The data indicate that the disappearance of hoef(t) niet as an unanalyzed whole is most likely an ongoing process, in which analyzed use gradually takes over unanalyzed use. This could possibly be explained by the affective nature of most utterances with hoeven. Children still seem to rely on the strong pragmatic function of the chunk hoef(t) niet to reject something they do not want, even at an age at which they are capable of constructing more complex utterances with hoeven. For example, the child who uttered (33) at the age of 2;04.23, reverted to using hoef niet several months later:

The structure of these ungrammatical utterances is very odd. Two meanings are expressed in one structure, interwoven in hoef niet.

In the diary notes of the same child, it is mentioned that such utterances still occurred almost a year later:

Up to Chapter 2 Table of Contents