• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
11.3.7 Parasitic gaps
quickinfo

Wh-questions normally exhibit a one-to-one correspondence between wh-moved phrases and their traces, subsection I below will show that in prototypical cases such as (506a) traces are bound by a unique wh-moved phrase; the wh-phrase welk e boek en functions as the antecedent of the object gap indicated by the trace t. An example such as (506b) is an (apparent) exception to this otherwise robust generalization: the wh-phrase seems to function as the antecedent of both the object gap in the main clause and the object gap in the adverbial clause zonder te lezen. The formal linguistic literature refers to the interpretative gap in the adverbial clause as parasitic gap (pg) for reasons that will become clear in subsection II.

Example 506
a. Welke boeken heeft Jan ti opgeborgen?
  which books  has  Jan  prt.-filed
  'Which books has Jan filed?'
b. Welke boeken heeft Jan [zonder pgi te lezen] ti opgeborgen?
  which books  has  Jan  without  to read  prt.-filed
  'Which book has Jan filed without reading?'

As parasitic gap constructions have been studied on the basis of English data especially, Subsection II introduces the notion of parasitic gap on the basis of a small number of English examples. This will result in a set of five restrictions that are commonly assumed to be applicable to them. These restrictions will be taken as the starting point of our discussion of Dutch parasitic gap constructions in Subsection III.

readmore
[+]  I.  The bijection principle

One of the hallmarks of w h-movement is that wh-phrases in clause-initial position are associated with a more deeply embedded interpretative gap, as indicated by the structures in (507a&b). Such structures can be used as input for the semantic component of the grammar and be translated into semantic representations with a question operator and a variable, as in the primed examples.

Example 507
a. Wiei heeft Peter/hij ti vandaag bezocht?
  who  has  Peter/he  today  visited
  'Who did Peter/he visit today?'
a'. ?x (Peter/he visited x today)
b. Wiei heeft ti Jan/hem vandaag bezocht?
  who  has  Jan/him  today  visited
  'Who visited Jan/him today?'
b'. ?x (x visited Jan/him today)

There are several conditions on operator-variable representations in natural language that are not assumed for their counterparts in formal-logical systems. For example, while formal-logical systems allow vacuous quantifiers, that is, quantifiers that do not bind a variable, natural language does not. This can be seen as the result of a more general economy condition on natural language which prohibits superfluous elements in a representation: sentence (508a) is unacceptable despite the fact that a semanticist may consider its formal semantic counterpart in (508b) impeccable; cf. Chierchia & McConell-Ginet (1992:110).

Example 508
a. * Wie heeft Peter/hij Jan/hem vandaag bezocht?
  who has  Peter/he  Jan/him  today  visited
b. ?x (Peter/he visited Jan/him today)

Since a variable must be bound by an operator in order to form an interpretable sentence, the fact that the examples in (509) are uninterpretable does not come as a surprise; we will ignore the fact here that we do find constructions like (509a) in certain (e.g., generic) contexts that allow an implied theme argument and with pseudo-intransitive verbs, that is, verbs that take a cognate object.

Example 509
a. * Peter/hij heeft [e]object vandaag bezocht.
  Peter/he  has  today  visited
b. * Vandaag heeft [e]subject Jan/hem bezocht.
  today  has  Jan/him  visited

W h-moved phrases further differ from semantic operators in that they can normally bind a single interpretative gap at most: a sentence like $Wie heeft onderzocht?'Who has examined?' cannot be assigned the meaning indicated by the well-formed semantic representation in (510b); the only way to express this meaning is by using a reflexive pronoun: Wie heeft zichzelf onderzocht?'Who has examined himself?'.

Example 510
a. * Wiei heeft ti [e]object onderzocht?
  who  has  examined
b. ?x (x has examined x)

Koopman & Sportiche (1982) account for the observations above by postulating that natural language is subject to the bijection principle in (511); the specific phrasing of the principle is taken from Webelhuth (1992:143).

Example 511
Bijection principle
a. Every syntactic operator binds exactly one syntactic variable.
b. Every syntactic variable is bound by exactly one syntactic operator.
[+]  II.  Some characteristic properties of parasitic gaps

This subsection discusses an (apparent) problem for clause (511a) of the bijection principle in the sense that a single wh-phrase is related to more than one interpretative gap. Such cases have been studied intensively for English since Engdahl's (1983) seminal paper on this issue, but has received less attention in other languages. We will therefore introduce the notion of parasitic gap gap by using English examples. The results can then be used as a starting point for our description of Dutch in Subsection III. The discussion below is based on the more extensive review found in Culicover (2001).
      A standard example of a parasitic gap construction from English is (512a); given that the two interpretative object gaps are translated as variables bound by the same question operator in the informal semantic representation in (512b), this example seems to violate clause (511a) of the bijection principle.

Example 512
a. Which articlesi did John file ti [without reading pgi]?
b. ?x (x:articles) (Jan filed x without reading x)

The use of a trace in the object position of the main clause in (512a) is motivated by the fact that it can be independently established that wh-movement is possible from this position; cf. Which articlesi did John file ti? The reason for usingthe notion parasitic gap (pg) for the interpretative gap in the adverbial phrase is twofold. First, example (513a) shows that it cannot be a trace left by wh-movement of who, as adverbial clauses are islands for wh-extraction. Second, example (513b) shows that it cannot occur if the direct object of the main clause occurs in its base-position; the gap is thus "parasitic" on wh-movement of this phrase.

Example 513
a. * Whoi did John file the articles [without consulting ti]?
b. John filed a bunch of articles [without reading them/*pg)].

Parasitic gap constructions are not limited to wh-questions but also occur in other constructions derived by wh-movement. This is illustrated in example (514a) for a relative clause; examples (514b&c) show that wh-movement of the phonetically empty relative pronoun OP is possible from the object position of the relative clause but not from the object position of the adverbial clause. Note in passing that Engdahl assigns (514c) a question mark, while we use an asterisk: this is because Culicover (2001) simply calls this example ungrammatical.

Example 514
a. Here is the paperi [OPi that John read ti [before filing pgi]].
b. Here is the paperi [OPi that John read ti [before filing his mail]].
c. * Here is the paperi [OPi that John read his mail [before filing ti]].

Culicover (2001) provides a number of properties of parasitic gap constructions that are generally accepted, while noting that these claims have all been challenged in the literature at some point. An adapted version of his list is given as (515).

Example 515
Restrictions on English parasitic gap constructions
a. Landing-site restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps are in an A'-position.
b. Overt-movement restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps are overtly moved.
c. Anti-c-command restriction: the trace of the antecedent of the parasitic gap and the parasitic gap do not c-command each other.
d. Categorial restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps are noun phrases.
e. Multiple-island restriction: parasitic gaps and their antecedents cannot be separated by more than one island boundary.

Landing-site restriction (515a) refers to the fact that parasitic gap constructions typically occur in constructions derived by wh-movement; the English examples given above illustrate this point. This has led to the claim that the antecedent of the trace and the parasitic gap cannot be in an A-positions (that is, argument positions to which thematic roles, agreement features and/or case are assigned) but must be in an A'-position, which may account for the fact that parasitic gaps may also occur in, e.g., English heavy NP-shift constructions. We will see, however, that this claim is not generally accepted for Dutch parasitic gap constructions.
      The overt-movement restriction in (515b) is based on the standard generative assumption from the 1980's that wh-elements in situ undergo covert movement, that is, movement after the structure has been transferred to the phonological component of the grammar. Although this claim is no longer accepted by many generative linguists, the empirical issue still remains, which is that parasitic gaps cannot be licensed by wh-phrases occupying their base position; the wh-phrase which article in multiple question (516) does not license a parasitic gap. For convenience we will maintain the notion of overt-movement restriction without implying a specific stance on the issue of covert movement.

Example 516
* Who filed which articles [without reading pgi]?

The anti-c-command restriction in (515c) on the relation between the wh-trace and the parasitic gap can be derived from binding condition C, which forbids referential expressions to be A-bound, that is, to take a c-commanding antecedent in an argument position. This is done by extending to parasitic gaps the standard claim that wh-traces of nominal arguments exhibit the same binding behavior as referential expressions. The anti-c-command restriction can be used to account for the fact that subject traces block parasitic gaps more deeply embedded in their own clause, as illustrated by (517a&b), while traces left by wh-extraction of a subject from an embedded clause do not block parasitic gaps in matrix clauses, as illustrated by (517c). The examples are taken from Engdahl (1983) and Chomsky (1986); we will discuss a problem for the claim that wh-traces and parasitic gaps are subject to binding condition C in Subsection IIID, but we will accept this claim as a working hypothesis for what follows.

Example 517
a. * Which articlesi [ti got filed by John [without him reading pgi]]?
b. * Whoi [ti met you [before you recognized pgi]]?
c. Which papersi did John decide [before reading pgi] to tell his secretary [twere unavailable]?

The anti-c-command restriction also predicts the acceptability of examples like (518a&b), which are again taken from Engdahl (1983) and Chomsky (1986). It also accounts for the fact illustrated in the primed examples that substituting a simple gap for the complex noun phrase a picture of pg i is impossible: because the two gaps are both A'-bound by the wh-phrase in clause-initial position and the first gap c-commands the second, the second gap is incorrectly A-bound by the first gap. Note that on the assumption that nominal wh-traces and parasitic gaps are both subject to binding condition C, this result follows regardless of whether the first or the second gap is considered to be parasitic on wh-movement; we therefore did not specify the nature of the gaps in the primed examples.

Example 518
a. Which girli did you show [a picture of pgi] to ti?
a'. * Which girli did you show [ei] to [ei]?
b. Whoi would [a picture of pgi] surprise ti?
b'. * Whoi would [ei] surprise [ei]?

It should be noted that we can only maintain the anti-c-command restriction if we assume that the direct objects in (512)-(514) do not c-command the adjuncts containing the parasitic gaps. This assumption is consistent with the fact that complements are generated as the immediate sister of the selecting verb, but inconsistent with the c-command hierarchy that we introduced in Section N5.2.1.5, sub III; we refer the reader to the discussion of this issue in Contreras (1984), Koster (1987: Section 6.4) and Safir (1987), and to Lasnik (1999:ch.6) for a specific approach to English objects that may solve this problem.
      Categorial restriction (515d), according to which the wh-moved phrase must be nominal, has been claimed not to be cross-linguistically valid but can at least be seen as a strong tendency in English: wh-movement of APs or PPs normally does not license parasitic gaps. Two examples adapted from Cinque (1990:115) are given in (519); see Koster (1987:156-7) for more examples.

Example 519
a. * How tiredi can one feel ti [without being pgi]?
b. * [The man [to whomi I went ti [without speaking pgi]]] is there.

The examples above have shown that parasitic gaps are typically found in islands for wh-extraction, such as the adjuncts in (512) and (514) or the subject in (518b). Kayne (1984:ch.8) and Contreras (1984) have noted, however, that parasitic gaps cannot be embedded in islands within an island, as stated by the multiple-island restriction in (515e). This is illustrated by the contrasts in acceptability indicated in (520) and (521), in which the two (b)-examples should be construed as alternative realizations of the adverbial clauses in the (a)-examples, and the abbreviation OP again indicates the phonetically empty relative pronoun.

Example 520
a. the person [OPi that John described ti [adjunct ...]]
b. ? [adjunct without examining [object any pictures of pgi]].
b'. * [adjunct without [subject any pictures of pgi] being on file].
Example 521
a. the paper [OPi that we should destroy ti [adjunct ...]]
b. ? [adjunct before someone steals [object a copy of pgi]].
b'. * [adjunct before [subject a copy of pgi]] gets stolen by someone].

      Kayne detects a "sharp contrast" between the two alternative realizations of the adjunct clauses and attributes this to the fact that the parasitic gaps are embedded in a single (adjunct) island in the primeless (b)-examples but in two islands in the primed examples, an adjunct island and an additional subject island.
      Now that we have briefly discussed the five restrictions in (515), we conclude our brief survey of English parasitic gaps by noting that Engdahl (1983) has found a great deal of variation in speakers' judgments on parasitic gap constructions. Furthermore, it seems that the acceptability of parasitic gap constructions depends on the phrases they are embedded in; parasitic gaps in non-finite clauses such as (520b) are more likely to be accepted by speakers than parasitic gaps in finite clauses such as (521b). Or, stated somewhat differently, speakers who accept parasitic gaps in finite adjunct clauses such as (521b) will also accept them in non-finite adjunct clauses such as (520b), while the inverse does not necessarily hold. Engdahl's hierarchy is given in a shorter and slightly adapted form as (522): it expresses that parasitic gaps are best in infinitival adjunct clauses, somewhat less favored in finite argument/adjunct clauses, and least favored in relative clauses.

Example 522
Accessibility hierarchy for occurrences of parasitic gaps (simplified): infinitival adjunct clause > finite argument clauses > finite adjunct clauses > relative clauses
[+]  III.  Parasitic gaps in Dutch

Since Dutch parasitic gap constructions have received relatively little attention and since it is sometimes quite difficult to extract acceptability judgments from non-linguistic speakers, some of the acceptability judgments on the data below rely on our own intuitions; moreover, the attested variation in judgments implies that not all Dutch speakers will accept the judgments given here or elsewhere in the literature. The main point is, however, that many speakers do have the indicated contrasts between the examples in each set of examples. The reader is therefore requested to interpret the judgments as statements about the relative acceptability of the examples in each given set (which actually also holds for all other judgments provided in this work). The following subsections deal with parasitic gap constructions we find or do not find in Dutch by means of a discussion of the five generalizations in (515).

[+]  A.  The landing-site and overt-movement restriction in (515a&b)

Dutch and German data have given rise to an ardent debate about the landing-site restriction in (515a); this is related to the fact that parasitic gaps are not only licensed by wh-moved but also by scrambled phrases. It should be noted, however, that the debate is not only about the landing-site restriction as such, as it is intertwined with a much broader debate about the nature of scrambling: is it A- or A'-movement, or is it something totally different? In order to separate the two issues, we start by discussing some core data on parasitic gaps; this discussion will also touch upon the overt-movement restriction in (515b). After that, we continue with a brief discussion on the nature of scrambling, an issue discussed more extensively in Chapter 13. We will then introduce a test, based on binding, that can be used for discriminating between A- and A'-movement, which will be used in a more detailed discussion of the problematic scrambling data. Since we will see that there is no decisive argument against it, we will provisionally conclude that the landing-site restriction also applies to Dutch parasitic gap constructions. This does not imply that there are no problems left for this restriction, which we will demonstrate on the basis of passivized parasitic gap constructions.

[+]  1.  Some data

Landing-site restriction (515a) correctly predicts that wh-moved phrases may serve as antecedents of parasitic gaps. This is illustrated in (523) for a wh-question, a topicalization construction, and a relative clause.

Example 523
a. Welke boekeni heeft Jan [zonder pgi te lezen] ti opgeborgen?
  which books  has  Jan  without  to read  prt.-filed
  'Which books has Jan filed without reading?'
b. Deze boekeni heeft Jan [zonder pgi te lezen] ti opgeborgen?
  these books  has  Jan  without  to read  prt.-filed
  'These books, Jan has filed without reading.'
c. [De boeken [diei Jan [zonder pgi te lezen] ti opgeborgen heeft]] zijn weg.
  the books  which  Jan without  to read  prt.-filed  has  are  gone
  'The books that Jan has filed without reading are missing.'

The overt-movement restriction in (515b), on the other hand, does not seem to hold for Dutch as the multiple wh-question in (524a) is fully acceptable. The situation is, however, more complex than it seems at first sight, as (524b) is unacceptable.

Example 524
a. Wie heeft welke boekeni [zonder pgi te lezen] opgeborgen?
  who  has  which books   without  to read  prt.-filed
b. * Wie heeft [zonder pgi te lezen] welke boekeni opgeborgen?
  who  has  without  to read  which books  prt.-filed

Since the position of the object in (524b) is taken to be its base position within the VP, we may assume that this is the construction that resembles the English multiple wh-question in (516) most closely. It seems that (524a) is derived from this structure by means of leftward movement of the object into some structurally higher position; more precise representations of the examples in (524) are thus as indicated in (525).

Example 525
a. Wie heeft welke boekeni [zonder pgi te lezen] [VPti opgeborgen]?
=( 524a)
  who  has  which books   without  to read  prt.-filed
b. * Wie heeft [zonder pgi te lezen] [VP welke boekeni opgeborgen]?
=( 524b)
  who  has  without  to read  which books  prt.-filed

The leftward movement of the object in (525a) is known as scrambling, and the non-interrogative counterparts of the examples in (525) given in (526) show that scrambling is indeed able to license parasitic gaps; cf. Bennis & Hoekstra (1984).

Example 526
a. Jan heeft die boekeni [zonder pgi te lezen] [VPti opgeborgen]?
  Jan has  those books   without  to read  prt.-filed
  'Jan has filed these books without reading them.'
b. * Jan heeft [zonder pgi te lezen] [VP die boekeni opgeborgen]?
  Jan has  without  to read  those books  prt.-filed

The contrast between the (a)- and (b)-examples of (525) and (526) would follow from the landing-site and overt-movement restriction in (515a&b) if scrambling were an instance of A'-movement. The following subsection will show, however, that this is not easy to determine and that much depends on the specific version of the overall theory adopted.
      The examples in (527) illustrate again that antecedents of parasitic gaps can be scrambled or wh-moved phrases. These examples also show that parasitic gaps easily alternate with overt referential personal pronouns if their antecedent is a scrambled phrase (see, e.g., Bennis & Hoekstra 1984 and Huybregts & Van Riemsdijk 1985), but that this is harder if the antecedent is interrogative; this holds especially if the wh-phrase is non-D-linked, which is the prototypical use of the interrogative pronoun wat'what (although it sometimes can get a D-linked reading in specific contexts which will be ignored here)'.

Example 527
a. Jan heeft het boeki/heti [zonder pgi/heti te bekijken] ti weggelegd.
  Jan has  the book/it  without  pg/it  to look.at  away-put
  'Jan has put the book/it away without looking at it.'
b. Welke boeki heeft Jan [zonder pgi/?heti te bekijken] ti weggelegd?
  which book  has  Jan  without  pg/it  to look.at  away-put
  'Which book has Jan put away without looking at (it)?'
b'. Wati heeft Jan [zonder pgi/*heti te bekijken] ti weggelegd?
  what  has  Jan without  pg/it  to look.at  away-put

To our knowledge the contrasts in acceptability between the three types of example in (527) has not been observed before. It seems plausible to relate the differences to the degree of referentiality of the antecedents of the parasitic gap; referential noun phrases and pronouns obviously have a high degree of referentiality, while D-linked wh-phrases like welke boeken'which books' and non-D-linked wh-pronouns like wat'what' have an intermediate and a low degree of referentiality, respectively.

[+]  2.  A theoretical intermezzo: scrambling and A- and A'-movement

The term scrambling refers to the fact that in certain languages the word order of constituents may vary, and for Dutch and German it is normally used to refer to certain changes in the word order of the middle field of the clause. The notion is somewhat misleading, however, as it suggests that it refers to a single operation with well-defined properties. Chapter 13 will show, however, that there are various types of operation with quite different properties that may affect the word order of the middle field of the clause: some have properties of A-movement while other have properties of A'-movement. But even if we restrict the notion of scrambling to leftward movement of nominal arguments (that is, subjects and objects), it is very difficult to determine definitively what type of movement we are dealing with, as this is closely related to the overall theory that one adopts. This subsection contains a brief theoretical digression in order to illustrate this.
      The notion argument position (A-position) denotes positions in the clause that can be occupied by arguments of the verb only. Such positions are characterized by the fact that they can be assigned specific syntactic features, the three main types of which are: thematic roles, structural case and nominal agreement features (person, number, and gender). Prototypical A-positions are the subject and the object position. The notion non-argument position (A'-position) denotes positions that can also be occupied by non-arguments (adverbial phrases, etc.). Such positions function as landing sites for elements with a specific logico-semantic role (such as operator or negation) or an information-structural function (topic, focus, etc.); a prototypical A'-position is the clause-initial position that can be filled by any clausal constituent as a result of wh-movement.
      The number of A- and A'-positions postulated in generative grammar has increased considerably over the years. As for A-positions for nominal arguments of verbs, there were only two positions available in the early 1980's: the object and the subject position in the simplified structure in (528a). The object position within VP is the position to which the thematic role of theme, accusative case and (for languages that exhibit object agreement) object agreement features can be assigned; the subject position is the position to which the thematic role of agent, nominative case and the subject agreement features can be assigned. Arguments can sometimes also pick up their features in different places; in the unaccusative construction in (528b) the subject John is base-generated in the object position, where it is assigned the thematic role theme, and subsequently moved into the subject position, where it is assigned nominative case and the subject agreement features.

Example 528
a. [S John T(ense) [VP buys the book]].
b. [S Johni T(ense) [VPti leaves]].

Given that the object and subject positions exhaust the A-positions postulated it is a virtual necessity to assume that scrambling is A'-movement targetings some A'-position in the middle field of the clause. It is therefore not surprising that an early article such as Bennis and Hoekstra (1984) arrives at this conclusion.
      The fact illustrated in (528b) that the syntactic features of a certain argument can be scattered over more than one position within the clause has ultimately given rise to the hypothesis that there is a one-to-one relationship between features and positions. For example, instead of assuming that all features for the direct object are generated in a single position, it is now generally assumed that these are assigned by different functional heads like those indicated by capitals in (529) to their complement or specifier: the main verb assigns the role theme, the AGR-head assigns the agreement features and the CASE-head assigns accusative case. Something similar is assumed for subjects. Note that the names used in (529) for these functional heads are just randomly chosen. given that a large number of implementations of the main idea can be found in the literature since Pollock's (1989) seminal paper on this issue.

Example 529
[XP [accusative] CASE [AGRP [person, number, gender] AGR [VP V theme]]]

Since all A-positions in (529) are potential landing sites for the theme argument, it will be clear that the number of potential A-movements in the derivation of sentences has vastly increased compared to the earlier proposal in (528); the same holds in fact for verb movement, as all functional heads in (529) are assumed to be potential landings sites for the verb. This makes it possible to analyze scrambling of nominal arguments as A-movement, the position taken in Broekhuis (2008/2011), who argues that the theme position in (529) is cross-linguistically the base position of the object, that the agreement features are located in the object position preceding the verb in clause-final position (which in earlier versions of the theory was considered to be the base position of the object in Dutch), and that scrambling of the object targets the accusative position.
      Since the seminal work by Haegeman & Zanuttini (1991), Haegeman (1995) and Rizzi (1996/1997), there has also been a proliferation of A'-positions; while in the early 1980's there was just one clearly defined A'-position, the landing site of wh-movement, more recent research claims to have identified a large number of additional A'-positions in structurally lower positions, which can be targeted by negative, focused, topical, quantified phrases, etc. Again, this makes it possible to analyze certain forms of scrambling (including those involving leftward movement of nominal arguments) as A'-movement. All of this implies that we cannot simply appeal to theory-internal considerations, but must develop empirical tests for supporting claims on the A- or A'-status of a specific form of scrambling.

[+]  3.  Test for determining A- and A'-movement: Binding

We will use binding as a diagnostic tool in order to establish whether the object movement found in the scrambling variant of the parasitic gap construction should be considered A- or A'-movement, as these movement types can be shown to differ in whether of not they affect binding relations. We illustrate this by using English data in order not to bias our discussion of Dutch beforehand.
      A'-movement does not alter binding options, as is clear from the examples in (530): the (a)-examples show that topicalization of the reflexive pronoun does not change its binding potential and the (b)-examples that topicalization of a potential antecedent does not create new binding posisibilities. We refer the reader to Section 11.3.6 on reconstruction for a more extensive discussion as well as the relevant Dutch data.

Example 530
a. John admires himself the most.
a'. Himselfi John admires ti the most.
b. *Ibelieve himself to admire Bill the most.
b'. * Billi, I believe himself to admire ti the most.

A-movement, on the other hand, does affect binding, as is clear from the subject raising examples in (531), taken from Den Dikken (1995); see Section 5.2.2.2 for an introduction to subject raising. The traces indicate the current standard analysis of examples of this sort: in (531a) the expletive there is raised from the subject position of the infinitival clause into the subject position of the matrix clause; in (531b), it is the noun phrase some applicant s that is ultimately raised into the subject position of the clause. The crucial thing is that in (531a) the noun phrase some applicant s is clearly located in the infinitival clause and therefore does not c-command the complement of the to-PP, the reciprocal each other, while in (531b) the noun phrase some applicant s is moved into the subject position of the matrix clause and does c-command the reciprocal each other from this position. The acceptability contrast between the two examples thus shows that A-movement differs form A'-movement in that it does affect binding.

Example 531
a. * Therei seem to each other [ti to be some applicantsi eligible to the job].
b. Some applicantsi seem to each other [t'i to ti be eligible to the job].

The examples in (532) show essentially the same for the bound variable reading of referential pronouns: the quantifier in (532a) is embedded in the infinitival clause and therefore does not c-command the pronoun embedded in the complement of the to-PP, while the quantifier in (532b) is in the subject position of the matrix clause, from which it does c-command the pronoun. This accounts for the fact that the bound variable reading is only available in the latter case.

Example 532
a. * Therei seems to his mother [ti to be someone eligible for the job].
b. Someone seems to his mother [t'i to be ti eligible for the job].
[+]  4.  Empirical problems for the landing-site restriction: Webelhuth's paradox

The contrast between A- and A'-movement with respect to binding discussed in the previous subsection has played a major role in the discussion of the question as to whether scrambling of nominal arguments should be seen as A- or A'-movement, or perhaps even does not involve movement at all; a representative sample of these approaches can be found in Corver & Van Riemsdijk (1994).
      Webelhuth (1989/1992) has argued that Dutch/German object scrambling exhibits properties of both A- and A'-movement in that object scrambling not only licenses parasitic gaps, but also feeds binding, a fact known as Webelhuth's Paradox. That object scrambling may license parasitic gaps was already illustrated in (526), and that it may also feed anaphor binding is illustrated in (533); cf. Vanden Wyngaerd (1988/1989). Note in passing that example (533a) seems to improve somewhat if the adverbial phrase namens elkaar'on behalf of each other' is assigned contrastive accent; we will ignore this effect here, which may indicate that (533a) is derived from (533b) by means of reconstructible focus movement.

Example 533
a. * Hij heeft namens elkaar dejongens bezocht.
  he  has  on behalf of each other  the boys  visited
b. Hij heeft dejongensi namens elkaar ti bezocht.
  he  has  the boys  on behalf of each other  visited
  'He visited the boys on behalf of each other.'

Webelhuth's crucial observation, illustrated by the German example in (534), is that scrambling can simultaneously feed binding and license a parasitic gap. The structure indicated is the one assigned by Webelhuth: the scrambled quantified direct/accusative object jeden gast binds the possessive pronoun embedded in the indirect/dative object seinem Nachbarn'his neighbor', which licenses a bound variable reading, while it simultaneously licenses a parasitic gap. Such examples cannot be reproduced in Dutch because it does not easily allow inversion of indirect and direct objects in double object constructions.

Example 534
Peter hat jeden gasti [ohne pgi anzuschauen] seinem Nachbarn vorgesteld.
  Peter has  each guest  without  to.look-at  his neighbor introduced
'Peter introduced each guest to his neighbor without looking at him (each guest).'

Webelhuth assigns examples such as (534) a question mark, noting that they are "as good or as bad as" other parasitic gap constructions. He concludes from these examples that the dichotomy between A- and A'-positions is too coarse, and that we have to postulate a third, Janus-faced position that exhibits properties of both A- and A'-positions. This reasoning was sound at the time of Webelhuth's publication, but the increase of A- and A'-positions that followed in the 1990's allows a somewhat different view on examples of this kind: instead of assuming that the scrambled phrase is moved into its surface position in one fell swoop, we can now claim that it arrives there in a step-by-step fashion; see Mahajan (1990/1994) for early suggestions of this sort. This results in structures such as given in (535) with an additional trace t' added: if the first movement step is A-movement, the added trace is in an A-position and thus able to bind the reciprocal/possessive pronoun; if the second step is A'-movement, the scrambled phrase ends up in an A'-position, from which it can license the parasitic gap.

Example 535
Peter hat jeden gasti [ohne pgi anzuschauen] t'i seinem Nachbarn ti vorgesteld.
  Peter has each guest without  to.look-at  his neighbor  introduced
'Peter introduced each guest to his neighbor without looking at him (each guest).'

Since it has generally been assumed since Chomsky (1986) that A'-movement cannot precede A-movement, a restriction which has become known as the ban on improper movement, the proposed solution for Webelhuth's paradox makes a very strong prediction: the phrase containing the parasitic gap must be in a structurally higher position than the phrase containing the A-bound pronoun. This does not seem easy to test, however. At first sight, the German example in (536a), taken from Mahajan (1990:60), seems to confirm this prediction: since the direct object binds a parasitic gap, it must be in an A'-position and therefore cannot bind the possessive pronoun.

Example 536
a. *? Peter hat jeden gasti seinem Nachbarn [ohne pgi anzuschauen] ti vorgesteld.
  Peter has each guest  his neighbor  without  to look-at  introduced
b. *? Peter hat jeden gasti der Maria [ohne pgi anzuschauen] ti vorgesteld.
  Peter  had  each guest  the Marie  without  to look-at  introduced

It should be noted, however, that Müller & Sternefeld (1994) and Lee & Santorini (1994) claim that replacement of the indirect object seinem Nachbarn by an indirect object without a pronoun, such as der Maria in (536b), does not improve the result. This suggests that example (536a) is excluded for independent reasons and therefore does not bear on the issue under discussion. We cannot replicate the German data for Dutch double object constructions because indirect objects normally precede direct objects. But perhaps the examples in (537), in which the bound pronoun and the parasitic gap are both embedded in an adjunct, can be used to illustrate the same thing; note that the (b)-examples should be read as continuations of the (a)-example.

Example 537
a. dat Jan de rivaleni ...
  that  Jan the rivals
b. [zonder pgi aan te kijken] t'i namens elkaar ti feliciteert.
  without  prt. to look  on.behalf.of each.other  congratulates
b'. ?? namens elkaar t'i [zonder pgi aan te kijken] ti feliciteert.
  on.behalf.of each.other  without  prt. to look  congratulates

The judgments on these examples are somewhat problematic, however. First, we should note that Neeleman (1994a) gives the continuation in (537b') as acceptable, which means that the judgment given here is not uncontroversial. Second, we tend to think that this continuation only leads to a marginally acceptable result if the adverbial PP namens elkaar is followed by a brief intonation break. If so, the infinitival clause may be epenthetic and this would much complicate the analysis because it is often assumed that epenthetic phrases are clause-external. This means that the status of the continuation in (537b') is simply insufficiently clear, so that we cannot base any firm conclusion on this case. We therefore provisionally assume that the predictions that follow from the ban on improper movement are essentially correct until more conclusive counterevidence is provided.
      Note that Neeleman provides example (537b') in order to argue that scrambling is in fact not a movement operation; he argues instead that scrambled phrases are base-generated in their surface position, as indicated in representation (538a): if true, this would imply that the landing-site and the overt-movement restriction should both be rejected. Neeleman claims that nominalizations such as (538b) also support the hypothesis that parasitic gaps can be licensed by noun phrases occupying their base-position: the noun phrase boeken is able to license the parasitic gap despite the fact that is base-generated as the complement of the preposition van.

Example 538
a. Jan bracht zijn boekeni [zonder pgi in te kijken] terug.
  Jan brought  his books  without  into  to look  back
  'Jan brought his books back without looking into them.'
b. het [zonder pgi in te kijken] terugbrengen van boekeni
  the   without  into to look  bring-back  of books

Although this argument might have been sound in the early 1990's, in more recent years it has been argued that there is much more movement within noun phrases than meets the eye; see Hoekstra (1999) for an analysis of this example that adopts the movement approach to parasitic gaps. It is therefore no longer evident that example (538b) provides evidence in favor of the base-generation approach to parasitic gaps; we will return to this approach in the next subsection, where it will be shown to have a serious empirical inadequacy.

[+]  5.  A final problem for the landing-site restriction: passive constructions

The previous subsection has shown that Webelhuth's paradox receives a more or lesss natural explanation in the more recent versions of generative grammar that make more clause-internal A- and A'-positions available. There is, however, still a serious problem for landing-site restriction (515a), as various linguists have claimed independently of each other that parasitic gaps can occur in Dutch passive constructions. Broekhuis (1987/1992) claims that the result is somewhat less acceptable than in other cases but attributes this to the fact that the implied PRO-subject of the infinitival clause requires a controller (cf. Van Haaften 1991), as is clear from the fact illustrated in (539a) that the construction is also marked if the parasitic gap is replaced by an overt pronoun. De Hoop & Kosmeijer (1995) and Neeleman (1994a) give their examples as straightforwardly acceptable, which may be related to the fact that they include an agentive door-phrase, which may help to identify the implied PRO-subject; example (539b) shows that adding a door-phase indeed improves the parasitic gap construction in (539a).

Example 539
a. ? dat het boeki [zonder PRO zei/pgi te bekijken] ti werd weggelegd.
  that  the book  without  them/pg  to look.at  was  away-put
  'that the book was put away without looking at it.'
b. dat het boeki door Jan [zonder PRO pgi te bekijken] ti werd weggelegd.
  that  the book  by Jan  without  to look.at  was  away-put
  'that the book was put away by John without looking at it.'

To our knowledge, the consequences of the relative acceptability of the passive constructions in (539) have not yet been fleshed out. Broekhuis (1987/1992) suggests that the subject position is in fact not an A- but an A'-position in Dutch, which he supports by claiming that subjects of subject raising constructions such as (540a) are not able to bind (into) an indirect object of the matrix clause; cf. the discussion of the English examples in (531) and (532). Much rests on his claim that examples such as (540) are ungrammatical but this may be an overstatement; the judgments may simply not be clear enough to draw any firm conclusions.

Example 540
a. ? Zij leken elkaar/zichzelf [TPti ziek te zijn].
  they  seems  each.other/themselves  ill  to be
  'They seemed to each other/themselves to be ill.'
b. ? Iedereeni leek zijn moeder [TPti de beste kandidaat te zijn].
  everyone  seemed  his mother  the best candidate  to be
  'Everyone seemed to his mother to be the best candidate.'

      Another possibility, which has not been explored so far, is that the nominative noun phrase die boeken does not occupy the subject position at all in examples like (539). This is a plausible option because definite noun phrases can easily be shown not to occupy the regular subject position if they are part of the new information focus of the clause. This is illustrated in (541a), which shows that the definite noun phrase need not be right-adjacent to the complementizer dat'that' but may also occur in a more rightward position. That information structure is involved is clear from the fact that (phonetically reduced) referential subject pronouns, which are intrinsically part of the presupposition of the clause, do not have this option; cf. Section 13.2.

Example 541
a. dat <de boeken> waarschijnlijk <de boeken> verkocht worden.
  that     the books  probably  sold  are
  'that the books probably are to be sold.'
b. dat <ze> waarschijnlijk <*ze> verkocht worden.
  that   they  probably  sold  are
  'that they probably are to be sold.'

This would predict that the examples in (539) would become unacceptable if we substitute a referential pronoun for the noun phrase die boeken'those books'. It is not clear to us whether this prediction turns out to be true; although the examples in (542) may indeed be somewhat harder to interpret, this may simply be a side effect of the fact that they are given without an appropriate context.

Example 542
a. ?? dat zei [zonder PRO pgi te lezen] ti werden opgeborgen.
  that  they  without  to read  were  prt.-filed
  'that they were filed without reading them.'
b. ? dat zei door Jan [zonder PRO pgi te lezen] ti werden opgeborgen.
  that  they  by Jan  without  to read  were  prt.-filed
  'that they were filed by Jan without reading them.'

De Hoop & Kosmeijer (1995) and Neeleman (1994a) claim that parasitic gaps can be licensed by an antecedent in an A-position, which amounts to saying that the landing-site restriction does not apply to Dutch. Their claim further implies that the standard assumption that parasitic gaps are subject to binding condition C should be replaced by the assumption that they are subject to binding condition A or B. The fact that the antecedent of a parasitic gap is external to the infinitival clause in (543) suggests that the parasitic gap is free in its local domain; it is therefore clear that parasitic gaps are not subject to binding condition A.

Example 543
Subjecti .... (door NPj) [zonder PROj .... pgi .... te Vinfinitive] ti ...
passive

The claim that the antecedent can be in an A-position thus inevitably leads to the conclusion that parasitic gaps are subject to binding condition B. This, in its turn, predicts that the antecedent of the parasitic gap may be bound by the subject of an (in)transitive matrix clause in the representation in (544a). We have not been able to construct such cases but this might be related to Van Haaften's claim that the implicit PRO-subject of the infinitival adjunct clause is normally controlled by the subject: if the subject controls PRO and binds the parasitic gap, this results in a violation of binding condition B because the parasitic gap would then also be bound within its local domain by the PRO-subject. A concrete example that illustrates this point is given in (544b).

Example 544
a. * [Subjecti .... [zonder PROi .... pgi .... te Vinfinitive] ...]
active
b. Jani werkte [zonder PROi zichzelfi/*pgi rust to gunnen].
  Jan  worked  without  himself/pg  rest to allow
  'Jan worked without allowing himself any rest.'

The claim that parasitic gaps are subject to binding condition B also predicts, however, that they behave like referential personal pronouns in that they can be bound by a nominal argument in some higher clause, but this is at odds with the contrast found in (545), which shows that while the referential personal pronoun haar'her' can be bound by the subject of the highest clause, Els, the parasitic gap cannot; cf. Bennis (1986:55).

Example 545
Elsi zei [dat Janj [zonder PROj haari/*pgi te raadplegen] daartoe besloten had].
  Els  said   that  Jan  without  her/pg  to consult to.that decided  had
'Els said that Jan had decided that without consulting her.'

If we want to maintain that parasitic gaps are subject to binding condition B, we can only account for this contrast in a principled way by appealing to one of the other restrictions in (515). If we follow De Hoop & Kosmeijer (1995) in adopting the traditional claim that the gap of the infinitival clause is parasitic on some movement operation in the matrix clause, we can appeal to the anti-c-command restriction in (515c), which will be discussed in the next subsection. If we follow Neeleman's (1994a) base-generation approach, the overt movement and anti-c-command restriction are no longer applicable, while the categorial and island restriction are both satisfied; this approach therefore requires the introduction of some (yet unknown) ad hoc stipulation.
      This subsection has discussed a final problem for the landing-site restriction by showing that the subject of Dutch passives can function as the antecedent of a parasitic gap. We have shown that if the antecedent of parasitic gaps can indeed be located in an A-position, the movement approach should be considered superior to a base-generation approach. We may also consider the possibility, however, that Dutch parasitic gaps are not true parasitic gaps, as has been proposed on other grounds for Dutch by Huybregts & van Riemsdijk (1985) as well as for German (see Culicover 2001 for references), but this seems less attractive because Dutch parasitic gaps seem to be well-behaved with respect to the other restrictions in (515). Yet another possibility is that there is simply something special about the infinitival clauses in the passive constructions in (539), given that Van Haaften's (1991:108) comparable passive examples without a parasitic gap are all severely degraded regardless of the presence of a door-phrase; this is illustrated in (546b).

Example 546
a. De politiei arresteerde mij [zonder PROi zichi te legitimeren].
  the police  arrested  me  without  refl  to identify
  'The police arrested me without identifying themselves.'
b. * Ik werd (door de politiei) gearresteerd [zonder PROi zichi te legitimeren].
  was  by the police  arrested  without  refl  to identify

If the PRO-subject of an adverbial zonder-clause must indeed be controlled by the subject of the matrix clause, the examples in (539) are not only surprising because they violate the landing-site restriction, but also because they exhibit exceptional control behavior. This should make us cautious not to jump to far-reaching conclusions on the basis of these examples only.
      Our discussion of parasitic gaps in passive constructions has not resulted in any clear conclusion but ended with a list of possible routes one might take to approach such examples. Since we have no further insights to offer at the moment, we leave this issue to future research.

[+]  B.  The anti-c-command restriction in (515c)

This subsection investigates the anti-c-command restriction, according to which the parasitic gap and the trace of its antecedent are not allowed to c-command each other, subsection II has mentioned that Engdahl (1983) found that the acceptability of parasitic gap constructions depends on the nature of the clause embedding the parasitic gap, as expressed by the accessibilityhierarchy in (547). Our discussion in the following subsections will follow this hierarchy with one divergence related to the fact that Engdahl's hierarchy is restricted to clauses: it does not include English cases such as Whoi would [a picture of pgi] surprise ti? in which the parasitic gap is embedded in a noun phrase. We will discuss the Dutch counterpart of these examples before the discussion of parasitic gaps embedded in relative clauses.

Example 547
Accessibility hierarchy for occurrences of parasitic gaps (simplified): infinitival adjunct clause > finite argument clauses > finite adjunct clauses > relative clauses

The discussion in the following subsections is greatly indebted to Bennis (1986:ch.1), which in its turn is based on earlier work of his with Teun Hoekstra (1984); Subsection 1 will include a discussion of an important restriction on Dutch parasitic gap constructions related to preposition stranding that is taken from this work.

[+]  1.  Parasitic gaps embedded in infinitival adjunct clause

All Dutch examples so far involve parasitic gaps embedded in an infinitival adjunct clause and this is not without reason: as stated by the accessibility hierarchy in (547), this is by far the easiest location to find parasitic gaps. We have seen that the antecedent of a parasitic gap can be a scrambled or a wh-moved phrase; this is illustrated again by means of the examples in (548). Recall from Subsection A that parasitic gaps may alternate with overt pronouns in the scrambling case, but that this is less common in wh-constructions, especially if the wh-phrase is a non-D-linked pronoun such as wat'what'. Since the reader may also want to have information on the distribution of the pronominal counterparts of parasitic gaps, we will often prefer scrambling constructions for illustration in what follows.

Example 548
a. Jan heeft het boeki [zonder pgi/heti te bekijken] ti weggelegd.
  Jan has  the book   without  pg/it  to look.at  away-put
  'Jan has put the book/it away without looking at it.'
b. Welke boeki heeft Jan [zonder pgi/?heti te bekijken] ti weggelegd?
  which book  has  Jan  without  pg/it  to look.at  away-put
  'Which book has Jan put away without looking at (it)?'
b'. Wati heeft Jan [zonder pgi/*heti te bekijken] ti weggelegd?
  what  has  Jan without  pg/it  to look.at  away-put

If we follow the standard assumption that the object traces in (548) are embedded within the VP while the adjunct clauses are located external to the VP, the acceptability of the parasitic gap constructions is expected as far as the anti-c-command restriction is concerned. The examples in the literature mostly involve cases in which the adjunct clause precedes the verb(s) in clause-final position. This raises the question as to what happens if such clauses are extraposed, that is, follow the verb(s) in clause-final position. Although speakers have varying judgments on the precise status of the parasitic gap constructions in (549), they generally agree that they are degraded compared to those in (548a&b); we should note, however, that Huybregts & van Riemsdijk (1985) give a similar example as fully acceptable.

Example 549
a. Jan heeft die boekeniti weggelegd [zonder zei/?pgi te bekijken].
  Jan has  those books  away-put  without  them/pg  to look.at
  'Jan has put the books away without looking at them.'
b. Welke boekeni heeft Jan ti weggelegd [zonder zei/??pgi te bekijken]?
  which books  has  Jan away-put  without  them/pg  to look.at
  'Which books has Jan put away without looking at them?'

On the assumption that the difference in word order corresponds to a difference in structure, it seems feasible to account for the differences in judgment by appealing to the anti-c-command restriction. This may also account for the fact that acceptability contrasts such as indicated in (548b) and (549b) have not been reported for English; that parasitic gaps and referential pronouns are assumed to alternate freely may be due to the fact that often it cannot immediately be observed from the linear order of the utterances in this language whether or not extraposition has occurred. We leave exploration of this suggestion to future research; we will briefly return to extraposition in Subsections 2 and 3.
      The anti-c-command restriction also predicts that parasitic gaps in infinitival adjunct clauses cannot be licensed by the subject of the first higher matrix clause, subsection A5 has already shown that it is very difficult to test this prediction because parasitic gaps are excluded in such constructions for independent reasons: the discussion of (544) has shown that PRO-subjects of infinitival adjunct clauses are normally controlled by the subject of the matrix clause and that parasitic gaps are consequently excluded because they would be locally bound by PRO. The anti-c-command restriction can, however, easily be demonstrated by examples in which the antecedent of the parasitic gap is a nominal argument in some higher clause; this was already shown for a subject in (545) and illustrated again for a direct object in (550).

Example 550
Ik vertelde Elsi [dat Janj [zonder PROj haari/*pgi te consulteren] daartoe besloten had].
  told  Els  that  Jan  without  her/pg  to consult  to.that decided  had
'I told Els that Jan had decided that without consulting her.'

      Although parasitic gaps are virtually perfect in infinitival adjunct clauses (and even preferred to overt pronouns in wh-questions), they are less common in Dutch than in English. The cause of this is that Dutch differs from English in not allowing preposition stranding by extraction of a noun phrase or a pronoun; cf. (551b). Preposition stranding arises only as a result of R-extraction from pronominalized PPs such as er/daar/waar'P it/that/what'; cf. (551c). We refer the reader to Chapter P5 for detailed and more careful discussion.

Example 551
a. Jan heeft op het boek gewacht.
  Jan has  for the book  waited
  'Jan has waited for the book.'
b. * Welk boeki/Wati heeft Jan [PP op ti] gewacht.
  which book/what  has  Jan  for  waited
  Intended meaning: 'Which book/What has Jan waited for?'
c. Waari heeft Jan [PPti op] gewacht?
  where  has  Jan  for  waited
  'What has Jan waited for?'

The ban on preposition stranding by extraction of noun phrases and pronouns severely restricts the construction types in which parasitic gaps may occur; cf. Bennis (1986). First, R-pronouns such as er/daar/waar/... are not able to act as antecedents of parasitic gaps in nominal argument position, as illustrated by the (a)-examples in (552). Second, noun phrases and pronouns are not able to license parasitic gaps in PPs, as illustrated by the (b)-examples. Acceptable results arise only if a noun phrase or pronoun licenses a parasitic gap in a nominal argument position, as in all examples given earlier, or if an R-pronoun licenses a parasitic gap within a PP, as illustrated in the (c)-examples.

Example 552
a. Jan heeft [zonder heti te lezen] uit dit boeki geciteerd.
  Jan has  without  it  to read  from this book  cited
  'Jan has quoted from this book without reading it.'
a'. Jan heeft daari [zonder heti/*pgi te lezen] [PPti uit] geciteerd.
  Jan has  there  without it/pg  to read  from  cited
b. Jan heeft [zonder [PP eri in] te kijken] het boeki besproken.
  Jan has  without  there  into  to look  the book  reviewed
  'Jan has reviewed the book without perusing it.'
b'. Jan heeft het boeki [zonder [PP eri/*pgi in] te kijken] besproken.
  Jan has  the book  without  there/pg  into  to look  reviewed
c. Jan heeft [zonder [PP eri in] te kijken] uit dit boeki geciteerd.
  Jan has  without  there  into  to look  from this book cited
  'Jan has quoted from the book without glancing through it.'
c'. Jan heeft daari [zonder [PP eri/pgi in] te kijken] [PPti uit] geciteerd.
  Jan has  there  without  there/pg  into  to look  from  cited

Because the unacceptability of the parasitic gap constructions in (552a'&b') is not due to problems with the anti-c-command restriction, we may conclude from examples like (545) and (550) that the anti-c-command restriction applies to Dutch in full force, ... provided that it should be possible for a parasitic gap to have an antecedent external to its minimal finite argument clause; this is the topic of the next subsection.

[+]  2.  Parasitic gaps embedded in finite argument clauses

This subsection discusses parasitic gap constructions in which the parasitic gap has an antecedent external to its own minimal finite argument clause. The examples in (545) and (550) have already shown that the anti-c-command restriction (binding condition C) does not allow the subject/object of a matrix clause to function as the antecedent of a parasitic gap within an infinitival adjunct clause embedded in a finite complement clause. The same is shown in (553) for the somewhat simpler abstract structures in which the parasitic gap functions as a nominal argument of the finite argument clause itself; the primed examples provide concrete instantiations of these structures. We do not give similar cases in which the parasitic gap is embedded in a PP because the previous subsection has shown that noun phrases and pronouns cannot license such parasitic gaps.

Example 553
a. * NPi V ... [CP ... C [TP ... pgi ....]].
a'. Jani vroeg Mariej [of zijj hemi/*pgi een baan kon aanbieden].
  Jan  asked  Marie   if  she  him/pg  a job  could  prt.-offer
  'Jan asked Marie whether she could offer him a job.'
b. * NPi V ... NPj ...[CP ... C [TP ... pgj ....]].
b'. Mariei vertelde Janj [dat ziji hemj/*pgj een baan kon aanbieden].
  Marie  told  Jan  that  she  him/pg  a job could offer
  'Marie told Jan that she could offer him a job.'

In order to see whether an antecedent in a matrix clause can license a parasitic gap in a complement clause, we have to appeal to wh-moved complements of PPs (in order to avoid a violation of the anti-c-command restriction). Since nominal phrases cannot strand prepositions, we can confine our discussion to structures like (554a&b), in which some PP in the matrix clause has been split by R-extraction.

Example 554
a. Waari V ... [PPti P] (V) [CP ... C [TP ... [PP P pgi] ....]]?
b. het boeki [waari ... [PPti P] V [CP ... C [TP ... [PP P pgi] ...]]]

The parasitic gaps in the structures in (554) are also embedded in a PP because the previous subsection has shown that R-pronouns cannot license parasitic gaps in nominal argument positions; that example (555) is not acceptable with a parasitic gap is thus expected.

Example 555
het boeki [waari Jan [ti over] zei [dat hij heti/*pgi zou kopen]]
  the book  where  Jan  about  said  that  he  it/pg  would buy
'the book about which Jan said that he would buy it'

This leaves us with the option that a wh-moved R-pronoun binds a parasitic gap embedded in a PP. Bennis (1986) claims that such cases are indeed grammatical. His example is given as (556a); although we are not aware of any objections to his judgment in the literature, we assign to this example a percentage sign because we tend to think that the parasitic gap construction is marked compared to example (556b) with the overt R-pronoun er. Observe that the structure assigned to the parasitic gap construction in (556a) is quite different from what Bennis suggests; we return to the reason for this presently.

Example 556
Dit is het artikeli [waari ik [ti over] zei ...
  this  is the article  where  about  said
'This is the article about which I said ...'
a. % ... [dat Harry een reactie [op pgi] moest schrijven]].
  that  Harry  a reply   to  had.to  write
  '... that Harry had to write a reply to.'
b. ... [dat Harry eri een reactie op moest schrijven]].
  that  Harry  there  a reply  to  had.to  write
  '... that Harry had to write a reply to.'

Another example with the abstract structure in (554b), taken from Huybregts & Van Riemsdijk (1985), is given as (557a). Although this example is given as fully grammatical, we again assigned it a percentage sign because it seems to be marked compared to the construction in (557b) with the overt R-pronoun er.

Example 557
Dit is een boeki [waar ik [ti van] denk ...
  this  is  a book where I  of  think
'This is a book of which I think ...'
a. % ... [dat Jan al tijden [naar pgi] verlangt]].
  that  Jan already times  for  long
  '... that Jan has longed for for ages.'
b. ... [dat Jan er al tijden naar] verlangt]].
  that  Jan there  already times  for  longs
  '... that Jan has longed for it for ages.'

The contrasts we detect between the (a)- and (b)-continuations in (556) and (557) are not surprising in the light of Engdahl's accessibilityhierarchy in (547), according to which finite argument clauses are less amenable to parasitic gaps than infinitival adjunct clauses. It is important to note that we cannot account for these contrasts by appealing to the fact that finite argument clauses are generally extraposed; the fact that extraposition of infinitival adjunct clauses with a parasitic gap in (549) has a degrading effect was claimed to be due to the anti-c-command restriction, but this restriction is satisfied in the parasitic gap constructions in (556a) and (557a).
      If we follow Bennis (1986) and Huybregts & van Riemsdijk (1985) in assuming that the structures marked with a percentage sign are grammatical, we still have to deal with the question as to what the precise structure of these examples is. We already indicated that the structures that we have assigned to the parasitic gap constructions in (556a) and (557a) differ from the ones assumed in Bennis (1986). For theory-internal reasons, he claims that the trace is embedded in the finite clause, while the parasitic gap is embedded in the PP in the matrix clause, so that they should be switched in the examples (554) to (557) above. Although this claim is fully consistent with the anti-c-command restriction, we believe that there are compelling reasons for rejecting it.
      First, it should be noted that wh-extraction of a relative pronoun from an embedded clause is possible but not greatly favored by many speakers; the percentage sign is used for sentence (558a) to indicate that many speakers prefer to use the resumptive prolepis construction in (558b), which was discussed in Section 11.3.1.3, sub VII, and Section 11.3.2, sub III. The crucial observation is that (558c) is completely unacceptable, which shows that wh-extraction is excluded in the resumptive prolepis construction. The judgments on (558b&c) therefore strongly suggest that the corresponding parasitic gap construction should be analyzed as in (558d); the percentage sign indicates here that this example is less preferred than example (558b) with the R-pronoun er. Note that apart from the presence of the adverbial phrase al tijden, example (558b&d) are identical to (557a&b).

Example 558
a. % het boeki [waari ik denk [dat Peter [ti naar] verlangt]]
  the book  where  think  that Peter  for  longs
  'the book that I think that Peter longs for'
b. het boeki [waari ik [ti van] denk [dat Peter eri naar verlangt]]
  the book  where  of  think   that  Peter  there  for  longs
  'the book which I think that Peter longs for'
c. * het boeki [waari ik eri van denk [dat Peter [ti naar] verlangt]]
  the book  where  there  of  think   that  Peter  for  longs
d. % het boeki [waari ik [ti van] denk [dat Peter [pgi naar] verlangt]]
  the book  where  of  think   that  Peter  for  longs
  'the book which I think that Peter longs for'

This argument, which is taken from Huybregts & Van Riemsdijk, is not accepted by Bennis, who adopts the plausible assumption that the ungrammaticality of (558c) is the result of an intervention effect (cf. Section P5.5): he claims that an R-pronoun (here: waar) cannot be moved across another c-commanding R-pronoun (here: er). This intervention effect does not arise in the parasitic gap construction in (558d) because the main clause does not contain an R-pronoun; Bennis therefore concludes that the ungrammaticality of (558c) can be put aside as irrelevant.
      A second objection to the claim that the trace is located in the embedded clause is that the parasitic gap construction is possible if the finite complement clause constitutes an island for wh-movement. Example (559a) first shows that wh-extraction from an interrogative clause is impossible. Example (559b), on the other hand, is completely acceptable and the two competing analyses thus make sharply different predictions: the claim that the trace is located in the embedded clause wrongly predicts (559c) to have the same status as (559a), while the alternative analysis correctly predicts it to be as good or as bad as example (558d). Since, to our ear, the latter prediction is the correct one, we conclude that the structure indicated in (559c) is the correct one.

Example 559
a. * het boeki [waari ik betwijfel [of Peter [ti naar] verlangt]]
  the book   where  doubt    if  Peter  for  longs
  'the book which I doubt that Peter longs for'
b. het boeki [waari ik [ti van] betwijfel [of Peter eri naar verlangt]]
  the book  where  of  doubt   if  Peter there  for  longs
  'the book which I doubt that Peter longs for'
c. % het boeki [waari ik [ti van] betwijfel [of Peter [pgi naar] verlangt]]
  the book   where  of  doubt    if  Peter  for  longs
  'the book which I doubt that Peter longs for'

The final argument against the claim that the trace is located in the embedded clause is that it does not seem to be possible to construct acceptable parasitic gap examples if the PP in the matrix clause cannot be pronominalized. We illustrate this by means of the examples in (560). First, observe that example (560a) is again dispreferred to the resumptive prolepis construction, but it is possible, for which reason we assign it a percentage sign. Example (560b) is unacceptable because the volgens-PP does not allow R-pronominalization and R-extraction: the only option is pied piping as in de mani [[volgens wiei] ik tj] dacht [dat zij op hemi zou wachten]] 'the man according to whom I thought that she would what for him'. The fact that the heads of such PPs cannot be stranded should not affect the acceptability of the parasitic gap construction if the parasitic gap is located in the adjunct PP. The crucial example is therefore the parasitic gap construction in (560c). Since the claim that the trace is located in the embedded clause wrongly predicts it to have more or lesss the same status as (560a), we conclude that the structure indicated below is the correct one. For completeness' sake example (560d) provides the preferred version of the relative clause, in which the relative pronoun pied pipes the preposition volgens.

Example 560
a. % de mani [waari ik dacht [dat zij [ti op] zou wachten]]
  the man  where  I   thought  that  she  for  would  wait
  'the man whom I thought that she would wait for'
b. * de mani [waari ik [volgens ti] dacht [dat zij op hemi zou wachten]]
  the man  where  according.to  thought  that she  for him  would  wait
c. * de mani [waari ik [volgens ti] dacht [dat zij [pgi op] zou wachten]]
  the man  where  according.to  thought  that  she  for  would  wait

The relative acceptability of (559c) and the unacceptability of (560c) show that the proposal according to which the trace is located in the embedded clause and the parasitic gap is located in the PP embedded in the matrix clause cannot be maintained because this wrongly predicts that these examples should have a similar status as the corresponding (a)-examples; we therefore adopt the alternative proposal that the PP in the matrix clause hosts the trace of the moved constituent while the parasitic gap is located in the finite argument clause; this correctly predicts the (c)-examples to have a similar status as the corresponding (b)-examples.

[+]  3.  Parasitic gaps embedded in finite adjunct clauses

Bennis (1986) claims that parasitic gaps cannot be embedded in finite adjunct clauses; two of his examples are given in a slightly adapted form in (561). This claim would be in line with Engdahl's accessibilityhierarchy in (547) according to which parasitic gaps are less common in finite adjunct clauses than in finite argument clauses: because the previous subsection has shown that parasitic gaps are marked in Dutch adjunct clauses, it is to be expected that they give rise to even more degraded results in finite clauses.

Example 561
a. Welk boeki moest Jan ti terugbrengen [voordat hij heti/*pgi kon uitlezen]?
  which book  must  Jan  back-bring  before  he  it/pg   could  prt-read]
  'Which book did Jan have to bring back before he could finish reading?'
b. Welk voedseli moet je ti koken [voordat je heti/*pgi opeet]?
  which food  must  you  cook   before  one  it/pg  up-eats
  'Which food do you have to cook before you eat it?'

It should be noted, however, that examples such as (561) are not suitable for showing that parasitic gaps cannot occur in finite adjunct clauses. The reason is that they are in extraposed position and we have seen that this also has a degrading effect on the acceptability of infinitival adjunct clauses: as we attributed this to the anti-c-command restriction, the unacceptability of the parasitic gap constructions in (561) may simply provide additional support for this restriction. In order to conclusively show that parasitic gaps cannot occur in finite adjunct clauses, the adjunct clause must be in the middle field of the clause, as in (562). As this does not seem to improve the parasitic gap constructions, we may indeed safely conclude that parasitic gaps cannot be embedded in finite adjunct clauses.

Example 562
a. Welk boeki moest Jan [voordat hij heti/*pgi kon lezen] ti terugbrengen.
  which book  must  Jan before  he  it/pg   could  read]  back-bring
  'Which book did Jan have to bring back before he could read it?'
b. Welk voedseli moet je [voordat je heti/*pgi eet] ti koken.
  which food  must  you   before  you  it/pg  eat  cook
  'Which food do you have to cook before you eat it?'

Because the parasitic gap constructions in (562) do satisfy the anti-c-command restriction, their unacceptability must be due to some other restriction. Since the other restrictions in (515) are also satisfied, some additional constraint is needed; we refer the reader to Bennis (1986:48ff.) for a proposal embedded in terms of Kayne's (1984) path theory.

[+]  4.  Parasitic gaps embedded in postnominal PPs

This subsection discusses cases in which a parasitic gap is embedded in a postnominal PP. A prototypical English example is given in (563a). Its contrast in acceptability with example (563b) again illustrates the effect of the anti-c-command restriction: since the object trace in (563a) does not c-command the subject position, the parasitic gap embedded in the subject can be licensed by wh-movement of the object; since the subject does c-command the object position, the parasitic gap embedded in the object cannot be licensed by wh-movement of the subject. On the assumption that direct objects function as external arguments of complementives, the anti-c-command restriction also correctly predicts that a parasitic gap embedded in an object can be licensed by wh-movement of the nominal complement of a complementive PP; this is illustrated in (563c), where the label SC stands for small clause, that is, the phrase containing both the complementive and its logical subject. An interesting feature of the acceptable parasitic gap constructions in (563a&c) is that they do not allow a bound pronoun in the position of the parasitic gap; this is illustrated in the primed examples. We refer to Engdahl (1983: Section 5) for a more extensive discussion of the English data.

Example 563
a. Which girli would [a picture of pgi] surprise ti?
a'. * Which girli would [a picture of her] surprise ti?
b. * Which girli ti sent [a picture of pgi] to Peter?
b'. Which girliti sent [a picture of her(self)] to Peter?
c. Which girli did you send [sc [a picture of pgi] [to ti]]?
c'. * Which girli did you send [sc [a picture of her] [to ti]]?

Constructions like (563) are largely ignored in the literature on Dutch. Parasitic gap constructions of the form in (563a) are of course expected not to arise in Dutch, due to the earlier established fact that noun phrases cannot bind parasitic gaps embedded in PPs; this correctly predicts that example (564a) is excluded. Parasitic gaps are expected to be possible, however, if the wh-moved phrase is an R-pronoun, as in example (564b); the result is clearly not perfect but this example seems notably better than (564a). The two examples in (564a&b) are also noteworthy because they differ as to whether a bound pronoun can be used in the position of the parasitic gaps: this is possible only if the construction with a parasitic gap is fully unacceptable. The linear string in (564b') is acceptable, of course, but the crucial thing is that the wh-moved R-pronoun waar cannot be construed as the antecedent of the pronoun haar'her'.

Example 564
a. * Welk meisjei zou [een foto van pgi] ti verrassen?
  which girl  would  a picture of pg  surprise
a'. ? Welk meisjei zou [een foto van haari] ti verrassen?
  which girl  would  a picture of her  surprise
b. ? het meisjei [waari [een vriend van pgi] [ti op] wacht]
  the girl  where   a friend of  for  waits
  'The girl who a friend of is waiting for.'
b'. * het meisjei [waari [een vriend van haar] [ti op] wacht]
  the girl  where   a friend of her  for  waits

The anti-c-command restriction cannot be demonstrated by means of a Dutch version of (563b), because parasitic gaps embedded in a PP cannot be bound by a nominal argument in general. What we can show, however, is that parasitic gap can at least marginally be embedded in a direct object if an R-pronoun is extracted from a complementive PP; cf. (565a). Example (565b) shows again that the parasitic gap cannot be replaced by a bound pronoun: this example is acceptable only if the pronoun haar'her' refers to some other person in the domain of discourse.

Example 565
a. het meisjei [waari ik [sc [een vriend van pgi] [ti naartoe]] gestuurd heb]
  the girl  where   a friend of pg  to  sent  have
  'the girl that I have sent a friend of to'
b. * het meisjei [waari ik [sc [een vriend van haar] [ti naartoe]] gestuurd heb]
  the girl  where   a friend of her  to  sent  have
  'the girl that I have sent a friend of to'

This subsection has shown that Dutch at least marginally allows parasitic gaps in postnominal PPs if their antecedent is an R-pronoun. The restriction stated in the conditional part of the previous sentence makes it impossible to establish whether the anti-c-command restriction is applicable; we only have the weaker evidence that the marginally acceptable cases do not violate this restriction. It should further be noted that the marginally acceptable Dutch parasitic gap constructions are similar to their English counterparts in that the parasitic gaps cannot be replaced by bound pronouns.

[+]  5.  Parasitic gaps embedded in relative clauses

Constructions in which a parasitic gap is embedded in a relative clause differ from those in which a parasitic gap is embedded in a postnominal PP in that they always give rise to an unacceptable result. This is illustrated in example (566), taken from Bennis (1986); the reader should ignore the pseudo-intransitive reading of lezen'to read'. The fact that these examples are not acceptable is in accordance with Engdahl's accessibilityhierarchy in (547); we refer the reader to Bennis (1986) for an account of these examples in terms of Kayne's (1984) path theory.

Example 566
a. * Dit is het boeki [dati [iedereenj [diejtj pgi leest]] ti bewondert].
  this  is the book  which  everyone  who  reads  admires
  Intended reading: 'This is the book that everyone who reads it admires.'
b. * Dit is een vraagi [waari [iedereenj [diejti [pgi over] denkt] een antwoord [ti op]] weet.
  this is  a question  where   everyone  who  about  thinks an answer  to  knows
  'This is a question that everyone who thinks about it knows an answer to.'
[+]  C.  The categorial restriction in (515d)

Dutch is well-behaved with respect to the categorial restriction: only nominal phrases are able to license parasitic gaps, provided that we include the R-pronouns discussed in the previous section in the category of nominal elements. Engdahl (1983) found that PPs and APs can license parasitic gaps in Swedish. Since Cinque (1990:187, fn.9) observed that Engdahl's cases all involve parasitic gaps in subjects with a relative clause and that Dutch does not allow parasitic gaps in relative clauses, it should not be surprising that Engdahl's examples cannot be reproduced for Dutch. Moreover, constructing valid examples is somewhat delicate as it may be necessary that the trace and the parasitic gap have the same syntactic function (although Engdahl's PP-example does not satisfy this criterion). Example (567) therefore gives examples in which the PPs in the matrix and in the relative clause both function as prepositional objects. As expected the (b)-examples are unacceptable regardless of whether the moved phrase is a PP or an R-pronoun, with perhaps a minor contrast between the two cases.

Example 567
a. Naar dit boek heeft iedereen [die ernaar verlangt] eerst ti gekeken.
  at this book  has  everyone  who  for.it  longs  first  looked
  'At this book everyone who longs for it has looked first.'
b. * Naar dit boek heeft iedereen [die pgi verlangt] eerst ti gekeken.
  at this book  has  everyone  who  longs  first  looked
b'. ?? Daar heeft iedereen [die [pgi naar] verlangt] eerst ti [pgi naar] gekeken.
  there has  everyone  who  to  longs  first  at  looked

Example (568) provides a Dutch example that corresponds structurally to Engdahl's Swedish AP-example. As expected, the parasitic gap is outright unacceptable.

Example 568
Armi wil iemand [die dati/*pgi ooit eerder geweest is] niet voor een tweede keer ti worden.
  poor  wants  someone  who  so/pg  ever  before  been  is  not  for a second time become
'Poor, someone who has ever been so before doesnʼt want to become a second time.'

In order to investigate the categorial restriction we therefore have to consider examples that do not involve a relative clause. In (569) we constructed such examples for complementive PPs. The two (b)-examples contrast sharply: wh-movement of the full PP does not, while wh-movement of an R-pronoun does license the parasitic gap.

Example 569
a. In deze doosi heb ik [alvorens er de vaas in te stoppen] een doek ti gelegd.
  in this box  have I  before  there  the vase  into  to put  a cloth  put
  'I have put a cloth in this box before putting the vase in it.'
b. * In deze doosi heb ik [alvorens de vaas pgi te stoppen] een doek gelegd.
  in this box  have   before  the vase  to put  a cloth  put
b'. Daari heb ik [alvorens de vaas [ti in] te stoppen] een doek [ti in] gelegd.
  there  have I   before  the vase  into  to put  a cloth into  put
  'I have put a cloth into it before putting the vase into it.'

Example (570) provides a similar case with a complementive AP, adapted from Cinque (1990); use of a parasitic gap gives rise to a degraded result.

Example 570
Hoe moei kan je je [zonder het/*pgi te zijn] voelen?
  how tired  can  one  refl  without  it/pg  to be  feel
'How tired can one feel without being it?'

Since we have not been able to construct any other acceptable cases with PPs and APs, we conclude that Dutch adheres to the categorial restriction. It must be noted, however, that there is one systematic exception illustrated in (571): argument clauses are able to license parasitic gaps.

Example 571
[dat quarks bestaan]i heeft Gell-Mann [alvorens heti/pgi te kunnen bewijzen] al ti voorspeld.
  that quarks exist  has  Gell-Mann before  it/pg  to be.able  prove  already  predicted
'That quarks exist, Gell-Mann already predicted before being able to prove it.'

The acceptability of examples of this type might be related to the fact that argument clauses can be pronominalized by means of the referential personal pronoun het'it'; we refer to Culicover (2001:54) for similar cases in English.

[+]  D.  The multiple-island restriction in (515e)

The multiple-island restriction states that parasitic gaps can be separated from their antecedent by the boundary of at most one single island for wh-movement: if there is more than one boundary, parasitic gaps are impossible. That Dutch respects this restriction is clear from the examples in (572) to (574); see also Huybregts & Van Riemsdijk (1985). The examples in (572) first show that infinitival adjunct clauses are islands for wh-movement.

Example 572
a. Jan vertrok [zonder/alvorens het boek te kopen].
  Jan  left   without/before  the book  to buy
  'Jan left without/before buying the book.'
b. * Wati vertrok Jan [zonder/alvorens ti gekocht te hebben]?
  what  left  Jan   without/before  bought  to have

The examples in (573) illustrate again that parasitic gaps may occur within such infinitival adjunct islands: the antecedent of the parasitic gap, het boek'the boek', is external to the adjunct clause.

Example 573
Jan heeft het boeki [zonder/alvorens pgi te kopen] ti bekeken.
  Jan has  the book  without/before  to buy  looked.at
'Jan has looked at the book without/before buying it.'

Example (574a) shows that parasitic gaps are not possible if they are separated from their antecedent by two (or more) islands for wh-extraction. For completeness' sake note that examples such as (574b) are irrelevant as the two infinitival clauses can easily be construed as separate adjuncts of the main clause; this is clear from the fact illustrated by (574b') that the alvorens-clause can be topicalized without affecting the placement of the zonder-clause.

Example 574
a. * Jan heeft het boeki [alvorens [zonder pgi te kopen] te vertrekken] ti bekeken.
  Jan has  the book   before  without  to buy  to leave  looked.at
b. Jan heeft het boek [alvorens te vertrekken] [zonder pgi te kopen] ti bekeken
  Jan has  the book   before  to leave  without  to buy  looked.at
  'Jan has looked at the book without buying it before leaving.'
b'. [Alvorens te vertrekken] heeft Jan het boeki [zonder pgi te kopen] ti bekeken.
  before  to leave  has  Jan the book   before  to leave  looked.at
  'Before leaving Jan has looked at the book without buying it.'

The unacceptability of (574a) has given rise to the claim that parasitic gaps are not base-generated as such but arise as the result of wh-movement of a phonetically empty operator; cf. Chomsky (1986: Section 10). A well-formed parasitic gap construction is claimed to have the structure in (575a); XPi does not bind the parasitic gap directly but this is mediated by the empty operator. The operator movement is motivated by the fact that the operator should be "sufficiently close" to its antecedent; informally speaking we can say that the operator must be in the initial position of a clause that is a clause mate of the prospective antecedent of the operator; a more semantic approach might claim that the movement of the empty operator creates an open proposition which can be saturated by XPi. The unacceptable cases in which the parasitic gap is separated from XPi by two boundaries for islands for wh-movement are assigned the representation in (575b); the reason for the ungrammaticality of this structure is that wh-movement of the empty operator crosses the boundary of an adjunct island for wh-movement.

Example 575
a. ... XPi ... [adjunct OPj ... pgj ...] ti ...
b. * ... XPi ... [adjunct OPj ... [adjunct ... pgj ...]] ti ...

A virtue of Chomsky's analysis is that it derives the multiple-island restriction from the independently established fact about wh-movement that it is island-sensitive. It also solves the problem with the bijection principle discussed in Subsection I, as each interpretive gap in (575a) is associated with its own operator.
      Another potential advantage of the empty operator analysis is that it solves a problem for the claim adopted earlier that wh-traces and parasitic gaps are subject to binding condition C, which was noted by Bennis (1986). For wh-traces the problem is illustrated in (576a), in which a reflexive is topicalized; the trace in this example is bound by the subject. Section 11.3.6 discussed this problem under the heading of reconstruction, which amounts to saying that traces are not subject to binding condition C but obey the same binding condition as their antecedent. If we assume the same for the parasitic gap in (576b) we do not have to be bothered about the fact that it is construed as coreferential with the subject in the matrix clause: the empty operator simply assumes the same properties as its antecedent zichzelf'himself', and these are subsequently transferred to the parasitic gap. We therefore expect the parasitic gap to be bound by PRO, and since PRO is controlled by the subject of the matrix clause, it also follows that the parasitic gap is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause .

Example 576
a. Zichzelfi vindt Peterti erg dom.
  himself  considers  Peter  very stupid
  'Himself, Peter considers very stupid.'
b. Jan heeft zichzelfi [OPi zonder PRO pgi te bekijken] ti aangekleed.
  Jan  has  himself  without  to look.at  prt.-dressed
  'Jan has dressed without looking at himself.'

      A potential drawback of the empty operator analysis is, however, that it cannot be applied to cases such as (577), in which the parasitic gap is embedded in a postnominal PP; cf. Which girli would a [picture of pgi] surprise ti? Since Dutch noun phrases are normally not assumed to contain a landing site for wh-movement, we must maintain that the parasitic gap is base-generated in such structures, and the problem for the bijection principle remains.

Example 577
... XPi ... [NP ... N [P pgi]] ... ti ...

However, the proposed distinction between the constructions in (575a) and (577) may also have a positive side, as this may help to account for the fact that while the parasitic gap in (575a) can be replaced by an overt pronoun, this is impossible with the parasitic gap in (577); in the former case this simply involves substitution of a pronoun for the empty operator; a similar substitution for base-generated parasitic gaps may be impossible. Needless to say, of course, that this makes structures such as (577) no less mysterious.

[+]  IV.  Conclusion

This section has discussed Dutch parasitic gap constructions on the basis of the five basic properties introduced in Subsection II, repeated here as (578). Although Culicover (2001) mentions that all restrictions have been challenged, it seems that Dutch is relatively well-behaved with respect to all of them.

Example 578
Restrictions on English parasitic gap constructions
a. Landing-site restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps are in an A'-position.
b. Overt-movement restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps are overtly moved.
c. Anti-c-command restriction: the trace of the antecedent of the parasitic gap and the parasitic gap do not c-command each other.
d. Categorial restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps are noun phrases.
e. Multiple-island restriction: antecedents of parasitic gaps and parasitic gaps cannot be separated by more than one island-boundary.

The landing-site restriction in (578a) has been challenged on the basis of Dutch scrambling data but the discussion seems to be more about the proper analysis of scrambling: is it A- or A'-movement, or a movement type with mixed properties? We have seen that current versions of generative grammar make a variety of A- and A'-positions available, which enables us to provide an account for most facts. These include those that motivated Webelhuth's paradox according to which scrambling targets a position with mixed A- and A'-properties, while maintaining the landing-site restriction in full force. Only the fact that several researchers have claimed that subjects of passive clauses may license parasitic gaps has not yet been solved satisfactorily.
      The overt-movement restriction in (578b) does not seem to meet any problem in Dutch: the base-generation approach to scrambling, which rejects this restriction, has been shown to run into a severe empirical problem.
      The anti-c-command restriction in (578c) seems to be obeyed unconditionally in Dutch, although we have seen that the claim that this restriction can be derived from binding condition C should be somewhat relaxed in order to allow for certain reconstruction effects.
      The categorial restriction in (578d) is normally obeyed as well, provided we take R-pronouns found in pronominalized PPs to be nominal in nature: a potential counterexample is that complement clauses can also license parasitic gaps.
      The multiple-island restriction in (578e) also holds for Dutch. The restriction can easily be accounted for by following Chomsky (1986) in assuming that parasitic gaps are in fact wh-traces of phonetically empty operators which are wh-moved in order to be "sufficiently close" to their antecedents; the multiple-island restriction then follows from the fact that the wh-movement of the operator cannot cross islands. This leaves us with cases in which the parasitic gap is located in a postnominal PP: that such cases are different can possibly be motivated by the fact that they do not allow substitution of an overt pronoun for the parasitic gap.
      This section cannot do justice to the vast literature on parasitic gaps in other languages or to the various theoretical approaches that have been proposed over the years. We therefore refer the reader to Culicover's (2001) historical review, as well as the other contributions found in the volume on parasitic gaps collected in Culicover & Postal (2001). Important studies on parasitic gaps in Dutch (and German) are Bennis & Hoekstra (1984) and Huybregts & Van Riemsdijk (1985). The latter suggest an analysis that is radically different from the one taken as the point of departure in our description, but which was criticized on both empirical and theoretical grounds by Bennis (1986:ch.1) and Koster (1987:section 6.4). Another discussion that is highly relevant for Dutch can be found in Webelhuth (1989:ch.5). It seems that the interest in parasitic gap constructions has diminished since the early 1990's; as far as we know, no ground-breaking insights have been gained since then.

References:
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1984Gaps and parasitic gapsLinguistic Review429-87
  • Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1984Gaps and parasitic gapsLinguistic Review429-87
  • Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1984Gaps and parasitic gapsLinguistic Review429-87
  • Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1984Gaps and parasitic gapsLinguistic Review429-87
  • Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1984Gaps and parasitic gapsLinguistic Review429-87
  • Broekhuis, Hans1987Chain-governmentThe Linguistic Review4297-374
  • Broekhuis, Hans1987Chain-governmentThe Linguistic Review4297-374
  • Broekhuis, Hans1992Chain-government: issues in Dutch syntaxThe Hague, Holland Academic GraphicsUniversity of Amsterdam/HILThesis
  • Broekhuis, Hans1992Chain-government: issues in Dutch syntaxThe Hague, Holland Academic GraphicsUniversity of Amsterdam/HILThesis
  • Broekhuis, Hans2008Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languagesStudies in Generative GrammarBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Broekhuis, Hans2011A typology of clause structureCraenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Rooryck, Johan (eds.)Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company1-31
  • Chierchia, Gennaro & McConell-Ginet, Sally1992An introduction to semanticsCambridge/LondonMIT Press
  • Chomsky, Noam1986BarriersLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 13Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press
  • Chomsky, Noam1986BarriersLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 13Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press
  • Chomsky, Noam1986BarriersLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 13Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press
  • Chomsky, Noam1986BarriersLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 13Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press
  • Chomsky, Noam1986BarriersLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 13Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press
  • Cinque, Guglielmo1990Types of A'-dependenciesCambridge, MA/London
  • Cinque, Guglielmo1990Types of A'-dependenciesCambridge, MA/London
  • Cinque, Guglielmo1990Types of A'-dependenciesCambridge, MA/London
  • Contreras, Heles1984A Note on Parasitic gapsLinguistic Inquiry15698-701
  • Contreras, Heles1984A Note on Parasitic gapsLinguistic Inquiry15698-701
  • Corver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van1994Studies on scrambling: movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaStudies in generative grammar 41Berlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter W2001Parasitic gaps: a historyCulicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.)Parasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Culicover, Peter. W. & Postal, Paul M2001Parasitic gapsParasitic gapsCanbridge (MA.)/LondonMIT Press
  • Dikken, Marcel den1995Binding, expletives and levelsLinguistic Inquiry26347-354
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Engdahl, Elisabet1983Parasitic gapsLinguistics and philosophy65-34
  • Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
  • Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
  • Haegeman, Liliane1995The syntax of negationCambridge studies in linguistics 75CambridgeCambridge University Press
  • Haegeman, Liliane & Zanuttini, Raffaella1991Negative heads and the negative criterionThe Linguistic Review8233-251
  • Hoekstra, Teun1999Parallels between nominal and verbal projectionsAdger, David, Pintzuk, Sysan, Plunkett, Bernadetta & Tsoulas, George (eds.)Specifiers: minimalist approachesOxford/New YorkOxford University Press163-187
  • Hoop, Helen de & Kosmeijer, Wim1995Case and scrambling: D-structure versus S-structureHaider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan & Vikner, Sten (eds.)Studies in comparative Germanic syntaxDordrecht/Boston/LondonKluwer Academic Publishers139-158
  • Hoop, Helen de & Kosmeijer, Wim1995Case and scrambling: D-structure versus S-structureHaider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan & Vikner, Sten (eds.)Studies in comparative Germanic syntaxDordrecht/Boston/LondonKluwer Academic Publishers139-158
  • