• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
11.2.3. Finite imperatives
quickinfo

This section discusses finite imperative constructions as illustrated by the examples in (48), which typically have the imperative verb in first position, subsection I argues that the V1-nature of a finite imperative can be accounted for by assuming that the clause-initial position is filled by a phonetically empty imperative operator expressing imperative mood and/or second person features.

Example 48
a. Kom hier!
  come  here
b. Ga weg!
  go  away

Subsection II will discuss a potential problem for the hypothesis that the initial position of finite imperatives is occupied by an empty imperative operator, posed by a special type of finite imperative construction in (49b). The problem here is that the direct object follows the verbal particle and must therefore be in a right-dislocated position. To solve the problem, it has been claimed that the true object is realized as an empty operator (or elided pronoun): we will show that under certain standard assumptions this may be incompatible with the postulation of an empty imperative operator.

Example 49
a. Leg dat boek neer!
regular placement of object
  put that book down
  'Put that book down!'
b. Leg neer, dat boek!
special placement of object
  put  down  that book

Subsection III will show, however, that it has also been claimed that imperatives like (49b) should not be treated on a par with regular cases like (49a). This would nullify the need of postulating an additional empty operator with the function of direct object for (49b) and thereby solve the potential problem for the postulation of an empty imperative operator. We will not make a choice between the two proposals but leave this to the reader/future research.

readmore
[+]  I.  The motivation for a phonetically empty imperative operator

The verb forms in these examples are called finite because of their placement; while non-finite main verbs always follow verbal particles and complementives, the unacceptability of the primed examples in (50) shows that the imperative forms under discussion must precede them.

Example 50
a. Leg dat boek neer!
  put  that book  down
a'. * Dat boek neer leg!
  that book  down  put
b. Sla die mug dood!
  hit  that mosquito  dead
b'. * Die mug dood sla!
  that mosquito  dead  hit

Verbs in finite imperative clauses typically occur in first position, and in this respect they differ markedly from finite verbs in declarative clauses, which are normally preceded by some constituent; see the contrast between the two examples in (51).

Example 51
a. Dat boek geef ik direct terug.
declarative
  that book  give  immediately  back
  'That book Iʼll return immediately.'
b. * Dat boek geef direct terug!
imperative
  that book  give  immediately  back

One might derive the V1-nature of finite imperatives by hypothesizing that the clause-initial position is filled by a phonetically empty second person subject pronoun. Postulation of such a pronoun would immediately account for the fact that second person reflexive pronouns may occur in imperative constructions; see Section 1.4.2, sub IIA, for discussion and more data. The postulation of a phonetically empty second person subject can also be motivated by the fact that supplementives and floating quantifiers are possible, as these normally must have an associated noun phrase in the clause.

Example 52
a. Kijk naar jezelf!
  look  at yourselfsg
b. Kom niet dronken thuis!
  come not drunk home
  'Donʼt come home drunk!'
c. Kom allemaal hier!
  come  all  here
  'Come here all of you!'

At first sight, the hypothesis concerning a phonetically empty second person pronoun seems to run afoul of the placement of the subject pronouns in the more special imperative construction in (53), which are all more or lesss equivalent to the more regular form Ga eens weg!'Get out of the way, please!'; see Section 1.4.2, sub IIC, for a more extensive discussion of this type. These examples show that the subject pronouns must follow the verb in first position.

Example 53
a. Ga jij maar weg!
  go  yousg  prt  away
a'. * Jij ga maar weg!
  yousg  go  prt  away
b. Gaan jullie maar weg!
  go  youpl  prt  away
b'. * Jullie gaan maar weg!
  youpl  go  prt  away
c. Gaat u maar weg!
  go  youpolite  prt  away
c'. #U gaat maar weg!
  youpolite  go  prt  away

Barbiers (2013) noticed, however, that overt expression of subject pronouns requires a particle like maar or eens to be present: if we replace the particle maar in (53) by the locative pro-form daar'there', the examples indeed become somewhat marked, while adding the particle eens to the resulting structures make them fully acceptable again; this is shown in (54). Barbiers (2013) concludes from this that the overt subject pronouns are in fact licensed by the particles, and not by the verb; he therefore maintains that present-day Dutch imperatives have a phonetically empty subject pronoun licensed by the imperative verb in sentence-initial position.

