Author:

Abstract:

Counterforces to the long-infinitive drift in Dutch auxiliary complements Like in English, Dutch auxiliaries fall into two categories, depending on whether they take the so-called ‘long’ infinitive (with te, cognate of English to) (1) or the bare infinitive (2). (1) hij lijkt *(te) werken (‘he seems to work’) (2) hij mag (*te) werken (‘he may work’) In the general history of Dutch auxiliaries, a ‘drift’ can be perceived towards more long infinitives: diachronically younger auxiliaries tend to take the long infinitive, and auxiliaries that in earlier stages alternated between the bare and the long infinitive show an increase in the preference for the long form (Van der Horst 2008). However, the drift is not uniform: individual verbs differ in the extent to which they partake in the process, and in some contexts the bare infinitive is better retained than in other contexts. One of the contexts in which the bare infinitive continues to thrive is the notorious IPP (infinitivus pro participio, also known as Ersatzinfinitiv), in which the analytic perfect of the auxiliary is built with the infinitive instead of the past participle (Schmidt 2005), as in (3). (3) Hij heeft hard kunnen/*gekund werken he has hard can:INF/*can:PST.PTC work:INF ‘He has been able to work hard’ The differential behaviour with regard to the short/long infinitive is visible in (4) vs. (5): IPP contexts allow for the bare infinitive, which is excluded in simple tenses: (4) Hij zit hard *(te) werken he sits(AUX.DURATIVE)hard to work ‘he is working hard’ (5) Hij heeft hard zitten (te) werken he has hard sit(AUX.DURATIVE):INF to work ‘he has been working hard’ In this talk, I take a historical perspective on the interaction on the bare-vs.-long infinitive issue, by looking at two case studies on relatively young auxiliaries, the durative zitten (see 4-5) and the deontic NPI-modal (be)hoeven (‘have to’). In both cases, a quantitative investigation of corpus data shows that it is incorrect to see the use of the bare infinitive as a mere survival of a pattern that is on its way out, but rather that we have a rise in the use of the bare infinitive. This rise is unexpected against the backdrop of the overall long-infinitive drift. In both cases, the reason is analogical pressure from neighbouring constructions, both on the level of formal analogy of superficially resembling constructions, and on the level of the semantics. The role of analogy was already surmised by Van Pottelberge (2002: 156-157), but I will show that the power of analogy is more pervasive. On a theoretical level, this analogical influence of neighbouring constructions underscores the importance of acknowledging the ubiquity of so-called ‘multiple source constructions’ (see Van de Velde, De Smet & Ghesquière 2013, Pijpops & Van de Velde 2014, and Coussé & Van de Velde 2014). Coussé, E. & F. Van de Velde. 2014. ‘Hulpwerkwoordselectie in drieledige perfecta met een modaal. Een alternatieve historische verklaring’. In: F. Van de Velde, H. Smessaert, F. Van Eynde & S. Verbrugge (eds.), Patroon en argument. Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst. Leuven: UPL. 349-364. Pijpops, D. & F. Van de Velde. Forthcoming, 2014. ‘A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Schmid, T. 2005. Infinitival syntax: infinitivus pro participio as a repair strategy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Van der Horst, J. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: UPL Van de Velde, F., De Smet, H., & Ghesquière, L. 2013. ‘On multiple source constructions in language change’. Studies in Language 37: 473-489. Van Pottelberge, J. 2002. ‘Nederlandse progressiefconstructies met werkwoorden van lichaamshouding. Specificiteit en geschiedenis’. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7(2): 142-174.