• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
10.3.2. Verb-first/second in embedded clauses?
quickinfo

This subsection discusses a number of potential cases of embedded clauses with verb-first/second. The starting point of our discussion is the observation that verb-first/second is categorically rejected in finite argument clauses: object clauses, for instance, always have the form in (121a&b), with the obligatorily complementizer dat'that' or of'if/whether' and the finite verb in clause-final position; the primed examples show that finite argument clauses without a complementizer and with verb-second are excluded; see Section 5.1.1, sub II. Note that we marked the primed examples with a number sign because they are acceptable as cases of (semi-)direct reported speech, but this is, of course, not the reading intended here.

Example 121
a. Jan zei [dat/*Ø Els ziek was].
  Jan said   that/Ø  Els ill  was
  'Jan said that Els was ill.'
a'. # Jan zei [Els was ziek].
  Jan said   Els  was ill
b. Jan vroeg [of/*Ø Els ziek was].
  Jan asked  whether/*Ø  Els ill  was
  'Jan asked whether Els was ill.'
b'. # Jan vroeg [was Els ziek].
  Jan asked   was  Els ill

The generalization that verb-first/second cannot apply in finite embedded clauses does not only hold for argument clauses but is also quite robust for adverbial clauses. This is to be expected as such clauses are normally introduced by an obligatory complementizer-like linker that specifies the intended semantic relation with the main clause, such as causative doordat'because' or concessive hoewel'although' in (122). If we assume that such linkers occupy the same structural position as the complementizer dat in (121a), we immediately account for the fact that the finite verb must be in clause-final position as such linkers would then occupy the target position of verb-first/second; cf. Section 10.1.

Example 122
a. Doordat Els ziek · is, kan ze vandaag niet werken.
  because  Els  ill  is  can  she  today  not  work
  'Because Els is ill, she cannot work today.'
b. Hoewel Els ziek · is, gaat ze vandaag werken.
  although  Els  ill  is  goes  she  today  work
  'Although Els is ill, sheʼs going to work today.'

Nevertheless, it often appears as if verb-first/second applies in various types of adverbial clauses; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1254ff), subsections I to III discuss three types of such adverbial verb-first (V1) clauses: the prototypical and most frequent type is represented by the conditional construction in (123a); (123b&c) illustrate two less frequent types, subsection IV continues with a discussion of concessive verb-second (V2) clauses such as (123d) introduced by (ook /zelfs ) al'(even) though', in which the adverbial clause has the verb in second position. We will show, however, that all italicized clauses in (123) are external to the main clause and conclude from this that run-of-the-mill, clause-internal adverbial clauses are always verb-final, subsection V concludes with a number of potential counterexamples to this generalization, but shows that also for these cases it is plausible that the V1-clauses in question are not clause-internal.

Example 123
a. Is Els morgen ziek, dan gaat ze niet werken.
conditional V1
  is  Els tomorrow  ill  then  goes  she  not  work
  'If Els is ill tomorrow, she wonʼt go to work.'
b. Was Jan erg tevreden, Peter was dat zeker niet.
contrastive V1
  was  Jan  very satisfied  Peter was that  certainly  not
  'Even if Jan was quite satisfied, Peter certainly wasnʼt.'
c. Helpt Marie iemand, wordt ze door hem beroofd!
exclamative V1
  helps  Marie someone  is  she   by him  robbed
  'Imagine: Marie is helping someone and she gets mugged by him!'
d. Ook al is Els ziek, toch gaat ze vandaag werken.
concessive V2
  even though  is  Els ill  still  goes  she  today  work
  'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'

Before starting the discussion, we want to point out that besides the instances in (123) there are other cases that are used especially in the formal register. We take the constructions in (123) to be representative of everyday usage and refer the reader for the more formal/obsolete cases such as the comparison construction in (124b) to Haeseryn et al. (1997:1391ff).

Example 124
a. Alsof hij beter was dan anderen, zo gedroeg hij zich.
  as.if  he better  was  than others  so  behaved  he  refl
  'He behaved as if he was better than others.'
b. $ Als was hij beter dan anderen, zo gedroeg hij zich.
  as  was  he better  than others  so  behaved  he  refl
readmore
[+]  I.  Conditional V1-clauses

The italicized conditional clauses in (125) show that verb-second is optional: if the conditional clause is introduced by the linker element als'if', the finite verb occurs in clause-final position but if als is not present, the finite verb must be clause-initial. There are grounds for assuming that the latter is possible in one specific context only, namely when the conditional clause is part of a left-dislocation construction; cf. Den Besten (1983:fn.3), Haeseryn et al. (1997:section 21.8), Den Dikken (2003), and Beekhuizen (2008).

Example 125
a. Als het morgen regent, dan ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  if  it  tomorrow  rains  then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. Regent het morgen, dan ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'

That verb-first cannot apply in run-of-the mill adverbial clauses can be shown in at least two ways. First, the examples in (126) show that verb-first is marked if the resumptive element dan is not present. Example (126b) is marked with a percentage sign to indicate that this structure cannot easily be used to express the intended conditional reading; for the moment we will ignore that some speakers seem to allow this form but we will return to this in Subsection V.

Example 126
a. Als het morgen regent, ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  if  it  tomorrow  rains  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. % Regent het morgen, ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'

Second, the examples in (127) show that verb-first is also excluded if the adverbial clause is in clause-final position.

Example 127
a. Ik ga naar de bioscoop als het morgen regent.
  go  to the cinema  if  it  tomorrow  rains
  'Iʼll go to the cinema if it rains tomorrow.'
b. * Ik ga naar de bioscoop regent het morgen.
  go  to the cinema  rains  it  tomorrow

A generalization that more or lesss presents itself on the basis of the examples in (125)-(127) is that conditional adverbial clauses allow verb-first only if they are clause-external. This is the case in left-dislocation constructions such as (125), in which the clause-initial position of the main clause is occupied by the resumptive element dan'then', but not in examples such as (126), where the conditional clause occupies the clause-initial position itself or examples such as (127), where it occurs in clause-final position. The structures we would like to propose are given in (128).

