21. 173–198.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three kinds of physical perception verbs. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Douglas, Adams, Ann Campbell, Mary, Cohen, Victor, Lovins, Julie, Maxwell, Edward, Nygren, Carolyn, & Reighard, John, 206–222. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1972. Another look at flip perception verbs. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Levi, Judith N., Peranteau, Paul M., & Phares, Gloria C., 303–315. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1973. Physical perception verbs in English: A study in lexical relatedness. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1974. A transderivational constraint on Richard? Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Michael, W. La Galy, Robert Allen Fox, & Anthony Bruck, 551–558. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1998. Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis 28. 67–88.Google Scholar
Vliegen, Maurice. 2011. Evidentiality. Dutch seem and appear verbs: blijken, lijken, schijnen . Linguistics in the Netherlands 28 125–137.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2015. On the grammaticalization of inferential evidential meaning: English seem and German scheinen . Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 20. 233–271.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2016. Evidentiality in Early Modern German. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17. (In Press).Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corpora and Other Data Sources

Brieven als Buit (Letters from 1600–1700). Available at http://www.brievenalsbuit.nl/.Google Scholar
Compilation Corpus Historical Dutch. Available at http://www.eviecousse.be/compilationcorpus.htm.Google Scholar
Corpus Gysseling (Early Middle Dutch, 1200–1300). Available at http://gysseling.corpus.taalbanknederlands.inl.nl/gysseling/page/search.Google Scholar
Google Books. Available at https://books.google.ca/.Google Scholar
Google Books Ngram. Available at https://books.google.com/ngrams.Google Scholar
Helsinki Corpus. Available at http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/.Google Scholar