Was the transition of bipartite verbal negation to single verbal negation in Middle Dutch...

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of ManchesterWas the transition of bipartite verbal negation to single

verbal negation in Middle Dutch geographically bound?

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Results

3.1. Drenthe

3.2. Gelderland

3.3. Limburg

3.4. Noord-Holland

3.5. Overijssel

3.6. Zeeland

3.7. Noord-Brabant

3.8. Zuid-Holland

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

6. Bibliography

1

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester

1. Introduction

In this report, a research conducted on the transition

from bipartite to single verbal negation in Middle Dutch

shall be discussed. Not only in Dutch did this transition

take place but in other Germanic languages too the

twofold negation was lost over time such as in German and

English. Moreover, as suggested by Nevalainen and Rutten,

French is currently on its way to lose the bipartite

negation as well and will slowly catch up with the other

Indo-European languages in the so-called “Jespersen’s

cycle” (2012: 263).

This cycle, as proposed by Jespersen, is a uniform

process that is found in different Germanic languages.

The cycle that Jespersen puts forward entails a

continuous process in negation in which a negative

particle begins as a single preverbal negator, gradually

2

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterbecomes two morphemes which indicate sentential negation

and eventually turns one negative marker which occurs

after the verb (Nevalainen & Rutten, 2012: 263). In

Dutch, Jespersen’s Cycle began in stage I, the preverbal

negation ‘ne/en/n’, followed by stage II, the “embracing

negation” ‘ne/en/n … niet’ and finally ended in stage III

with the postverbal negation niet which is nowadays used

exclusively to express negation in Dutch as shown in (1)

(Burridge 1993: 2000).

(1) Ik heb dat boek niet gekocht.

I have that book not bought.

‘I did not buy that book.’

Nevalainen & Rutten point out that the final process,

from stage II to stage III, took longest in Dutch

compared to other West Germanic languages (2012: 264).

Although there is undeniable evidence that this process

described by Jespersen indeed seems to be a universal or

a partial universal, it is noteworthy that the question

whether Jespersen’s cycle exists has been answered

3

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesteroverall in the negative according to Nevalainen & Rutten

(2012: 263).

Rutten et al. point out that “the decisive turning point

of [the transition from bipartite to single negation] is

often located in the seventeenth century” (2012: 323). As

suggested by previous research, the transition in Dutch

took place during a longer period, namely between 1450

and 1750. Though this may seem like a large time frame it

is mostly due to various influences on the transition

(Nevalainen & Rutten, 2012: 265). Both internal factors,

such as syntax, and also external factors such as region,

social status, but also “urbanization and

industrialization, successive waves of immigration,

conquests and colonization, and, as a consequence,

intense language and dialect contacts” (Nevalainen &

Rutten, 2012: 269) played a role. Taking this previous

research into consideration, this report shall focus on

the period around 1600.

4

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of ManchesterIn this report, a connection shall be attempted to be

found between the gradual disappearance of bipartite

negation and the location of written texts, putting forth

the research question: was the transition of bipartite negation to

single negation in Middle Dutch geographically bound? Firstly, the

methodology shall be discussed, secondly, the findings

from the research shall be discussed and finally a

conclusion will be drawn from these results and these

will, on their turn, be contrasted to previous research

that has been done within this topic area. The hypothesis

for the research question is that the transition from

bipartite to single negation probably occurred later in

southern regions than in those in the north because these

dialect regions are closer to French-speaking regions in

which still nowadays the bipartite negation is retained

whereas Dutch has fully lost it. That is to say, it will

be expected that in documents written in the south of the

area in which Middle Dutch was spoken the bipartite

verbal negation is expected to be retained longer than in

the northern areas.