Example 128
a. [Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent], [main-clause dan ga ik naar de bioscoop].
a'. [Cond-clauseRegent het morgen], [main-clause dan ga ik naar de bioscoop].
b. [main-clause [Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent] ga ik naar de bioscoop]].
b'. * [main-clause [Cond-clauseRegent het morgen] ga ik naar de bioscoop]].
c. [main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseals het morgen regent]].
c'. * [main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseregent het morgen]].

Observe that verb-first is also excluded in parenthetic conditional clauses, as shown by the examples in (129). Since it can be argued that parenthetical clauses are not structurally embedded in the main clause, this shows that being external to the main clause cannot be considered a sufficient condition for allowing verb-first.

Example 129
a. Ik ga morgen, als het (tenminste) regent, naar de bioscoop.
  I go tomorrow if  it   at.least  rains  to the cinema
  'Iʼll go to the cinema tomorrow, at least if it rains.'
b. * Ik ga morgen, regent het (tenminste), naar de bioscoop.
  go  tomorrow  rains  it   at.least  to the cinema

Note in passing that we can identify parenthetical clauses by means of the phrase tenminste'at least'; addition of this phrase to the examples in (125) and (126a) gives rise to severely marked results but it is easily possible in (129a). It is possible in (127a), but this requires the adverbial clause to be preceded by an intonation break.
      That left-dislocated phrases are indeed clause-external is also shown by examples like (130) and (131). In (130), the main clause is an imperative, and since imperative clauses always have the finite verb in first position, the als-clause cannot be clause-internal. The same holds for the examples in (131), in which the main clause is a yes/no-question.

Example 130
a. Als je morgen daar bent, help hem *?(dan) een beetje!
  if  you  tomorrow  there  are  help him      then  a bit
  'If youʼre there tomorrow, do help him a bit!'
b. Ben je morgen daar, help hem *?(dan) een beetje!
  are  you  tomorrow  there  help him      then  a bit
  'If youʼre there tomorrow, do help him a bit!'
Example 131
a. Als je morgen daar bent, help je hem *?(dan) een beetje?
  if  you  tomorrow  there  are  help you  him   then  a bit
  'If youʼre there tomorrow, will you help him a bit then?'
b. Ben je morgen daar, help je hem *?(dan) een beetje?
  are  you  tomorrow  there  help you  him     than  a bit
  'If youʼre there tomorrow, will you help him a bit then?'

Observe that the V1-requirement of the main clauses in (130) and (131) makes it necessary to place the resumptive element dan in the middle field of the clause. The examples in (132) show that this option is not available in declarative main clauses: the resumptive element must be placed in clause-initial position as in the acceptable examples in (125) above.

Example 132
a. * Als het morgen regent, ik ga dan naar de bioscoop.
  if  it  tomorrow  rains  go  then  to the cinema
b. * Regent het morgen, ik ga dan naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  go  then  to the cinema

      The hypothesis that verb-first is possible only if the conditional adverbial clause is left-dislocated predicts that embedding the two examples in (125) will not give rise to an acceptable result, given that left dislocation is a property of root clauses. The unacceptability of (133b) shows that this is indeed what we find for (125b). The case for (125a) is less straightforward in the light of the acceptability of (133a), but the fact that addition of the resumptive element dan is impossible (regardless of its position in the matrix clause) shows that a left-dislocation analysis is not appropriate. That addition of tenminste'at least' to the conditional clause is possible in fact suggests that we are dealing with a parenthetical clause; see the discussion of (129).

Example 133
a. Ik denk dat als het morgen (tenminste) regent ik naar de bioscoop ga.
  think that  if  it  tomorrow   at.least  rains  I to the cinema  go
  'I think that if it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. * Ik denk dat regent het morgen ik naar de bioscoop ga.
  think that  rains  it  tomorrow  I to the cinema  go

That the addition of the resumptive linking element dan'then' to example (133a) leads to unacceptability suggests that the presence of this element is a reliable clue for assuming left dislocation. If so, this supports the hypothesis based on the acceptability contrast between the examples in (125) and in (126)/(127) that verb-first is restricted to left-dislocated clauses.
      Before concluding this subsection, we will briefly address two issues that may complicate the investigation of conditional V1-clauses but which have received hardly any attention in the syntactic literature so far. First, the argument built on embedding is complicated by the fact that besides examples such as (133a) it is often possible to have constructions such as (134a), with two complementizers dat and the resumptive element dan. It is not a priori clear whether such an example should be seen as the embedded counterpart of (125a) or whether we are dealing here with a performance phenomenon: processing of the embedded clause in (133a) may be hampered by the lengthy interruption of the parenthetic conditional clause, and resumption of the part preceding the parenthetical clause may therefore be seen as a repair strategy. The fact that example (125b) does not have such a "counterpart" is unexpected under the first approach and thus favors the second approach.

Example 134
a. Ik denk dat als het morgen regent dat ik dan naar de bioscoop ga.
  think that  if  it  tomorrow  rains  that  then  to the cinema  go
  'I think that if it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. * Ik denk dat regent het morgen dat ik dan naar de bioscoop ga.
  think that  rains  it  tomorrow  that  I then  to the cinema  go

Note in passing that, although examples such as (134a) seem quite outlandish at first sight, they are actually quite frequent; a Google search (2/12/2014) on the string [ dat als je * dat je dan] resulted in 264 hits, the vast majority of which instantiate the intended construction. We refer the reader to Section 14.2 for a discussion of a wider range of utterances of this type.
      A second complicating issue is that in coordinate structures such as (135) verb-second may apply in the second conjunct if the linker als is not realized; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1252). At first sight, this seems to confirm the earlier established fact that the position of the finite verb in left-dislocated conditional clauses depends on the presence of als, but closer scrutiny reveals that the second conjunct in (135b) differs conspicuously from the cases discussed earlier in that its clause-initial position is filled by the subject; example (135c) shows that this is normally excluded in conditional clauses.

