The Re-Autonomization of the Modal Auxiliaries in Dutch
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The re-autonomization of the modal auxiliaries in Dutch De herautonomisering van de Nederlandse modale hulpwerkwoorden Faculty of Arts Department of Linguistics The re-autonomization of the modal auxiliaries in Dutch Thesis submitted for the degree of doctor in Linguistics at the University of Antwerp to be defended by Wim Caers PROMOTOR prof. dr. Jan Nuyts Antwerp 2020 Preface This thesis could not have come about without the help of many people. I would like to express a heartfelt “thank you” to everyone. First of all, I would like to thank the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and the Univer- sity of Antwerp for their funding and support without which I was not able to do this research. Most in particular, I am very grateful to my supervisor, professor doctor Jan Nuyts, who has put a lot of time and effort in guiding me through this project. He was always willing to answer my many questions, to actively participate in the thinking process, and to encourage me in developing a critical mind regarding the issues encountered in this thesis. His constructive and pertinent feedback has strongly contributed to the end result of my work. Thanks are also due to Henri-Joseph Goelen (former predoctoral researcher in the linguis- tics department of the University of Antwerp) for his preliminary work in examining the gram- matical characteristics of the less central modals in Dutch. Along with the earlier investigations of my supervisor, his pilot study has led to the outcome of my research. Since this investigation was intended to be part of a larger project into a re-autonomiza- tion process also in the (Old and (Early) Middle) English modals, conducted in Amsterdam, I am also very grateful to my colleague, PhD student Sune Gregersen, and his supervisor, emeritus professor doctor Olga Fischer, who are both affiliated at the University of Amsterdam. I would like to thank them for their input at the start of the project, for the most agreeable work meetings, for their useful and inspiring comments on my work, and last but not least for their warm welcome during my research stays in Amsterdam. I also want to thank Sune, in particular, for hosting me during these stays, for the nice collaboration, in writing and discussing the most relevant literature, as well as for the co-publication of a wonderful squib (see Caers and Gregersen 2019), which hopefully may inspire many other linguists to investigate the intriguing phenomenon of re-autonomization. In addition, I am grateful to numerous people I was fortunate to get to know on linguistic conferences. I would like to thank them all for the interesting discussions. Moreover, I want to IV THE RE-AUTONOMIZATION OF THE MODAL AUXILIARIES IN DUTCH give credit to the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions on the articles that have come from this study. Many thanks are due to the members of my Individual Doctoral Committee, professors doctor Peter Petré, Jan Nuyts and Olga Fischer, as well as to the other members of the jury, professors doctor Reinhild Vandekerckhove and Freek Van de Velde, for taking the time to thoroughly assess my work. I also want to thank my colleagues at the University of Antwerp, with whom I could always share thoughts and experiences. Last but not least, I am very grateful to my parents, my brother, and especially my fiancée, who have always been very supportive. They have seen me on my best, but also on my worst, during this project. Thanks to their encouragements, their comforting words, and their help in general, I have managed to keep going and to give my all to obtain the best result possible. Table of contents Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. ix CHAPTER 1 Literature ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Important notions ………………………………………………….………………………………….……………..… 1 1.1.1 Grammaticalization and unidirectionality ………………………………………………………… 1 1.1.1.1 The term grammaticalization ……………………………………………………………….. 2 1.1.1.2 Parameters of grammaticalization …………………………………………..…….…….. 4 1.1.1.3 Mechanisms of change: reanalysis and analogy ………………………………….… 8 1.1.1.4 The “ontology” question ………………………………………..……………………………. 11 1.1.1.5 The “unidirectionality” question ………………………………………………………….. 14 1.1.2 Modality and (inter)subjectification ………………………………………………………………… 21 1.1.2.1 Notions of modality ……………………………………………………………………………… 21 1.1.2.2 The diachrony of modality ……………………………………………………………………. 28 1.1.2.3 (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality …………………………………………. 29 1.1.2.4 Mechanisms of change: metaphor and metonymy ……………………………….. 36 1.2 Language-specific overview ………………………………………………….……………………………………. 37 1.2.1 (De)grammaticalization in the modal verbs ……………………………………………………… 37 1.2.1.1 The modals in Germanic ………………………………………………………………………. 