5

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester2. Methodology

In Burridge’s work on negation in Middle Dutch, a

distinction is made between Hollandisch and Brabantisch

(1993). The northern dialects, nowadays roughly

describable as ‘Dutch’, consisted of Hollandisch, a

dialect spoken in the former county of Holland, and

Brabantisch, a dialect spoken in in “the medieval duchy

of Brabant” (1993:3), including cities such as ‘s-

Hertogenbosch, Mechelen and Brussels as described by

Burridge. The southern dialects of Middle Dutch, nowadays

roughly describable as ‘Flemish’, consisted of Flemisch,

spoken in Medieval Flanders, and Limburgisch, which was

spoken in the areas that are nowadays known as Belgian

Limburg and Dutch Limburg (1993: 4).

For this research, the Dutch in Transition (henceforth DiT)

corpus shall be used which contains texts from between

1450 and 1750 and offers a large range of texts from many

different dialect areas in both the Netherlands and

Belgium. Rather than distinguishing between the original

Middle Dutch dialect areas, such as done by Burridge,

6

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterthis report shall focus on the

current provinces of the

Netherlands. The Dutch in Transition is

divided into subclasses through

the place of origin of their

texts which is on its turn

divided into the current

provinces of the Netherlands

and Belgium. In the corpus,

texts are available from eleven

provinces from the Netherlands: Drenthe, Friesland,

Gelderland, Groningen, Limburg, Noord-Brabant, Noord-

Holland, Overijssel, Utrecht, Zeeland and Zuid-Holland. A

map of the current provinces is provided in Image 1.

Flevoland is excluded from the corpus since this province

was not founded until the last century. A big advantage

of the DiT corpus is that it generally only consists of

formal – mostly law-related – texts such as legal

documents, wills, and sources of law which ensures a

genre consistency within the research. Though all

documents are formal texts, many different document types

Image 1: Provinces of the Netherlands (source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/NederlandseProvinciesLarge.pn

7

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterhave been used for this research which is why in the

“Results” section further explanation shall be given on

the specific origin and nature of the particular

researched documents per region.

As discussed in the introduction, the transition to

single negation took place roughly around 1450-1750.

However, though the Dutch in Transition corpus contains texts

from roughly between 1450 and 1750 as well, a closer look

shall be taken at texts from around 1600, providing a

synchronic overview of the negative verbal construction

in Middle Dutch. Unfortunately, for the province of

Groningen, Friesland and Utrecht the DiT corpus only

contains documents from these regions until 1470, 1530

and 1550 respectively which is why corpus texts from

these provinces shall not be examined in this research.

Because the corpus is a database consisting of only full

texts rather than being an online searchable database,

full texts will be search for negative verbal

constructions such as ‘ne/en/n … niet’ or solely ‘niet’. It

should be noted that variations on the spelling of niet

8

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterand en were also found in Middle Dutch; niet was also

written as <nyet> and <nyt> and en was also sometimes

written as <een>. These forms were therefore also taken

into account in the search for relevant hits. Because the

bipartite negation ‘ne/en/n … niet’ also exists in opposite

direction, e.g. ‘niet … ne/en/n’, the particle ‘ne/en/n’ could

be found both before and after the particle ‘niet’.

Lastly, the construction ‘ne/en/n’ is also often found

with the addition of the affix ‘-de’ which had therefore

also be taken into account, as seen in (2).

(2) Wer der Heer van Born ende des boschrecht niet souden

gehoorsamen

if the Lord van Born NEG the forest rights

NEG would obey

op den genoemden dagh

on the said day

‘If the Lord van Born would not obey the forest

rights on the said day’

(LIM-GRA-159, DiT)

9


3. Results

3.1 Drenthe

For Drenthe, one document was investigated from the DiT

Corpus. This concerned a legal document, dated from

exactly the year 1600 with no further specification on

the village or city of origin. The document consisted of

20,105 words in which 47 negative verbal constructions

were found. All of the negative verbal constructions only

occurred in the form of ‘(en …) niet’. Quite clearly, the

singular negative verbal construction is preferred over

the bipartite one, as shown in Table 1.