Example 135
a. Als ik het niet weet of als ik erover twijfel, dan vraag ik het.
  if  it  not  know  or  if  about.it  doubt  then  ask  I it
  'If I donʼt know it or if I doubt it, I (will) ask it.'
b. Als ik het niet weet of ik twijfel erover, dan vraag ik het.
  if  it  not  know  or  doubt  about.it  then  ask  it
  'If I donʼt know it or if I doubt it, I (will) ask it.'
c. * Ik twijfel erover, dan vraag ik het.
  doubt  about.it  then  ask  I it

This raises the following question: are we really dealing with coordination in (135b) or should the presumed second conjunct be analyzed as a parenthetical clause? That is: should (135b) be analyzed along the line in (136a) or the one in (136b)? We will leave this issue to future research.

Example 136
a. [[Als ik het niet weet] of [ik twijfel erover]], dan vraag ik het.
b. Als ik het niet weet —of ik twijfel erover— dan vraag ik het.

      If we put these two complicating issues aside for the moment, we may conclude that the generalization that verb-first/second is excluded in embedded clauses can be maintained. The research question we still need to answer, however, is not "how is it that certain types of embedded clauses sometimes exhibit verb-first/second" but instead "how is it that left-dislocated clauses can sometimes take the form of either a main or a non-main clause"?

[+]  II.  Contrastive V1-clauses

The conditional construction in (137a) and the contrastive construction in (137b) are similar in that the V1-clauses are not part of the main clause. This is clear from the fact that the initial position of the main clause is filled by some other constituent: the resumptive element dan in (137a) and the subject Jan in (137b). The primed examples show that the V1-clauses cannot occupy the initial position themselves; recall that we have postponed discussion of the fact that some speakers do seem to allow (137b') to Subsection V.

Example 137
a. Regent het morgen, dan ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'
a'. % Regent het morgen, ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  go  to the cinema
b. Gaat Peter graag uit, Jan zit liever thuis.
  goes  Peter  gladly  out  Jan sits  rather  at.home
  'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.'
b'. * Gaat Peter graag uit, zit Jan liever thuis.
  goes  Peter  gladly  out  sits  Jan rather  at.home

At first sight, the primeless examples in (138) seem to show that the two V1-clauses in (137) both alternate with across-the-board adverbial clauses introduced by a complementizer and with the finite verb in clause-final position. Closer scrutiny shows, however, that this is not the case. The optionality of dan in (138a) reveals that the als-clause could be either left-dislocated or clause-internal, that is, located in the initial position of the main clause. It is of course only the left-dislocated clause that can be considered an alternant of the similarly left-dislocated V1-clause in (137a). The fact that the terwijl-clause in (138b) triggers subject-verb inversion in the main clause shows that it occupies the clause-initial position and can consequently not be seen as an alternant of the left-dislocated V1-clause in (137b). We could conclude that contrastive V1-clauses alternate with terwijl-clauses if it is possible to have terwijl-clauses without subject-verb inversion, but (138b') shows that this is not the case.

Example 138
a. Als het morgen regent, (dan) ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  if  it  tomorrow  rains   then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, (then) Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. Terwijl Peter graag uitgaat, zit Jan liever thuis.
  while  Peter gladly  out-goes  sits  Jan rather  at.home
  'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.'
b'. * Terwijl Peter graag uitgaat, Jan zit liever thuis.
  while  Peter gladly  out-goes  Jan sits  rather  at.home
  'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.'

The examples in (138) thus show that the alternation occurs with the conditional construction only. This should be related to another conspicuous difference between the two constructions; while Subsection I has shown that the resumptive element dan is obligatory in the conditional construction, resumption does not seem possible in the contrastive construction. This suggests that while the conditional V1-clause (indirectly) plays a semantic role in the main clause, this does not hold for the contrastive V1-clause because it is not connected to the main clause by formal means (like resumption).
      The fact that the syntactic tie between the two clauses is tighter in the conditional than in the contrastive construction is reflected by the semantics of the two constructions. In the conditional construction, there is an intimate relationship between the truth of the propositions expressed by the V1-clause and the main clause, which is normally expressed in propositional calculus by the material implication in (139a). In the contrastive construction, on the other hand, the V1-clause and the main clause are used to independently assert a proposition, as expressed by the conjunction in (139b). The crucial difference between the two formulas is that conjunctions but not material implications are expressed by means of independent clauses.

Example 139
a. conditional construction: p → q
b. contrastive construction: p ∧ q

      Subsection I has shown that the resumptive element dan in conditional constructions must occupy the clause-initial position of a declarative main clause; see the contrast between the examples in (125b) and (132b), repeated here for convenience as (140). This would imply that the initial position plays a special role in the connection of the clauses.

Example 140
a. Regent het morgen, dan ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. * Regent het morgen, ik ga dan naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  go  then  to the cinema

Although there is no resumptive element in the contrastive construction, it seems that there are also restrictions here on the element in the first position of the declarative main clause. In order to clarify this we first have to digress on the meaning of the construction. As the name of the construction already suggests, the key issue is the notion of contrast. What is contained in this notion can be clarified by considering the larger sample of examples in (141); the notion of contrast applies to the italicized elements, and the underlined phrases occupy the initial positions of the main clauses; cf. Beekhuizen (2008).

