Split Pronominal Adverbs in Dutch: Searching for Meaning in what is Considered Meaningless

154 Pages·2017·1.09 MB·English

by  Microsoft Office User

UCLA
UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Title
Split Pronominal Adverbs in Dutch: Searching for Meaning in what is Considered
Meaningless
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2qn6h0xf
Author
de Carlo, Nickolas Sebastiano
Publication Date
2017

Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library
University of California
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles

Split Pronominal Adverbs in Dutch:
Searching for Meaning in what is Considered Meaningless

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Germanic Languages

by

Nickolas Sebastiano de Carlo

2017
© Copyright by
Nickolas Sebastiano de Carlo
2017
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Split Pronominals in Dutch:
Searching for Meaning in what is Considered Meaningless
by
Nickolas Sebastiano de Carlo
Doctor of Philosophy in Germanic Languages
University of California, Los Angeles, 2017
Professor Robert S. Kirsner, Chair

Pure synonymy is a myth. This is true in the lexicon of a language as well as its grammar.
As such, why do grammars of Dutch label the following two forms below as synonymous?
Unsplit: Daarmee heb ik een probleem.
Therewith have I a problem.
Split: Daar heb ik een probleem mee.
There have I a problem with.
"I have a problem with that."
Calling these two forms above "the same" is an oversimplification. In my dissertation, Itest for
difference in meaning between the forms and the motivation to choose one form over the other.
To accomplish this goal, Iuse a corpus-based approach integrated with tests from Construction
Grammar. We analyze these data in R (a statistics computing language) and Excel. This
dissertation includes four tests, all complete. Preliminary findings underline a difference in
meaning and provide motivation for the two forms. This is significant, as the current state of
ii
research suggests no real difference or meaning. Only one study, Honselaar (1994), discusses
any possible variation in meaning. Additionally, emerging studies in linguistics frequently utilize
larger data sets. This dissertation supports the shift toward more quantifiable data coupled with
trained qualitative analysis. The quantifiable tests show a meaning difference, questioning the
traditional analysis. Unsplit forms exhibit a shift in discourse, and split show continuation
thereof.
Regarding motivation for the two forms, the data show clauses with verbs of low use
frequency tend to be unsplit, suggesting that higher frequency verbs are more likely to occur with
split forms. Frequency tends to be understood and decoded quicker (Fenk-Oczlon, 2001), and
thus the listener/reader is generally able to parse the second half of the pronominal adverb,
namely the preposition, before its utterance. This suggests that it would be easier to continue
forward in the discourse if the form is split. These findings underline the growing need for
further development of corpus-based linguistics studies. They welcome the movement of
linguistics toward more empirical approaches to language.

iii
This dissertation of Nickolas Sebastiano de Carlo is approved.

Christopher M. Stevens
Hongyin Tao
Robert S. Kirsner, Committee Chair

University of California, Los Angeles
2017

iv
منازیزا

v
Table of Contents
1 Problem .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Object of Inquiry .............................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Function of Pronominal Adverbs ..................................................................................... 6
1.3 Choice of Pronominal Adverb: Daarmee ......................................................................... 7
1.4 Met ................................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Daar .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Summary of Study .......................................................................................................... 11
2 Construction Grammar .......................................................................................................... 12
3 Source Material (Corpus discussion) ..................................................................................... 15
4 Introduction to the Tests ........................................................................................................ 18
4.1 Previous Studies into Split Pronominal Adverbs ........................................................... 19
5 Test One: Phrasal Verbs ........................................................................................................ 26
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 26
5.2 Problem .......................................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 29
5.4 Collostructional Analysis ............................................................................................... 32
5.5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 34
5.6 Individual Verbs ............................................................................................................. 36
5.7 Closing Discussion ......................................................................................................... 38
6 Test Two: Frequency ............................................................................................................. 42
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 42
vi
6.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 44
6.3 Genres/Lists .................................................................................................................... 45
6.4 Correlation ...................................................................................................................... 49
6.5 Conclusion Test Two ..................................................................................................... 55
7 Test Three: WordNet & Transitivity ..................................................................................... 57
7.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 58
7.2 Data Preparation ............................................................................................................. 60
7.3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 61
7.4 Transitivity ..................................................................................................................... 67
7.5 Meaning Difference........................................................................................................ 73
8 Test Four: Literature & Semantic Integrality ........................................................................ 77
8.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 78
8.2 Implementation of Test Three on the Novels ................................................................. 81
8.3 Semantic Integrality ....................................................................................................... 83
8.4 Extracts ........................................................................................................................... 86
8.5 De donkere kamer van Damocles................................................................................... 87
8.6 Nooit meer slapen......................................................................................................... 101
8.7 Review .......................................................................................................................... 114
9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 117
10 Appendix A: Tree Tagger Numerical Values .................................................................. 121
11 Appendix B: Met Verbs ................................................................................................... 123
12 Appendix C: Prepositions from Zwarts (1997) ................................................................ 127
vii
13 Appendix D: Sources of the 38 Million Word Corpus .................................................... 130
14 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 134

viii