Robert S. Kirsner

The role of zullen in the grammar of modern standard Dutch

Traditional grammars of Modern Standard Dutch teach that zullen is the ‘auxiliary verb of the future tense’. In spite of the dissatisfaction of such linguists as A. W. de Groot and F. G. Droste, the exact meaning of zullen and the precise mechanism by which it can function as a future auxiliary remain to be elucidated. C.I. Ebelings recent discussion, though containing valuable suggestions, constitutes no final solution. It is proposed here that the use of zullen in Modern Standard Dutch follows from its membership, together with the forms moeten and kunnen, in a system which characterizes occurences as hypothetical rather than real. Because zullen - in contrast to the other elements of the system - does not specify the degree of likelihood of the event in question, it may be interpreted as signaling futurity, inference, command, or the intention of the speaker. The particular messages transmitted with zullen in specific instances are conclusions drawn from the interaction of its own meaning with the particular member of the tense system with it is combined and with observable factors in the extra-linguistic context. Seen in this framework, the textbook functions of zullen, both as a ‘modal auxiliary’ and as a ‘future auxiliary’ illustrate the following principle: the language user will favor that member of a closed system of semantic oppositions whose meaning is least inappropriate to a given message.

Qualitative-Quantitative Analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans Grammar and Lexicon

Sharing certain assumptions but differing in theory and practice, both Columbia School linguistics (CS) and Cognitive Grammar (CG) have increasingly supported their analyses with quantitative evidence. Citation of individual sentences, in isolation or in context, has been supplemented with counts of linguistic forms in texts, informant questionnaires, and perception tests. The present volume, continuing a dialogue between CS and CG, offers six such qualitative-quantitative studies, one on Afrikaans and five on Dutch. Topics include (a) demonstratives, (b) pragmatic particles and imperatives, (c) a puzzling “dismissive” idiom, (d) progressive aspect, and (e) indirect objects. While CS is better suited for analyzing relatively closed systems (e.g. tense, pronouns), CG provides more insight into the vagaries of the amorphous lexicon. The author also offers personal remarks on “linguistics as a path” and discusses how in one case a wrong prediction reflects his dual role as both linguist and student of Dutch as a foreign language.