Example 141
a. Gaat Peter graag uit, Jan zit meestal liever thuis.
entity
  goes Peter  gladly  out  Jan  sits  generally  rather  at.home
  'While Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.'
b. Was Marie vroeger arm, nu is ze erg rijk.
time
  was  Marie in.the.past  poor,  now  is she  very wealthy
  'While Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.'
c. Praat Jan bij Els heel veel, bij mij is hij heel stil.
location
  talks  Jan  with Els  very much  with me  is  he  very quite
  'While Jan is talkative with Els, with me heʼs quite silent.'

The italicized elements are topical and contrastive in the sense that the non-italicized parts of the clauses provide mutually incompatible comments on these elements: the comments in (141b), for instance, can be translated as the lambda expressions λx poor(x) and λx rich(x), which are mutually incompatible in the sense that lambda conversion cannot involve a single entity e as is clear from the fact that the formula poor(e) & rich(e) is contradictory. The semantic function of the topical elements is to add information that resolves the contradiction, as is clear from the fact that the informal predicate logic translations of the examples in (141) given in (142) are fully coherent.

Example 142
a. want to go out(p) & rather stay at home(j)
b. ∃t1 [poor(m) ∧ t1 < now] & ∃t2 [rich(m) ∧ t2 = now]
c. ∃p1 [talks a lot(j) ∧ p1 = with Els] & ∃p2 [silent (j) ∧ p2 = with me]

Beekhuizen (2008) observes that in some cases the relevant notion is not contrast but unexpectedness or, perhaps even better, concessiveness. The comments in example (143a), for example, are not contradictory but instead tautologous in nature. For example, the formula good soprano(e) & able to sing well(e) is tautologous in the sense that the denotation of good soprano is included in the denotation of able to sing well. Again the topical elements resolve the tautology, as is shown in the informal predicate logic translation in (143b). Observe that concessive examples can often be recognized by the fact that the topical element in the main clause can be preceded by the focus particle ook'too'; adding this particle to the contrastive examples in (141) leads to a semantically incoherent result.

Example 143
a. Is Els een goede sopraan, ook Marie kan goed zingen.
  is Els a good soprano also Marie  can  well   sing
  'Although Els is a good soprano, Marie also sings well.'
b. good soprano(e) & able to sing well(m)

      In his newspaper corpus Beekhuizen found that the topical elements normally refer to entities (including individuals) and aspects of the spatio-temporal settings of the propositions expressed by the two clauses. Given the semantic discussion above, this does not come as a surprise as these settings are especially suitable in resolving the contradictory/tautologous nature of the comments. Beekhuizen also found that in more than 90% of the attested cases, the initial position of the declarative main clause is occupied by the topical element. That this position is a designated position for such elements is also clear from the fact illustrated in (144) that changing the word orders of the main clauses gives rise to less felicitous results. Note that we used the diacritic "$" to express this because the main clauses are fully acceptable without the contrastive V1-clauses and there is consequently no a priori reason for assuming that the examples in (144) are syntactically ill-formed; italics and underlining are used in the same way as in (141).

Example 144
a. $ Gaat Peter graag uit, meestal zit Jan liever thuis.
entity
  goes  Peter  gladly  out  generally  sits  Jan  rather  at.home
  'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan generally prefers to stay at home.'
b. $ Was Marie vroeger arm, ze is nu erg rijk.
time
  was  Marie in.the.past  poor,  she  is now  very wealthy
  'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.'
c. $ Praat Jan bij Els heel veel, hij is bij mij heel stil.
location
  talks  Jan  with Els  very much  he  is with me  very quite
  'Whereas Jan is talkative with Els, with me heʼs quite silent.'

The fact that the topical constituent must occupy the initial position of the declarative main clause is again not surprising, given that contrastive topic/focus elements are generally found in this position; cf. Section 11.3.2. It is perhaps remarkable, however, that it does not seem possible to use contrastive accent to improve the examples in (144) while this is possible in contrastive coordination constructions such as (145), in which small caps indicate focus accent.

Example 145
a. Marie was vroeger arm, maar nu is ze erg rijk.
  Marie was  in.the.past  poor  but  now  is  she  very wealthy
  'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.'
b. Marie was vroeger arm, maar ze is nu erg rijk.
  Marie was  in.the.past  poor  but  she  is now  very wealthy
  'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.'

This contrast between the two construction types may be related to the fact that the declarative clauses in examples such as (141) are probably not contrastive focus constructions but contrastive topic constructions, that is, have contrastive accent on the topical element, with an additional accent in the comment of the clause: it is difficult to get this accent pattern if the topical element occupies a position in the middle field of the clause: ??Ze is nu erg rijk.

Example 146
a. Gaat Peter graag uit, Jan zit meestal liever thuis.
  goes  Peter  gladly  out  Jan sits  generally  rather  at.home
  'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.'
b. Was Marie vroeger arm, nu is ze erg rijk.
  was  Marie in.the.past  poor  now  is she  very wealthy
  'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.'
c. Praat Jan bij Els heel veel, bij mij is hij heel stil.
  talks  Jan with Els  very much  with me  is  he  very quite
  'Whereas Jan is talkative with Els, with me heʼs quite silent.'

Beekhuizen further found that the associate of the topical element in the contrastive V1-clause often precedes the subject. The examples in (147) show that this is not always possible but that it depends on the information-structural properties of the subject: while definite subjects may follow the adverbial phrase in 2013 if they are part of the discourse-new information, this is impossible for presuppositional subject pronouns like hij'he'. This seems to fit in with the word order generalizations discussed in Section 13.2.

Example 147
a. Was in 2013 mijn buurman werkeloos, nu kan hij overal werken.
  was  in 2013  my neighbor  jobless  now  can he  anywhere  work
  'Although my neighbor was jobless in 2013, he can work anywhere now.'
b. Was <hij> in 2013 <*hij> werkeloos, nu kan hij overal werken.
  was     he  in 2013  jobless  now  can  he  anywhere  work
  'Although he was jobless in 2013, he can work anywhere now.'

