Does iconicity shape Dutch verb-particle constructions? A multimethod study on the semantics of verb separability

Vrielynck, Ann-Sophie; Pijpops, Dirk; Perrez, Julien

doi:10.1515/cog-2025-0155

Download

Article (Scientific journals)

Does iconicity shape Dutch verb-particle constructions? A multimethod study on the semantics of verb separability

Vrielynck, Ann-Sophie; Pijpops, Dirk; Perrez, Julien

2026 • In Cognitive Linguistics

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi Dataset

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/347836

DOI
10.1515/cog-2025-0155

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

10.1515_cog-2025-0155-1.pdf

Publisher postprint (1.49 MB)

Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

iconicity; (in)separable compound verbs; experimental linguistics; corpus linguistics; Dutch

Abstract :

[en] In Dutch, verb-particle constructions are traditionally classified as either separable or inseparable. While the formal distinctions between these two types are straightforward, their semantic differences remain contested. This study investigates whether iconicity plays a role in distinguishing between separable and inseparable verbs. Using both a synchronic corpus study and an experimental forced-choice task using nonce verbs, we test two existing hypotheses that link separability to either concreteness (Booij 2002) or resultativity (Blom 2004, 2005), two notions that can be associated with the principle of iconicity of independence (Haiman 1983). While our corpus-based analysis did not yield any significant patterns, the experimental results do reveal a significant relationship between concreteness and separability for the particles over- and om-. For the particle door-, the findings point to a slight tendency toward resultativity, but this effect did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the findings provide empirical support for the claim that language users associate morphosyntactic separability with iconic meaning distinctions.

Research Center/Unit :

Lilith - Liège, Literature, Linguistics - ULiège
CLiPS - Universiteit Antwerpen

Disciplines :

Languages & linguistics

Author, co-author :

Vrielynck, Ann-Sophie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de langues modernes : linguistique, littérature et traduction > Langue néerlandaise moderne et linguistique synchronique

Pijpops, Dirk; UA - Universiteit Antwerpen

Perrez, Julien ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de langues modernes : linguistique, littérature et traduction > Langue néerlandaise moderne et linguistique synchronique

Language :

English

Title :

Does iconicity shape Dutch verb-particle constructions? A multimethod study on the semantics of verb separability

Publication date :

11 August 2026

Journal title :

Cognitive Linguistics

ISSN :

0936-5907

eISSN :

1613-3641

Publisher :

De Gruyter Mouton, Germany

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Funders :

F.R.S.-FNRS - Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique

Funding text :

Ann-Sophie Vrielynck is a Research Fellow of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique - FNRS.

Data Set :

https://osf.io/e5n63/overview

Available on ORBi :