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document 47 46/47 97,87% 1/47 2,13%

Table 1: Findings for Drenthe

10

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of ManchesterThe only bipartite construction that was found in this

document, was a construction in which covertly a

condition was stated as shown in (3) – that is to say,

there was no clear use of ‘if’ – instead of it being a

declarative sentence which was the case with the majority

of the singular negative constructions.

(3) Ende nademael niet en blijckt

And thereafter NEG NEG

seem

‘And if it thereafter does not seem’

(DRE-JOO-

160, DiT)

Interestingly, in documents from other regions too, it

seems that often when a condition was stated, the

opposite negative construction would be used from the

usual pattern. For example, as we see here with the

document from Drenthe, the regular pattern is the use of

the singular negative verbal construction, but when a

11

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchestercondition is stated, the bipartite construction is used.

3.2 Gelderland

For the province of Gelderland, an official document

consisting of several charters dating from 1603, 1604 and

1605, was analysed. The complete document consists of

4,096 words and comes from Doetinchem, a place in the

south-east of Gelderland. There were three types of

negative particles found in this document, namely: niet,

nit, and nyet, although no specific usage pattern seems to

arise for these particles. Of a total of 14 relevant hits,

all hits were solely singular verbal negative

constructions (Table 2).

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singula

r %

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document 14 14/14 100% 0/14 0%

Table 2: Findings for Gelderland

12


3.3 Limburg

For the synchronic research of Limburg two texts were

used to make sure a sufficient amount of relevant hits

could be analysed. Because no documents were available in

the DiT corpus for the year 1600 exactly, two texts were

chosen from 1592 and 1613, respectively “Document 1” and

“Document 2” as found in Table 3 below.

Limburg Total

relevant

hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document

1

9 0/9 0% 9/9 100%

Document

2

6 0/6 0% 6/6 100%

Total 15 0/15 0% 15/15 100%

Table 3: Findings for Limburg

Document 1 is an official document of 2,261 words

concerning forest rights and comes from the village of

Born, located in the middle of the province of Limburg.

Document 2 is an official document concerning the rights

of lords and bank rights, consisting of 2,431 words and

13

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterstems from Wijlre, a city in the south of Limburg. As

becomes clear from Table 3, quite strikingly, in both

documents from different time periods and different

places of origin, only the bipartite negative verbal

construction is used. In Document 1 only the negative

particle niet was used, but in Document 2 both negative

particles niet and nit occurred as illustrated in (4) and

(5), although the latter form is used only once.

(4) die niet en vaert met waghen,

which NEG NEG rides with wagon

‘which does not ride with (a) wagon’

(LIM-GRA-159, DiT)

(5) so en darff mans nit furder koeren bij die tepper

so NEG may one NEG further

(LIM-WIJ-161, DiT)

3.4 Noord-Holland

14

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of ManchesterIn the DiT corpus, three texts were available for

researching the use of verbal negation in Noord-Holland

around 1600. These three documents date back from around

1590, 1604 and 1607 – Document 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

The first document is an official set of

rules/instructions for the village of Aalsmeer, a place

in the south of Noord-Holland. This document contains a

total of 3,248 words and only the negator niet was found

here. As becomes clear from Table 3, the bipartite is

used most frequently. It should be noted though that a

certain usage pattern seems to be at work for the

singular negative constructions. All five singular

instances were namely combined with an infinitival verb

form, in some cases indicated through the particle te, as

illustrated in (6).

(6) niet wettelijck te zijn

NEG legal to be

‘not to be legal’

(NHL-AAL-

159, DiT)

15


The second document concerns a legal act of 6,899 words

and has no further specification on the place of origin.

In this document fifteen negative constructions were

found written as both niet and nyet, though without any

clear systematic pattern. Here too, the bipartite

negative construction is used more often and three

instances show the singular form. Again, as seen with

Document 1, two of the three negative singular

constructions concern an infinitival verb form, one with

the addition of te and one without. An example is given in

(7).