In the examples above the topical constituent has the same syntactic function as its associate in the contrastive V1-clause. The examples in (148) show, however that this need not be the case: (148) shows that a subject may be contrasted with an agentive door-phrase, which shows that it is sufficient if the topical elements have a similar semantic function.

Example 148
Beweert Jan dat Els ziek is, door Marie wordt dit ontkend.
  claims  Jan that  Els ill  is by Marie is this denied
'Whereas Jan claims that Els is ill, this is denied by Marie.'

      This section has shown that contrastive/concessive V1-clauses are external to the main clause and therefore do not constitute counterexamples to the generalization that dependent clauses do not allow V-first/second. We have also seen evidence that such V1-clauses differ from conditional V1-clauses in that they are not left-dislocated and do not alternate with run-of-the-mill adverbial clauses introduced by some linker. From a syntactic point of view contrastive V1-clauses are less intimately related to the following main clause than conditional V1-clauses, due to the lack of resumption.

[+]  III.  Exclamative V1-clauses

The exclamative constructions in (149) are taken from Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:266) in a slightly adapted version. Examples like these are characterized by a typical exclamative intonation pattern; small caps indicate contrastive accent and the exclamation mark the exclamative intonation contour. Exclamative constructions are normally used to express an emotional attitude of the speaker towards the propositional content: amazement, vexation, indignation, etc.

Example 149
a. Zijn we eindelijk in Parijs, regent het de hele dag!
  are  we finally  in Paris  rains  it  the whole day
  'Weʼve finally managed to get to Paris and itʼs been pouring all day!'
b. Heeft hij eindelijk een baan, komt hij niet opdagen!
  has  he  finally  a job,  comes  he  not  up-show
  'At last he has a job and what does he do? He doesnʼt show up!'

At first sight examples such as (149) look very similar to the marked conditional constructions with a conditional V1-clause and without the resumptive element dan'then', the discussion of which we have postponed to Subsection V. This is a visual deception, however: in speech the intonation pattern would immediately distinguish the two. Furthermore, the two have quite different meanings. A nice illustration of this is given by Van der Horst & Van der Horst; they quote an advertisement slogan for Croma, a brand of frying fat:

Example 150
a. % Hou je van vlees, braad je in Croma.
conditional
  like  you  of meat  fry  you  in Croma
  'If you like meat, then you fry [it] in Croma.'
b. Hou je van vlees, braad je in Croma!
exclamative
  like  you  of meat  fry  you  in Croma
  'How can you be so stupid: You like meat and you fry [it] in Croma.'

The conditional use in (150a) was of course the one intended; if one gave this slogan an exclamative intonation pattern, it would give rise to a reading expressing utter disapproving amazement, which we tried to express by means of the translation in (150b). The translation also expresses that the exclamative construction has no conditional import: the speaker simply asserts that the propositions expressed by the two clauses are both true. There is a relation between the two propositions, though, in that it is the truth of the proposition expressed by the first clause that makes the truth of the proposition expressed by the second clause so surprising; see Beekhuizen (2008: Section 4) for more discussion. Note in passing that the second person pronoun je can readily be given a generic interpretation in examples such as (150a) leading to the interpretation "Anyone who likes meat fries in Croma" but that the second person pronoun must refer to the addressee in (150b); it may be interesting to note in this connection that Beekhuizen found a fairly large number of generic exclamative constructions in his newspaper corpus.
      Exclamative examples such as (149) never involve a resumptive element, which may indicate that the first V1-clause is in the initial position of the second clause. However, this would run afoul of our earlier conclusion on the basis of conditional and contrastive constructions that V1-clauses are always clause-external. Let us then consider the alternative that the first clause is external to the second clause, although it is not easy to find convincing arguments for/against the two options. It would be an argument in favor of the first option if the V1-clause could also appear in some other clause-internal position, but the examples in (151) show that this is not the case.

Example 151
a. [Zijn we eindelijk in Parijs], regent het de hele dag!
= ( 149a)
  are  we finally  in Paris  rains  it  the whole day
  'Weʼve finally managed to get to Paris and itʼs been pouring all day!'
b. * Het regent [zijn we eindelijk in Parijs] de hele dag!
c. * Het regent de hele dag [zijn we eindelijk in Parijs]!

The examples in (151) suggest instead that the first V1-clause is external to the second one. It would be an argument in favor of such an analysis if the contrastive V1-clause could also occur syntactically independent of the second one. The coordination constructions in (152), which are based on the examples in (149) and (150b), show that this is indeed possible.

Example 152
a. Zijn we eens in Parijs, en dan regent het de hele dag!
  are  we prt  in Paris  and  then  rains  it  the whole day
b. Heeft hij eindelijk een baan, en dan komt hij niet opdagen!
  has  he  finally  a job,  and  then comes  he  not  up-show
c. Hou je van vlees en dan braad je in Croma!
  like  you  of meat and  then  fry  you  in Croma

In fact, the examples in (153), which again are modelled on example (152b), show that the first clause need not even be coordinated with a declarative clause, but can also be coordinated with an interrogative clause, or a demonstrative pronoun/referential noun phrase preceded by dan.

Example 153
a. Heeft hij eindelijk een baan, en wat zegt hij?!
  has  he  finally  a job,  and  what says he
  'At last he has a job and what does he say?'
b. Heeft hij eindelijk een baan, en dan dit/zo'n reactie!
  has  he  finally  a job,  and  then this/such a reaction
  'At last he has a job and then this happens/we get such a reaction.'

It would be another argument for assuming that the first clause is external to the second one if the second clause could be used as an independent exclamative V1-clause in other contexts. The examples in (154) show that this is also possible.