since 11 August 2026

Statistics

Number of views

48 (7 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

39 (2 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

Ackerman, Farrell. 1987. Miscreant morphemes: Phrasal predicates in Ugric. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.
Bartoń, Kamil. 2024. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.48.4. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Blom, Corrien. 2004. On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and nonpredicative preverbs. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16. 1-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1470542704000352.
Blom, Corrien. 2005. Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics dissertation.
Blom, Corrien & Geert Booij. 2003. The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: A case study in grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 61-91. https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.50.2003.1-2.5.
Bolker, Ben & David Robinson. 2024. Broom.mixed: Tidying methods for mixed models. R package version 0.2.9.6. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=broom.mixed.
Booij, Geert. 1990. The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs in Dutch. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, Vol. 3, 45-63. Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112420744-004.
Booij, Geert. 1998. Samenkoppelingen en grammaticalisatie [Couplings and grammaticalisation]. In Eric Hoekstra & Caroline Smits (eds.), Morfologiedagen 1996, 6-20. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut.
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brysbaert, Marc, Michaël Stevens, Simon De Deyne, Wouter Voorspoels & Gert Storms. 2014a. Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica 150. 80-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.04.010.
Brysbaert, Marc, Amy Beth Warriner & Victor Kuperman. 2014b. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 46. 904-911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5.
Conde, Javier, Gonzalo Martínez, María Grandury, Carlos Arriaga, Juan Haro, Sascha Schroeder, Florian Hintz, Pedro Reviriego & MarcBrysbaert. 2026. Updating the German psycholinguistic word toolbox with AI-generated estimates of concreteness, valence, arousal, age of acquisition, and familiarity. Journal of Cognition 9(1). 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.482.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuskley, Christine, Mark Dingemanse, Simon Kirby & Tessa van Leeuwen. 2019. Cross-modal associations and synesthesia: Categorical perception and structure in vowel-color mappings in a large online sample. Behavior Research Methods 51. 1651-1675. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01203-7.
Cuyckens, Hubert. 1991. The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch: A cognitive-linguistic exercise. Antwerp: University of Antwerp dissertation.
De Smet, Isabeau. 2021. De sterke werkwoorden in het Nederlands. Een diachroon, kwantitatief onderzoek [The strong verbs in Dutch. A diachronic, quantitative study]. Leuven: KU Leuven dissertation.
De Smet, Isabeau & Laura Rosseel. 2021. An experimental approach to iconicity in Dutch strong and weak verb morphology. Language Sciences 85. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101361.
De Smet, Isabeau & Laura Rosseel. 2023. Who's afraid of homophones? A multimethodological approach to homophony avoidance. Language and Cognition. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.50.
De Smet, Isabeau, Laura Rosseel & Freek Van de Velde. 2022. Are non-native speakers the drivers of morphological simplification? A Wug experiment on the Dutch past tense system. Journal of Language Evolution 7(2). 224-245. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzac008.
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde. 2020. Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 31(3). 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0112.
Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10). 603-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013.
Dingemanse, Mark, Marcus Perlman & Pamela Perniss. 2020. Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form-meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition 12. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.48.
Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg. 2019. An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Frassinelli, Diego & Sabine Schulte im Walde. 2019. Distributional interaction of concreteness and abstractness in verb-noun subcategorisation. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computational semantics-Short papers, 38-43.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2023. The structured nature of prepositional meaning. In Hendrik De Smet, Peter Petré & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Context, intent and variation in grammaticalization, 135-157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Givón, Thomas. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 187-219. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gómez Milán, Emilio, Oscar Iborra, María José de Cordoba, Verónica Juarez-Ramos, María Angeles Artacho Rodríguez & José Luis Rubio García. 2013. The Kiki-Bouba effect: A case of personification and Ideaesthesia. Journal of Consciousness Studies 20(1-2). 84-102.
Green, Peter & Catriona J. MacLeod. 2016. SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(4). 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73-113. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn (eds.). 1997. 30.3.2.3 Resultatieve complementen [Resultative complements]. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/topics/pid/ans30030203lingtopic (accessed 2 March 2025).
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3). 515-540. https://doi.org/10.2307/414448.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781-819. https://doi.org/10.2307/413373.
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2008.001.
Honnibal, Matthew, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem & Adriane Boyd. 2020. spaCy: industrial-strength natural language processing in Python. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212303.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd revised edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalivoda, Ágnes. 2021. Preverb constructions in Hungarian. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Catholic University dissertation.
Leclercq, Benoît & Cameron Morin. 2023. No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions 15. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-535.
Levin, Magnus. 2009. The formation of the preterite and the past participle. In Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 60-85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Lüdecke, Daniel. 2018. Ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software 3(26). 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847-893. https://doi.org/10.2307/413800.
Neeleman, Ad & Fred Weerman. 1993. The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11. 433-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993166.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1992. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68(4). 756-796. https://doi.org/10.2307/416852.
[nlTenTen20] Corpus of the Dutch Web. 2020. Sketch Engine. https://www.sketchengine.eu/nltenten-dutch-corpus/ (accessed 31 May 2024).
Oomen, Marloes. 2020. Iconicity as a mediator between verb semantics and morphosyntactic structure-A corpus-based study on verbs in German Sign language. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics dissertation.
OpenAI. 2024. ChatGPT [Large language model]. chat.openai.com/chat. (Version of February 2025).
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227.
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stef Grondelaers & Freek Van de Velde. 2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32(3). 487-528. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0039.
Qiu, Yixuan. 2026. Showtext: Using fonts more easily in R graphs. R package version 0.9-8. Available at. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=showtext.
Quirk, Randolph. 1970. Aspect and variant inflection in English verbs. Language 46(2). 300-311. https://doi.org/10.2307/412280.
R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Robin, Xavier, Natacha Turck, Alexandre Hainard, Natalia Tiberti, Frédérique Lisacek, Jean-Charles Sanchez & Markus Müller. 2011. pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12. 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77.
SoNaR-corpus (Version 1.2.1). 2015. [Data set]. Available at the Institute of the Dutch Language: http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-h5.
Stiebels, Barbara & Dieter Wünderlich. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32. 913-968. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.913.
Van Dale groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal [Van Dale great dictionary of the Dutch language]. 2022. Utrecht: Van Dale Uitgevers.
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37(3). 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int.
van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Vaste werkwoordelijke verbindingen in het Nederlands en het Afrikaans [Fixed verbal combinations in Dutch and Afrikaans]. Atn&a. 29-43.
van der Vliet, Hennie. 2007. The referentiebestand Nederlands as a multi-purpose lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 20(3). 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecm027.
Van Goethem, Kristel. 2008. Les constructions préverbales du français et du néerlandais: typologie et grammaticalisation. Journal of French Language Studies 18(2). 227-248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269508003281.
Van Kemenade, Ans & Bettelou Los. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003, 79-117. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
van Loey, Adolphe. 1976. Scheidbare en onscheidbare werkwoorden hoofdzakelijk in het Middelnederlands, analytische studiën [Separable and inseparable verbs mainly in Middle Dutch, analytical studies]. Gent: Secretariaat van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.
van Noord, Gertjan. 2006. At last parsing is now operational. In Piet Mertens, Cédrick Fairon, Anne Dister & Patrick Watrin (eds.), TALN 2006. Verbum Ex Machina. Actes de la 13e conférence sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles, 20-42. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cental.
Vanroy, Bram. 2024. Fietje: An open, efficient LLM for Dutch. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 14. 473-504. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.15450.
Vrielynck, Ann-Sophie, Julien Perrez & Dirk Pijpops. 2025. Diachroon corpusonderzoek naar complexe predicaten in het Nederlands: Een pilootstudie [Diachronic corpus study of complex predicates in Dutch: A pilot study]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 30(1/2). 196-224. https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.1-2.009.VRIE.
Vrielynck, Ann-Sophie, Dirk Pijpops & An, Van linden. Pathways to applicatives: The diachrony of preverbs in Dutch. [Accepted].
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wickham, Hadley. 2023. Stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.5.1. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr.
Wickham, Hadley & Jennifer Bryan. 2023. Readxl: Read excel files. R package version 1.4.3. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl.
Wickham, Hadley, Romain François, Lionel Henry, Kirill Müller & Davis Vaughan. 2025a. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.1.4. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dplyr/index.html.
Wickham, Hadley, Jim Hester & Jennifer Bryan. 2024. Readr: Read rectangular text data. R package version 2.1.5. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.or/package=readr.
Wickham, Hadley, Davis Vaughan & Maximilian Girlich. 2025b. Tidyr: Tidy messy data. R package version 1.3.2. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyr/index.html.
Zeileis, Achim, David Meyer & Kurt Hornik. 2007. Residual-based shadings for visualizing (conditional) independence. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16(3). 507-525. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186007X237856.