(7) nyet te willen behinderen ofte vercorten

NEG to want hinder or shorten

‘not wanting to hinder or shorten’

(NHL-AKT-160, DiT)

The third document is from Hoorn, a town in the northeast

of Noord-Holland and has no further specification on what

type of official document it is (though the writing style

16

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterdoes imply that it is an official document rather than

informal communication). While this 2,763-word document

was written later than the other documents and even

though only 2 relevant hits were found, it is noteworthy

that both instances only had the single negative

construction nyet rather than a bipartite one and thereby

opposing the pattern of the two other documents from

Noord-Holland. Contrary to the other two documents, these

two singular instances did not concern an infinitival

verb form.

Table 4: Findings for Noord-Holland

Clearly, in all texts use of the bipartite construction

was favoured (Table 4) over the singular one even though

this one is still used a considerable few times as well

Noord-

Holland

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document 1 16 5/16 31,25% 11/16 68,75%

Document 2 15 3/15 20% 12/15 80%

Document 3 2 2/2 100% 0/2 0%

Total 33 10/33 30,30% 23/33 69,70%

17

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterand outstandingly in Document 3 solely the singular

verbal negative construction is used.

3.5 Overijssel

For Overijssel, a markenboek consisting of 3,981 words was

used which was written in Raalte, a village in the south

of Overijssel. A markenboek was a book in which leases and

rules of specific communal grounds were officially

recorded1. The DiT corpus notes that there is no specific

date on the document but it is however estimated around

the year 1600. Lastly, in both bipartite and singular

negation only the negative particle niet is used but for

the latter part of the bipartite negation – the

Overijssel document being unique in this aspect – een is

used instead of en.

As shown in Table 5 below, the majority of negative

verbal constructions appeared in the singular form. Only

two times was the bipartite verbal negation used but,

just as was the case with the only bipartite negation

1 http://www.gelderlandbinnenstebuiten.nl/thema.aspx?ID=77&opdracht=erfpacht

18

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterused in the document from Drenthe, both times it

concerned a condition that was being stated as shown (8)

and (9).

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document 21 19/21 90,48% 2/21 9,52%

Table 5: Findings for Overijssel

(8) unde sie sulcx niet gedaen een heft

and she such NEG done NEG has

‘and (if) she has not done such’

(OSL-RLT-

160, DiT)

(9) unde soe sulcx niet een geschiede

and so such NEG NEG happen

‘and (if) so such (will) not happen’

(OSL-RLT-

160, DiT)

19


3.6 Zeeland

The document from Zeeland contains legal texts dating

from 1600 to 1609 from Tholen, a village in the middle of

the province of Zeeland. The document consists of 10,911

words in which both the forms niet and nyet are used to

express negation.

As shown in Table 6, the bipartite negation is used most

of the time. Still, it must be said that a substantial

number of singular negation is found as well. Of these

nine instances, just as is the case in two texts from

Noord-Holland, eight of them concern a combination of

negation with an infinitival verb occurring both in the

bare infinitive form as well as in the full infinitive

form, accompanied by the particle te, such as in (10) and

(11).

(10) ende niet te kennen gegeven te zijne

and NEG to know given to be

‘and have not indicated to be’

20


(ZEE-THO-

160, DiT)

(11) ende buyten de stadt niet zal moghen

vernachten

and outside the city NEG shall

may spend the night

(ZEE-THO-

160, DiT)

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document 25 9/25 36% 16/25 64%

Table 6: Findings for Zeeland

3.7 Noord-Brabant

The document from Noord-Brabant is an ordinance written

in 1599. The document contains 4,975 words and was

written in Den Bosch which is the capital of the province

of Noord-Brabant and is situated in the north of the

province. In the document mostly the form nyet is used and

21

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesteronly one time an instance of niet was found, shown in

(12).

(12) ende de justitie haeren voirtganck niet en heeft

moghen hebben

and the justice her progress

NEG NEG has may have

‘and (that) the justice could not have her progress’

As Table 7 shows, the bipartite verbal negation receives

overall preference being chosen 83,33% of the time. In

two out of four of the singular instances in the document

of Noord-Brabant, too, the singular form occurs with an

infinitival verb.