Example 154
a. We zijn eindelijk in Parijs. En wat denk je: Regent het de hele dag!
  we are  finally  in Paris.  and  what  think  you:  rains  it  the whole day
  'Finally, weʼre in Paris. And, guess what, it is raining all day!'
b. Hij heeft eindelijk een baan. En wat denk je: komt hij niet opdagen!
  he has  finally  a job  and  what  think  you  comes  he  not  up-show
  'He finally has a job. And, guess what, he doesnʼt turn up!'
c. Hij houdt van vlees. En wat denk je: braadt hij in Croma!
  he  likes  of meat. and  what  think  you  fries  he in Croma
  'He likes meat. And, guess what, he fries in Croma!'

Examples (152) and (154) strongly suggest that the exclamative constructions in (149) and (150b) involve juxtaposed clauses, which in fact ties in nicely with the observation that exclamative constructions of this sort are typical of speech because exclamative V1-constructions of the type in (152) and (154) are also relatively rare in written language. If the juxtaposition analysis is indeed correct, exclamative V1-clauses are well-behaved with respect to our hypothesis that V1-clauses cannot occur clause-internally.

[+]  IV.  Concessive V2-clauses

In the introduction to this section, we have seen that concessive clauses come in at least two varieties, repeated here in a slightly different form as (155a&b). The concessive clause in (155a) is an ordinary adverbial clause: the impossibility of including the particle toch in the initial position of the main clause shows that it must occur clause-internally and, in keeping with our hypothesis that V1-clauses cannot occur clause-internally, it is introduced by the complementizer-like element hoewel'although' and has the finite verb in clause-final position. The concessive clause in (155b), on the other hand, must be external to the main clause, as is clear from the fact that the particle toch in the first position of the main clause cannot be omitted. Concessive main clauses such as (155b) differ from the conditional clauses discussed in the subsection I in that they do not have an alternant with the finite verb in clause-final position; examples such as (155b') are unacceptable.

Example 155
a. Hoewel Els ziek is, (*toch) gaat ze vandaag werken.
  although  Els  ill  is,      still  goes  she  today  work
  'Although Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'
b. Ook al is Els ziek, *(toch) gaat ze vandaag werken.
  even though  is Els ill     still  goes  she  today  work
  'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'
b'. * Ook al Els ziek is, toch gaat ze vandaag werken.
  even though  Els ill  is  still  goes  she  today  work

The reason for the ungrammaticality of (155b') might be that examples such as (155b) cannot be analyzed as left-dislocation constructions; see the discussion of contrastive construction in Subsection II. If (155b) were a case of left dislocation, we would expect the particle toch to be analyzed as a resumptive element linked to the concessive clause, but this is rather unlikely, given that example (156a) shows that this particle can also be used in examples with a clause-internal concessive clause: if toch were a resumptive element, example (156a) would have two constituents performing an identical syntactic function. Furthermore, example (156b) shows that toch differs from conditional dan in that it need not be clause-initial in declarative clauses; it can in fact even be left out entirely, although Haeseryn et al. (1997:1391) claim that this is a feature especially found in written texts.

Example 156
a. Hoewel Els ziek is gaat ze vandaag toch werken.
  although  Els  ill  is  goes  she  today  still  work
  'Although Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'
b. Ook al is Els ziek, ze gaat vandaag (toch) werken.
  even though  is Els ill  she  goes  today   still  work
  'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs (still) going to work today.'

The ungrammaticality of (155b') is also related to the status of the element (ook) al'even though'. We have seen that we can account for the complementary distribution of als and the finite verb in initial position of left-dislocated conditional clauses by assuming that als is a complementizer occupying the C-position, that is, the target position of verb-first/second. The fact that (ook) al does not block verb-second shows that it is a regular phrase in clause-initial position and not a complementizer-like element. This is also consistent with the fact, illustrated in (157a&b), that some other constituent will normally be moved into this position if (ook) al is omitted. The conclusion that (ook) al is a phrase occupying the clause-initial position of the concessive clause correctly predicts that it cannot license the clause-final placement of the finite verb in (155b').

Example 157
a. Ook al was de reclame groot, toch bleef het succes maar klein.
  even though  was the publicity  big  still  stayed  the success  prt  small
  'Even though there was a lot of publicity, the success was small.'
b. De reclame was groot, toch bleef het succes maar klein.
  the publicity  was big  still  stayed  the success  prt  small
  'There was a lot of publicity, still the success was small.'

Note in passing that Haeseryn et al. (1997:1392) claim that the omission of (ook) al does not require some other constituent to be moved into clause-initial position: they consider Was de reclame groot, toch bleef het succes maar klein possible in the formal register. According to us, this example is artificial and obsolete; see Van der Horst (2008) for a similar example from Old Dutch (p.337) and the claim that the construction with al is already common in Middle Dutch (p.773-4).
      That concessive clauses introduced by (ook) al have the hallmarks of regular main clauses seems to fit in nicely with our earlier conclusion that a left-dislocation analysis is not possible; they must therefore be analyzed as independent main clauses. This is also suggested by yet another difference from conditional clauses. The (a)-examples in (158), repeated from Subsection I, show that conditional clauses in extraposed position must be introduced by als and therefore do not allow movement of the finite verb. Example (158b), on the other hand, shows that placing the concessive clause last does not affect its form; this shows again that it cannot function as a regular adverbial clause.

Example 158
a. Ik ga naar de bioscoop als het morgen regent.
  go  to the cinema  if  it  tomorrow  rains
a'. * Ik ga naar de bioscoop regent het morgen.
  go  to the cinema  rains  it  tomorrow
b. Het succes bleef maar klein, ook al was de reclame groot.
  the success  stayed  prt  small  even though  was the publicity  big
  'The success was small even though there was a lot of publicity.'

      The discussion above leaves us with the question as to what kind of structure is plausible for the concessive constructions under discussion. The first thing that comes to mind is that we are dealing with two juxtaposed main clauses and this may in fact be a plausible analysis for examples such as (157b), given that (159a) shows that we may also coordinate the two clauses by means of the conjunction maar'but' and that the first clause can readily be used independently. This does not hold for examples such as (157a): the use of maar'but' in (159b) gives rise to a degraded result and the independent use of the first clause in (159b') has some sense of incompleteness (indicated by the diacritic "$" and a series of dots).