Example 54
a. Ga jij daar ?(eens) weg!
  go  yousg  there    prt  away
b. Gaan jullie daar ?(eens) weg!
  go  youpl  there    prt   away
c. Gaat u daar ?(eens) weg!
  go  youpolite  there    prt  away

      The V1-requirement on finite imperatives does not hold for Middle Dutch and certain varieties of present-day German. Barbiers (2007) suggests that the loss of topicalization and wh-movement in Dutch imperatives is related to the decline of specialized imperative forms in the language (the stem weez-'be' as in Wees voorzichtig'Be careful!' being the only surviving remnant in Standard Dutch). In (55), a Middle Dutch example is given from a 14th century manuscript of De reis van Sente Brandane (The Voyage of Saint Brandaen); we refer the reader to Van der Horst (2008:543) for more diachronic data and to Barbiers (2007/2013) for similar data from German as well as some Dutch dialects.

Example 55
Nu verneemt hoe ouer lanc …
Sente Brandane; 14 th century
  now  learnimp.pl  how  long ago
'Learn now, how long ago ...'

Barbiers (2013) claims that the overt person marking on the imperative form of the verb makes the covert subject pronoun in clause-initial position superfluous, so that this position remains available for topicalization. For our goal, it suffices to assume that in Standard Dutch the sentence-initial position is filled by some phonetically empty element that expresses imperative mood and/or second person; for convenience we will refer to this element as empty operator (abbreviated as OP in some of the examples below). This empty imperative operator is signaled by the placement of the verb in first position of the clause, which therefore indirectly signals the imperative mood. That the phonetically empty imperative operator blocks topicalization in examples such as (51b) can be supported by the fact that resumptive pronouns in finite imperative left-dislocation constructions cannot be sentence-initially either, but must occupy a position in the middle field of the clause: the examples in (56) show that while the resumptive pronouns het/dat can be clause-initial or clause-external in declarative clauses, finite imperatives allow them only in clause-internal position. We refer the reader to Barbiers (2007/2013) for more discussion.

Example 56
a. Dat boek, dat geef ik direct terug.
declarative
  that book that  give  immediately  back
  'That book, Iʼll return it immediately.'
a'. Dat boek, ik geef het direct terug.
  that book give  it  immediately  back
  'That book, Iʼll return it immediately.'
b. * Dat boek, dat geef direct terug!
imperative
  that book  that  give  immediately  back
b'. Dat boek, geef het direct terug!
  that book  give  it  immediately  back
  'That book, return it immediately.'

[+]  II.  The empty operator analysis of Leg terug, dat boek!

The examples in (57) show that finite imperative clauses differ markedly from declarative clauses in that direct objects are often optional and can be placed after verbal particles. The imperative constructions in the primed examples pose a potential problem for the postulation of an empty imperative operator because some analyses proposed for them are not a priori compatible with it.

Example 57
a. Jan legt *(dat boek) terug.
  Jan puts     that book  back
  'Jan is putting that book back.'
a'. Leg (dat boek) terug!
  put  that book  back
  'Put that book back!'
b. * Jan legt terug, dat boek.
  Jan puts  back  that book
b'. Leg terug, dat boek!
  put  back  that book

Den Dikken (1992) argues that constructions such as (57b') involve a phonetically empty operator with the function of direct object that is moved into first position; this operator licenses the apparent object dat boek, which is base-generated to the right of the particle terug. This analysis has the advantage that we immediately account for the fact that the noun phrase dat boek is optional: the selection restrictions of the verb are satisfied in (58b) because the phonetically empty operator OP functions as the direct object of the sentence: the noun phrase is simply an (optional) adjunct.

Example 58
a. [OPi leg ti terug], dat boeki!
b. [OPi leg ti terug]

Observe that it is not a priori clear that the postulation of the empty operator is crucial: since examples such as (59a) show that topicalized pronouns also license direct objects in the right periphery of the clause, Koopman (2007) claims that imperative clauses such as (57b') involve an elided object pronoun; we are dealing with a combination of right dislocation and topic drop. That the two operations can indeed be combined is independently supported by the fact that (in the right context) example (59b) is also fully acceptable.