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Document 24 4/24 16,67% 20/24 83,33%

Table 7: Findings for Noord-Brabant

22


3.8 Zuid-Holland

Unfortunately, not providing much relevant material for

analysis, only two documents from Zuid-Holland could be

examined. The first document stems from 1588 with a total

of 374 words and concerned a hoogheemraadschap – a council

which supervises the management of water and sewage in

specific regions – from Delfland, a region in the middle

of Zuid-Holland. The second document is from the same

region but has a total of 1,132 words and was written in

1602.

Although a total of two hits is obviously not a

sufficient number to draw any solid conclusions from, it

is noteworthy that both texts were written in different

times but that in both texts use was made of the

bipartite construction. Furthermore, in both texts only

the form niet was used as the latter part of bipartite

verbal negation.

Total

relevant hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

23

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of ManchesterDocument

1

1 0/1 0% 1/1 100%

Document

2

1 0/1 0% 1/1 100%

Total 2 0/2 0% 2/2 100%

Table 8: Findings for Zuid-Holland

4. Discussion

The results above show that the use of either singular or

bipartite verbal negation around 1600 was indeed

geographically bound. As can be seen in Table 9, which is

roughly ordered from the northernmost provinces to the

southernmost, that in the north the singular negation was

used far more often and the bipartite in the south of the

Netherlands. The provinces Zeeland, Noord-Brabant and

Limburg all show undeniable majorities in the use of

bipartite negation whereas in the more northern provinces

– Gelderland, Drenthe and Overijssel – the use of

singular negation is heavily preferred. Though only two

instances are available, and therefore, as noted before,

being an insufficient amount of data to draw any solid

24

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterconclusions from, Zuid-Holland too has a 100% rate for

the use of bipartite negation as well as Limburg. Finally

and quite unexpectedly so, Noord-Holland still shows a

heavy favour towards the use of bipartite negation rather

than singular negation even though being one of

the northernmost provinces.

Table 9: Overview of findings from the DiT corpus for

verbal negation around 1600

25

Number of

hits

Singular

hits

Singular

%

Bipartite

hits

Bipartit

e %

Drenthe 47 46/47 97,87% 1/47 2,13%

Overijssel 21 19/21 90,48% 2/21 9,52%

Gelderland 14 14/14 100% 0/14 0%

Noord-

Holland

33 10/33 30,30% 23/33 69,70%

Zuid-

Holland

2 0/2 0% 2/2 100%

Zeeland 25 9/25 36% 16/25 64%

Noord-

Brabant

24 4/24 16,67% 20/24 83,33%

Limburg 15 0/15 0% 15/15 100%

Total 181 102/181 56,35% 79/181 43,65%


These findings which indeed show that the use of either

bipartite or singular (verbal) negation is geographically

bound – and with that also the transition from bipartite

to single negation – is also confirmed in other research.

Nevalainen & Rutten state that “single negation spread

from the north to the south, affecting V1 clauses such as

imperatives at the fastest rate, while subordinate

clauses provide the most conservative context” (2012:

267). This view is affirmed by Rutten et al. who note

that “the change from bipartite to single negation also

followed a well-ordered north-to-south pattern” (2012:

337). Lastly, also from Burridge’s findings comes forward

that the use of bipartite negation was retained longer in

the south than it was in the north (1993: 208-209).

In the results from this research it becomes clear that

not every province or even every text showed consistency

in the use of either singular or bipartite negation. The

results however do not show a full and clear explanation

26

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterfor the reason of this inconsistency. Yet, there are two

patterns that seem to arise within the use of both

negative constructions.