Example 159
a. De reclame was groot (maar toch bleef het succes maar klein).
  the publicity  was big    but  still  stayed  the success  only  small
  'There was a lot of publicity, still the success was small.'
b. * Ook al was de reclame groot (maar toch bleef het succes maar klein).
  even though  was the publicity big   but  still stayed the success  only small
b'. $ Ook al was de reclame groot, ...

It follows that the examples in (159) suggest that a simple juxtaposition analysis might not be the right answer. Since we do not have any further insights to offer at this point, we leave the question unresolved as to the internal structure of the concessive construction under discussion, while concluding that this does not jeopardize the generalization that verb-first/second is excluded in dependent clauses.

[+]  V.  Some potential problems

The previous subsections have shown for a number of adverbial-like V1/2-clauses that they are clause-external, and thus support the hypothesis that verb-first/second is impossible in the case of average (clause-internal) adverbial clauses. This subsection considers some potential counterexamples to this hypothesis. The first case was already mentioned in our earlier discussion but put aside. Consider again the examples in (160). Example (160b) is normally considered infelicitous but we marked it with a percentage sign, as Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:256ff) provide a large number of attested conditional V1-clauses without resumptive dan from various written sources such as newspapers, belles-lettres, advertisements, etc.

Example 160
a. Als het morgen regent (dan) ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  if  it  tomorrow rains   then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow (then) Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. Regent het morgen, %(dan) ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow      then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow then Iʼll go to the cinema.'

Van der Horst & Van der Horst claim that examples of this type are a recent innovation that became especially popular in the 1980's although they also found some cases from the 14th century onwards; the examples in (161) show that there are even a number of proverbs of this form.

Example 161
a. Komt tijd, komt raad.
  comes  time  comes council
  Approximately: 'Time brings counsel.'
b. Baadt het niet, (dan) schaadt het niet.
  helps  it  not  then  harms  it  not
  'It canʼt do any harm and it may do some good.'

Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:256ff) provide an analysis according to which conditional V1-clauses are clause-internal if dan is not present, and claim that this has become possible in analogy to constructions with als-clauses. They further suggest that the rise of clause-internal conditional V1-clauses is to be expected as this eliminates an irregularity from the system by allowing all dependent clauses to occur clause-internally. From our perspective, however, such a change would introduce an irregularity into the system because it goes against the well-supported hypothesis that V1-clauses are categorically rejected in clause-internal position. This hypothesis can be saved, however, if we assume that constructions with conditional V1-clauses but without resumptive dan are not part of Dutch core grammar.
      Two options present themselves. One possibility, which is also considered by Van der Horst & Van der Horst, is built on the observation that the use of resumptive dan is a property of spoken language, that is, it is disfavored in written language; its omission in constructions with conditional V1-clauses may therefore be a case of hypercorrection. Another possibility appeals to the fact that some speakers allow omission of resumptive elements in clause-initial position. If correct, the analysis of the constructions with conditional V1-clauses without resumptive dan would be as given in (162a). This would give rise to the expectation that speakers who allow (162a) also allow "preposition stranding" in examples such as (162b), provided at least that apparent preposition stranding results from the deletion of the resumptive pronominal part of the discontinuous PP daar ... op.

Example 162
a. % Regent het morgen, [dan ga ik naar de bioscoop].
  rains  it  tomorrow  then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'
b. % Bananen, [daar ben ik dol op].
  bananas there  am  fond  of
  'Bananas, Iʼm fond of (them).'

Since we are not able to test whether this expectation is borne out, we have to leave this to future research, while noting that we believe that a correlation is likely to be found. The reason for this optimism is that according to Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:270) the rise in popularity of the two constructions in (162) occurred more or lesss simultaneously (in the second half of the 20th century). Whatever the outcome of such an investigation, we can conclude from the discussion above that it is not at all obvious that the occurrence of conditional V1-clauses without resumptive dan refutes the hypothesis that V1-clauses do not occur clause-internally: an appeal to hypercorrection or an analysis such as (162a) would be completely consistent with this hypothesis.
      Adverbial-like V1-clauses containing the modal verbs willen and mogen constitute a second potential problem. We will confine the discussion to cases with willen, as illustrated in (163). At first sight, these examples seem to be regular conditional constructions of the type discussed in subsection I: the optionality of the resumptive element dan'then' in (163a) suggests that the als-clause is a run-of-the-mill adverbial clause, which can either occupy the clause-initial position of the main clause or be left-dislocated; the obligatoriness of dan in (163b) further suggests that we are dealing with a proper V1-clause in the sense that it occurs clause-externally.

Example 163
a. Als je wil slagen (dan) moet je harder werken.
  if  you  want  pass.the.exam   then  come  you  harder  work
  'If you want to pass the exam, (then) you must work harder.'
b. Wil je slagen *(dan) moet je harder werken.
  want  you   pass.the.exam    then  come  you  harder  work
  'If you want to pass the exam, (then) you must work harder.'

Closer scrutiny shows, however, that in at least some cases we may be dealing with a slightly different construction type. First, the examples in (164) show that the alternation between the als-clause and the V1-clause is not always possible.

Example 164
a. ?? Als het project wil slagen, (dan) moeten we hard werken.
  if  the project  wants  succeed  then  must  we hard  work
b. Wil het project slagen, *(dan) moeten we hard werken.
  wants  the project  succeed     then  must  we  hard  work
  'We must work hard if the project is to succeed.'