Example 59
a. Dati leg ik zo ti terug, dat boek.
  that  put  later  back  that book
  'Iʼll put it back in a moment, that book.'
b. Dat leg ik zo terug, dat boek.
  that  put  later  back  that book

For ease of representation, we will adopt the empty operator movement analysis in what follows without the intention to immediately dismiss the topic drop analysis. Den Dikken motivates the involvement of leftward movement in imperative examples such as (57b') by pointing out that parasitic gaps are licensed in such constructions. First, consider the declarative sentences in (60). Example (60a) shows that the adjunct clause introduced by zonder'without' must have an overtly realized object pronoun; the indices indicate that this pronoun can be interpreted as coreferential with the object of the main clause. The examples in (60b&c) show that leftward movement of the object of the main clause allows the object pronoun to remain unexpressed; the interpretative gap in the adjunct clause must then be construed as coreferential with the object of the main clause. Since the occurrence of the interpretative gap is "parasitic" on leftward movement of the object of the main clause, such gaps are known as parasitic gaps: see Section 11.3.7 for detailed discussion. Note that acceptability judgments on parasitic gaps differ from speaker to speaker: while some consider the use of a parasitic gap (pg) in (60b&c) fully acceptable, others prefer the use of an overt pronoun.

Example 60
a. Hij borg [zonder *(heti) te lezen] het boeki op.
  he  put  without     it  to read  the book  away
  'He put away the book without reading it.'
b. Hij borg het boeki [zonder pgi te lezen] ti op.
c. Het boeki borg hij [zonder pgite lezen] ti op.

The crucial observation is that parasitic gaps are also possible in imperative constructions such as (57b'); Den Dikken takes this as evidence for leftward operator movement: example (61a) thus has the representation in (61b). Although Den Dikken's judgment has been accepted in the literature, example (61a) may be somewhat more marked than the (b)-examples in (60). We will return to this at the end of this section.

Example 61
a. Berg [zonder pg te lezen] op, dat boek!
  put  without  to read  away  that book
  'Put away that book without reading it.'
b. [OPi berg [zonder pgi te lezen] ti op], dat boeki!

Den Dikken's analysis seems incompatible with Barbiers (2007) hypothesis if we maintain that finite verbs in main clauses can be preceded by at most one constituent, as Barbiers' imperative operator will block leftward movement of Den Dikken's empty operator in examples such Geef terug, dat boek!'Give back, that book!'. Accepting both proposals is only viable if we are willing to stipulate that Den Dikkens empty operator targets some position in the middle field of the clause, which is in fact what is proposed by Den Dikken (1992) as well as Barbiers (2007). The topic drop analysis proposed by Koopman (2007), on the other hand, is incompatible with Barbiers' hypothesis, as Section 11.2.2 has shown that topic drop is only possible if the pronoun is in sentence-initial position.
      As was pointed out by Den Dikken (1992) himself, the empty operator movement analysis of examples such as (57b') meets a number of potential problems. First, examples such as (62) show that while it is possible to place an indirect object in the right-peripheral position of declarative clauses regardless of whether the pronoun die'that' is overtly expressed, this is only possible in the imperative construction if a resumptive pronoun is present.

Example 62
a. (Die) moet je dat boek toesturen, die jongen.
declarative
  that  must  you  that book  prt.-send  that boy
  'You should send him that book, that boy.'
b. Stuur die/hem dat boek toe, die jongen!
imperative
  send  that/him  that book  prt.  that boy
  'Send him that book, that boy!'
b'. * Stuur dat boek toe, die jongen!
  send  that book  prt.  that boy

A second, related problem is that the indirect object is preferably omitted if the direct object is placed in the right periphery of the imperative clauses, while realizing the indirect object is fully acceptable in the case of right dislocation in declarative clauses. This is illustrated by the acceptability contrast between the two primed examples in (63); we use the diacritic % in example (63b') because Den Dikken claims that such examples are marked but grammatical, whereas we found that some speakers find the overt realization of the indirect object quite awkward.