37 1.2.1.2 The modals in Dutch …………………………………………………………………………….. 44 1.2.1.2.1 The central modals ……………………………………………………………………. 44 1.2.1.2.2 The less central modals ……………………………………..……………………… 46 1.2.1.2.3 The combination with a directional …………………..………………………. 49 VI THE RE-AUTONOMIZATION OF THE MODAL AUXILIARIES IN DUTCH 1.2.2 Meaning evolutions in the modal verbs …………………………………………………………… 52 1.2.2.1 The modals in Germanic ………………………………………………………………………. 52 1.2.2.2 The modals in Dutch …………………………………………………………………………….. 58 1.2.2.2.1 The central modals ……………………………………………………………………. 58 1.2.2.2.2 The less central modals ……………………………..……………………………… 60 1.2.3 Summary of the findings relevant for the present corpus study ………………………. 62 CHAPTER 2 Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63 CHAPTER 3 Analytical categories ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 71 3.1 The grammatical dimension ………………………………..……………………………………………………… 71 3.1.1 The notion of ‘transitivity’ and the concept of ‘an argument’ …………………………… 71 3.1.2 Types of arguments ……………………………………………………………………..…………………. 74 3.1.3 Types and subtypes of uses of the modal verb …………………………………………………. 76 3.1.3.1 Definitions …………………………………………………………………………………………… 76 3.1.3.2 Complications ……………………………………………………………………………………… 84 3.1.4 Directionals …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 88 3.2 The semantic dimension ……………………….……………………………………………………………………. 89 3.2.1 Meaning categories ………………………………………………………………………………………… 89 3.2.2 Negative polarity …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 98 CHAPTER 4 The grammatical evolution ………………………………………………………………………………………… 101 4.1 Relevant frequency data from Nuyts (et al.) …………………….………………………………………… 101 4.2 Results of the present study ……………….……………………………………………………………………… 103 4.2.1 Timing of the re-autonomization process ……………………………………………………….. 103 4.2.1.1 Different types of uses ………………………………………………………………………… 103 4.2.1.2 Two subtypes of ‘new main V’ uses ……………………………………………………... 107 TABLE OF CONTENTS VII 4.2.2 Directionals in the re-autonomization process ………………………..……………………… 108 4.2.2.1 The role of directionals ………………………………………………………………………… 108 4.2.2.2 Limits to the role of directionals ………………………………………..………………… 112 4.3 Reflection and discussion ………………………….………………………………………………………………. 117 CHAPTER 5 The semantic evolution ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 123 5.1 General meaning profile according to Nuyts et al. ………………………………………………………. 123 5.2 Results of the present study …………………………….………………………………………………………… 125 5.2.1 Meaning profile of the new autonomous uses ………………………………………………… 125 5.2.1.1 A brief overview of all meanings and uses ……………………………………………. 125 5.2.1.2 Meanings of the ‘aux V implicit’ uses …………………………………..………………. 131 5.2.1.3 Meanings of the ‘new main V’ uses ………………………………..……………………. 136 5.2.2 The role of negative polarity in the re-autonomization process ………………..…….. 142 5.3 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 150 CHAPTER 6 Re-autonomization beyond (standard) Dutch ……………………………………………………….… 151 6.1 Material and methods ………………….……………………………………………………………………………. 151 6.2 Findings ………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………. 154 6.2.1 Dutch dialects ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 154 6.2.2 Frisian ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 156 6.2.3 Low German …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 158 6.2.4 Afrikaans ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 161 6.3 Concluding remarks ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 162 CHAPTER 7 Conclusions and perspectives ……………………………………………………………………………………. 165 References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 169 Appendix 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 183 Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 223 Introduction Although the modal verbs in Dutch (as well as in other Germanic languages) are most often used in combination with another main verb in the clause, they nevertheless may also occur independently in Present Day Dutch (in a way which is not possible in standard German or English), as illustrated in (1a–c). (1) a. dat kan. [lit:] ‘that can [i.e. that is possible].’ b. dat mag niet. [lit:] ‘that may not [i.e. that is not permitted].’ c. het moet. [lit:] ‘it must [i.e. it is necessary].’ This phenomenon, referred to as the ‘autonomous’ use of the modals, has been investigated in a preliminary way in Nuyts (2013; Nuyts et al. 2018, 2019). These studies have shown that such uses only emerged sometime in the course of the New Dutch period, and were considerably increasing in frequency in Present Day Dutch. The present study aims to offer a more detailed analysis of this re-autonomization process in the Dutch modal verbs, by means of diachronic corpus data. Specifically, we want to investigate when