Second, example (164b) does not express a material implication: the eventuality of "the project becoming a success" as expressed in the first clause is not presented as a sufficient condition for the eventuality of "we working hard" as expressed in the second clause. In fact, the relation is reversed: the second eventuality can be seen as a prerequisite for the first one to come into existence; Boogaart et al. (2007:240) characterize examples such as (164b) as teleological in nature. Related to this is that the modal verb willen in (164) cannot have a deontic (volitional) interpretation but is instead interpreted epistemically; cf. Section 5.2.3.2, sub IIIA. The primed examples in (165) show that teleological V1-clauses differ from the conditional ones in that they can occur in clause-final position.

Example 165
a. Regent het morgen, dan ga ik naar de bioscoop.
  rains  it  tomorrow  then  go  to the cinema
  'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'
a'. * Ik ga naar de bioscoop, regent het morgen.
  go  to the cinema  rains  it  tomorrow
b. Wil het project slagen, dan moeten we hard werken.
  wants  the project  succeed  then  must  we  hard  work
  'If the project is to succeed, we must work hard.'
b'. We moeten hard werken, wil het project slagen.
  we  must  hard  work  wants  the project  succeed
  'We must work hard if the project is to succeed.'

Since we have assumed that clause-final adverbial clauses are placed clause-internally, example (165b) is a potential counterexample to our hypothesis that V1-clauses can only occur clause-externally. A possible solution can be found in Beekhuizen (2008:46), where it is suggested that V1-clauses in examples such as (165b) are in fact parenthetical clauses. There are indeed reasons for assuming that this is the case: Subsection I has shown that parenthetical clauses have the characteristic property that they can contain tenminste'at least' and this option is also available for clause-final teleological V1-clauses. Observe the contrast between the two examples in (166), which seems to show that a clause cannot simultaneously be left-dislocated and parenthetical in nature. For completeness' sake, we have added example (165c) to show that the parenthetical clause can also appear in the middle field of de clause.

Example 166
a. Wil het project *(tenminste) slagen, dan moeten we hard werken.
  wants  the project     at.least  succeed  then  must  we  hard  work
  'For the project to succeed, we must work hard.'
b. We moeten hard werken, wil het project tenminste slagen.
  we  must  hard  work  wants  the project  at.least  succeed
  'We must work hard in order for the project to succeed.'
c. We moeten, wil het project tenminste slagen, hard werken.
  we  must  wants  the project  at.least  succeed  hard  work
  'We must work hard in order for the project to succeed.'

The presence of dan proves that the V1-clause in (166a) is clause-external and the possibility of tenminste in (166a) makes it plausible that we are dealing with a parenthetical clause, and these two facts, in turn, strongly suggest that teleological V1-clauses conform to our hypothesis that adverbial-like V1-clauses occur clause-externally only. But, of course, more investigation of this construction is needed to establish this conclusion more firmly; we refer the reader to Beekhuizen (2008:ch.5) for a good starting point.

[+]  VI.  Conclusion

Subsections I to IV have shown that the italicized V1/2-clauses in (123), repeated here as (167), are clause-external; in the conditional construction in (167a), this is clear from the fact that most speakers require the expression of the resumptive element dan'then' in the initial position of the main clause; in the contrastive and concessive constructions in (167b&d), this is clear from the fact that the initial position of the main clause is occupied by some other constituent. For the exclamative construction in (167c), this is a bit harder to show but a juxtaposition analysis is quite plausible given that the first clause may also be used as the first conjunct in the near-synonymous coordinate construction Helpt Marie iemand en dan wordt ze door hem beroofd!'Imagine: Marie is helping someone and then that person robs her!'.

Example 167
a. Is Els morgen ziek, dan gaat ze niet werken.
conditional V1
  is  Els tomorrow  ill  then  goes  she  not  work
  'If Els is ill again tomorrow, then she wonʼt go to work.'
b. Was Jan erg tevreden, Peter was dat zeker niet.
contrastive V1
  was  Jan  very satisfied  Peter was  that  certainly  not
  'Whereas Jan was very satisfied, Jan certainly wasnʼt.'
c. Helpt Marie iemand, wordt ze door hem beroofd!
exclamative V1
  helps  Marie  someone  be  she   by him  robbed
  'Imagine: Marie is helping someone and that person robs her!'
d. Ook al is Els ziek, toch gaat ze vandaag werken.
concessive V2
  even though  is  Els ill  still  goes  she  today  work
  'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'

The discussion supported the hypothesis that verb-first/second is impossible in run-of-the-mill, that is, clause-internal adverbial clauses, subsection V concluded with a number of potential problems for this hypothesis; it seems plausible, however, that the V1-clauses discussed in this section are not clause-internal either.

References:
  • Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
  • Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
  • Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
  • Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
  • Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
  • Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
  • Besten, Hans den1983On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rulesAbraham, Werner (ed.)On the formal nature of the WestgermaniaAmsterdamBenjamins47--131
  • Boogaart, Ronny & Janssen, Theo2007Tense and aspectGeeraerts, Dirk & Cuykens, Hubert (eds.)The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguisticsOxford/New YorkOxford University Press803-828
  • Dikken, Marcel den2003Comparative correlatives and verb secondKoster, Jan & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)Germania et alia. A Linguistic website for Hans den Besten
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Horst, Joop van der2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxisLeuvenUniversitaire Pers Leuven
  • Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
  • Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
  • Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
  • Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • 11.3.3. Topicalization
    [95%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement) > 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
  • 6.5. Clausal subjects
    [95%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
  • 4.1.3. The comparative als/dan/van-phrase
    [95%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison > 4.1. Equative, comparative and superlative formation
  • 10.3.1. No Verb-first/second in main clauses?
    [95%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second) > 10.3. Verb-first/second: special cases
  • 11.3.4. Wh-exclamatives
    [95%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement) > 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
Show more ▼
cite
print
This topic is the result of an automatic conversion from Word and may therefore contain errors.
A free Open Access publication of the corresponding volumes of the Syntax of Dutch is available at OAPEN.org.