Firstly, in the texts for the regions where the singular

verbal negation was used mostly – as seen in Drenthe and

Overijssel – the few bipartite hits seem to emerge when a

condition is being stated. All three bipartite negative

constructions from Drenthe and Overijssel were examples

of a condition. Naturally, this is an insufficient number

of hits to conclude that an actual pattern is at work

which is why more research would be necessary in order to

confirm this claim.

Secondly, in the texts from regions where the bipartite

negation is the general use – as seen in Noord-Holland

and Zeeland – a majority of the single instances are all

infinitival verb forms. Of the total of 19 singular hits

from Noord-Holland and Zeeland, 15 of these hits were

combinations of verbal negations and an infinitival word

form. Although this is a more substantial number than the

27

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterone available for the claim made above, more research

would have to be done in order to confirm this trend.

Burridge notes that “during this time, there seems to

have been a certain amount of confusion between the

preverbal negative particle en and the coordinating

conjunction ende” (1993: 197) and, moreover, she states

that it was even more problematic during the 17th century

“when en [became] the accepted coordinating conjunction”

(1993: 198). Luckily, in this research only one ambiguous

hit of this kind was found but after thoroughly examining

the context it was certain that the instance of en

concerned a coordinating conjunction rather than a

negative particle.

Finally there was a danger of accidentally including

negative constructions which were not verbal negations

and therefore irrelevant for this research, such as the

example in (13) and (14). These ambiguous sentences

mostly concerned phrases where niet was written at the end

of the sentence.

28


(13) wel meerder maer nyet minder

indeed more but not less

‘indeed more but not less’

(ZEE-THO-160, DiT)

(14) ende dat nyet tot groot ongeryff

and that NEG until big inconvenience

‘and that not (un)til big inconvenience’

(NHL-AKT-160)

5. Conclusion

In this report a research was conducted on the behaviour

of verbal negation in Middle Dutch. Through the analysis

of different formal texts that were written around 1600

from the Dutch in Transition corpus it becomes clear that the

transition of bipartite verbal negation to single verbal

negation was indeed geographically bound in the

Netherlands. The research shows that around 1600 many of

29

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchesterthe northernmost provinces mostly or solely make use of

single verbal negation whereas the southernmost provinces

mainly or only still show preference for the use of

bipartite verbal negation. These findings are confirmed

by previous research done on this topic by linguists such

as Burridge and Nevalainen & Rutten.

For further research, it could be interesting to examine

if a certain usage pattern exists in Middle English for

the negative particles niet, nit and nyet. In some provinces

only one of these was used and in others the negative

particles were used interchangeably. It could however

also be that this variation is solely caused by

orthographic variation.

30


6. Bibliography

Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic Change in Germanic: Aspects of

Language Change in Germanic with Particular Reference to Middle Dutch.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Nevalainen, Terttu & Gijsbert Rutten. 2012.

‘Introduction: Comparative Historical Sociolinguistics

and the History of Negation’, in Terttu Nevalainen and

Gijsbert Rutten (ed.). Special Issue on Comparative Historical

Sociolinguistics, in Juhani Härmä, Annikki Liimatainen and

Päivi Pahta “Neuphilologische Mitteilungen” 261-273.

113:3

Rutten et al. 2012. ‘Negation in Seventeenth- and

Eighteenth-Century Dutch: A Historical-Sociolinguistic

Perspective’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Gijsbert Rutten

(ed.). Special Issue on Comparative Sociolinguistics, in Juhani

31

3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of ManchesterHärmä, Annikki Liimatainen and Päivi Pahta

“Neuphilologische Mitteilungen”. 323-342. 113:3

Van Kemenade, Ans, Griet Coupé, Gertjan Postma, Anne

Ribbert, Monique Tangelder, Michel Verhagen. 2009. Corpus

Dutch in Transition (1450-1750), Nijmegen.

<http://mjtangelder.ruhosting.nl/DITC/DITCORPUS.html>

32

Was the transition of bipartite verbal negation to single verbal negation in Middle Dutch...

Documents

Transcript of Was the transition of bipartite verbal negation to single verbal negation in Middle Dutch...