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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
(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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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%
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
(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
3,987 words9302892 – LELA30292 – Historical Syntax University of Manchester
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
Top Related