Example 63
a. Ik geef Marie/haar dat boek terug.
declarative
  give  Marie/her  that book  back
a'. Dat geef ik Marie/haar terug, dat boek.
  that  give  Marie/her  back  that book
  'Iʼll give it back to Marie/her, that book.'
b. Geef Marie/haar dat boek terug!
imperative
  give  Marie/her  that book  back
b'. Geef (%Marie/haar) terug, dat boek!
  give       Marie/her  back  that book

Den Dikken (1992) claims that the contrasts found in (62) and (63) need not surprise us by showing that similar restrictions as in finite imperative constructions are found in other constructions involving empty operator movement. Note that this line of reasoning would again be impossible if we adopt Koopman's (2007) proposal according to which the relevant declarative and imperative constructions both involve a combination of right dislocation and topic drop.
      A third problem that needs to be mentioned is that the postulated empty operator movement cannot strand prepositions: while the declarative example in (64a) is acceptable both with and without the R-pronoun daar, the R-pronoun must be overtly realized in the corresponding finite imperative construction, as is clear from the contrast between the two (b)-examples in (64).

Example 64
a. (Daar) moet je opnieuw over nadenken, (over) dat probleem.
  there  must  you  again  about  prt.-think  about that problem
  'You must think about that again, that problem.'
b. Denk daari opnieuw [ti over] na, (over) dat probleem!
  think  there  again  about  prt  about  that problem
  'Think about it again, that problem!'
b'. * OPi denk opnieuw [ti over] na, (over) dat probleem!
  think  again  about  prt  about  that problem

Den Dikken provides a special account for the unacceptability of (64b') because preposition stranding is possible in the infinitival imperative in (65), for which he also proposes an empty operator movement analysis; he therefore cannot appeal to special properties of operator movement in this case.

Example 65
OPi opnieuw [ti over] nadenken, (over) dat probleem!
  again  about  prt-think  about  that problem
'Think about it again, that problem!'

Various solutions have been proposed for the acceptability contrast between (64b') and (65), which are all of a highly theory-internal nature: for completeness' sake, we will briefly summarize them. Den Dikken proposes that R-extraction must be licensed by the main verb and that finite imperatives are special in that they are not able to do this. This somewhat ad hoc proposal is not needed according to Barbiers (2007), as he claims that empty operator movement in imperatives is parasitic on case assignment: since the complement of the preposition is not assigned case by the verb, it follows that it cannot undergo empty operator movement either. Of course, this does still not account for the fact that the infinitival imperative in (65) is acceptable. Visser (1996) suggests that this contrast between finite and infinitival imperatives follows from the fact that only the latter allow empty operator movement into sentence-initial position: one way of formally expressing this (not proposed by Visser) is by saying that infinitival imperatives do not have an empty imperative operator. Note in passing, that (64b') is acceptable without the R-pronoun daar if the particle maar is added: Denk maar opnieuw over na, (over) dat probleem. Barbiers (2007/2013) suggests that this may be due to the fact that such particles create an additional position accessible for an empty operator that functions as the complement of a preposition; see Visser (1996) for a proposal that is similar in spirit.

[+]  III.  The analysis of Leg terug, dat boek! as forum imperative

An entirely different approach to imperatives of the type Leg terug, dat boek!'Put back, that book!' can be found in Postma & Rooryck (2007) and, especially, Postma (2013). They claim that such imperatives are forum imperatives, which are formally characterized by the fact that they are always accompanied by a particle. The examples in (66) show that such particles are not run-of-the-mill verbal particles: while the verb geven'to give' cannot normally co-occur with the particle op, the particle is possible in the imperative construction in (66b). Postma (2013) refers to such particles as forum particles.

Example 66
a. Marie geeft Peter dat boek (*op).
  Marie  gives  Peter  that book     prt.
  'Marie gives Peter that book.'
b. Geef op (dat boek)!
  give  prt.   that book

Forum imperative constructions also have various specific semantic properties. The participants involved in the eventuality expressed by the verb are always discourse-linked (part of the forum): (i) the implied subject refers to the addressee (as in all imperatives), (ii) an implied indirect object typically refers to the speaker, and (iii) the implied direct object typically refers to some entity in the vicinity of the addressee. Property (i) is clear from the fact that in (67a) the subject pronoun must be second person; any other subject pronoun would lead to an unacceptable result. For completeness' sake, note that the subject pronoun cannot be realized in the middle field of the clause.

Example 67
a. Geef op, jij/jullie!
  give  prt.  yousg/youpl
b. * Geef jij/jullie op!
  give  yousg/youpl  prt.

