Variability in agreement in two types of Dutch dialects
Astrid van Alem
(Utrecht University)
Saturday (April 22nd), 15:15-15:40
Lipsius 148

Standard Dutch, as well as a substantial part of its dialectal varieties, has “double agreement” with second person singular: jij loop-t but loop-∅ jij. This property anti-correlates with complementizer agreement with second person singular (dat-st). In this talk, I will present a formal syntactic account that explains the anti-correlation, based on the distinction between two types of Dutch dialects that has been proposed by Postma (2011). The account implements the feature geometry of pronouns by Harley & Ritter (2002) instead of making use of the traditional phi-features [person] and [number]. The account makes some empirical predictions, that I will show to be correct with evidence from different Dutch dialects. Some dialects also have double agreement with first person plural (wie loop-t but loop-e wie). Independent evidence shows that this is a different type of double agreement and that it should be analyzed according to Van Koppen (2005). Her analysis can be implemented into my account as well. Finally, I would like to discuss a new observation regarding the morphology of imperative verbs, which is likely to be subject to the same syntactic principles.  

Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric analysis. Language.
Koppen, M. van (2005). One Probe - Two Goals: aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Dissertation Leiden University.
Postma, G. (2011). Het verval van het pronomen du: dialectgeografie en de historische syntaxis. Nederlandse taalkunde