Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop
{"title":"论荷兰语中助动词“do”的可接受性","authors":"Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop","doi":"10.1075/avt.00088.ser","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch\",\"authors\":\"Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/avt.00088.ser\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistics in the Netherlands\",\"volume\":\"48 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistics in the Netherlands\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch
Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.
期刊介绍:
Linguistics in the Netherlands is a series of annual publications, sponsored by the Dutch Linguistics Association (Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap) and published by John Benjamins Publishing Company since Volume 8 in 1991. Each volume contains a careful selection through peer review of papers presented at the annual meeting of the society. The aim of the annual meeting is to provide members with an opportunity to report on their work in progress. Each volume presents an overview of research in different fields of linguistics in the Netherlands containing articles on phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.