Property (ii) is illustrated in the (a)-examples in (68): while the regular finite imperative allows a goal to be expressed overtly, this is excluded in the case of the forum imperative. Property (iii) is illustrated in the (b)-examples: the noun phrase dit boek, which does not refer to a book in the vicinity of the addressee, can be used in the regular imperative but not in the forum imperative.

Example 68
a. Geef Peter dat boek!
regular imperative
  give  Peter that book
a'. * Geef Peter op, dat boek!
forum imperative
  give  Peter prt.  that book
b. Geef (me) dit boek!
regular imperative
  give   me  this book
b'. $ Geef op, dit boek!
forum imperative
  give  prt.  this book

The desired eventuality should furthermore be performed in the speaker's here-and-now, as is illustrated by the fact that the forum particle cannot be used in examples such as (69b), in which morgen'tomorrow' situates the intended eventuality after speech time.

Example 69
a. Geef (me) morgen dat boek!
regular imperative
  give   me  tomorrow  that book
  'Give me that book tomorrow!'
b. * Geef (me) morgen op, dat boek!
forum imperative
  give   me  tomorrow  prt. that book

Crucial for our discussion here is that the implied direct object cannot be overtly expressed in the middle field of the clause, but must appear after the forum particle.

Example 70
a. * Geef dat boek op!
  give  that book prt.
b. Geef op, dat boek!
  give  prt.  that book

A quick look at the examples in (66) to (70) reveals that the main generalization concerning forum imperatives is that the middle field of the construction is often empty: the arguments of the verb are typically left implicit and spatio-temporal adverbial phrases are impossible due to the fact that the desired eventuality should be located in the here-and-now of the speaker. It is, however, not the case that the middle field must be empty: certain adverbs and particles are possible, for example.

Example 71
a. Vertel snel op, jij/dat verhaal!
  tell  quickly  prt.  you/that story
  'Tell me quickly, you/that story!'
b. Vertel eens op, jij/dat verhaal!
  tell  prt  prt.  you/that story
  'Come on, tell me, you/that story!'

      Now consider the possibility that particle verbs like teruggeven'to give back' may also be used in forum imperatives, but that the verbal particle prevents the realization of an additional forum particle like op in Geef op! "Give it to me'. This would predict that particle verbs can be found in the regular and in the forum imperative construction: in the former case nominal objects must be overtly expressed in the middle field of the clause, whereas in the latter case the nominal objects are omitted or expressed in the right periphery of the clause, that is, after the particle.

Example 72
a. Geef dat boek terug!
regular imperative
  give  that book  back
b. Geef terug!
forum imperative
  give  back
b'. Geef terug, dat boek!
forum imperative
  give  back  that book

This would also account for the fact that there is no problem in overtly expressing the indirect object in examples such as (72a), but that doing so leads to an infelicitous result in the (b)-examples. This was already illustrated by the (b)-examples in (63), which are repeated in a somewhat different form as (73); example (73b) is marked with a number sign to indicate that it would be fully acceptable as a regular imperative if the noun phrase is interpreted as a theme (direct object).

Example 73
a. Geef Marie/haar dat boek terug!
regular imperative
  give  Marie/her  that book  back
b. # Geef Marie/haar terug!
forum imperative
  give  Marie/her  back
b'. % Geef Marie/haar terug, dat boek!
forum imperative
  give  Marie/her  back  that book

The fact illustrated earlier in (62) that the indirect object can only be placed after the particle if a resumptive pronoun is present also follows from this proposal: example (74a) can be analyzed as a regular imperative with right dislocation of the indirect object; example (74b) should be analyzed as a forum imperative but is unacceptable because the middle field of the construction is not empty and the indirect object refers to someone other than the speaker.

Example 74
a. Stuur die/hem dat boek toe, die jongen!
regular imperative
  send  that/him  that book  prt.  that boy
  'Send him that book, that boy!'
b. * Stuur ti dat boek toe, die jongen!
forum imperative
  send  that book  prt.  that boy

The contrast with respect to preposition stranding in (75) again follows from the fact that arguments of the verb cannot be expressed in the middle field of a forum imperative. Note in passing that on the assumption that (75b) is a forum imperative, there is reason for assuming that the pronominal part of the preposition over is missing, which would of course be another source of the ungrammaticality.

Example 75
a. Denk daarover na, (over) dat probleem!
regular imperative
  think  about.it  prt  about  that problem
  'Think about it, that problem!'
b. * Denk over na, (over) dat probleem!
forum imperative
  think  about  prt  about  that problem
[+]  IV.  Conclusion

This section discussed Barbiers (2007) hypothesis that the V1-order of Dutch imperatives is due to the fact that the sentence-initial position is occupied by an empty imperative operator, which blocks topicalization of other constituents. At first sight, his hypothesis seems incompatible with Den Dikken's (1992) hypothesis that examples such as Geef terug, dat boek!'Give back, that book!' involve empty operator movement into sentence-initial position because the sentence-initial position cannot receive two empty operators at the same time. Den Dikken and Barbiers solved this problem by assuming that the empty operator targets a position other than the specifier of CP. Whether taking this step is really needed is not entirely clear given that Geef terug, dat boek! may be an instantiation of the so-called forum imperative, which is characterized by the fact that the participants involved in the eventuality expressed by the verb are discourse-linked (and normally left unexpressed). It should be noted, however, that claiming this would leave us with the problem that parasitic gaps are claimed to be possible in examples such as (61): Berg [zonder pg te lezen] op, dat boek!'Put away that book without reading it'. In our discussion of this, we already indicated that we are not entirely sure whether parasitic gaps in such examples are as acceptable as parasitic gaps licensed by an overtly realized noun phrase, although they are certainly better than expected if we analyze such cases as forum imperatives. Since we have nothing enlightening to say about the precise status of such examples at the moment, we will not digress on this issue here; future research will have to show which of the two competing analyses of Geef terug, dat boek!' is the most promising one. Whatever the outcome of this research, we may conclude for the moment that the V1-nature of finite imperative constructions can be accounted for by adopting Barbiers' (2007) proposal that the clause-initial position of such constructions is filled by an empty imperative operator. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the V1-order is normally a superficial phonetic phenomenon.

References:
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
  • Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
  • Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
  • Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
  • Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
  • Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
  • Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
  • Den Dikken, Marcel1992Empty operator movement in Dutch imperativesGilbers, Dicky & Looyenga, Sietze (eds.)Language and Cognition 2, Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen51-64
  • Den Dikken, Marcel1992Empty operator movement in Dutch imperativesGilbers, Dicky & Looyenga, Sietze (eds.)Language and Cognition 2, Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen51-64
  • Den Dikken, Marcel1992Empty operator movement in Dutch imperativesGilbers, Dicky & Looyenga, Sietze (eds.)Language and Cognition 2, Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen51-64
  • Den Dikken, Marcel1992Empty operator movement in Dutch imperativesGilbers, Dicky & Looyenga, Sietze (eds.)Language and Cognition 2, Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen51-64
  • Den Dikken, Marcel1992Empty operator movement in Dutch imperativesGilbers, Dicky & Looyenga, Sietze (eds.)Language and Cognition 2, Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen51-64
  • Horst, Joop van der2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxisLeuvenUniversitaire Pers Leuven
  • Koopman, Hilda2007Topics in imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins
  • Koopman, Hilda2007Topics in imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins
  • Koopman, Hilda2007Topics in imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins
  • Postma, Gertjan2013Forumlezingen in imperatieven: lexicale constructies of productieve syntaxisNederlandse Taalkunde18268-288
  • Postma, Gertjan2013Forumlezingen in imperatieven: lexicale constructies of productieve syntaxisNederlandse Taalkunde18268-288
  • Postma, Gertjan & Rooryck, Johan2007Phase-recursion, restricted linguistic systems, and full language
  • Visser, Janneke1996Object drop in Dutch imperativesCremers, Crit & Den Dikken, Marcel (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996Amsterdam/Philadelphia257-268
  • Visser, Janneke1996Object drop in Dutch imperativesCremers, Crit & Den Dikken, Marcel (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996Amsterdam/Philadelphia257-268
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • 1.4.2. Imperative
    [94%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 1 Characterization and classification > 1.4. Mood
  • 6.5. Clausal subjects
    [94%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
  • 11.3.3. Topicalization
    [94%] 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
  • 10.3.2. Verb-first/second in embedded clauses?
    [94%] 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
  • 4.1.3. The comparative als/dan/van-phrase
    [93%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison > 4.1. Equative, comparative and superlative formation
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.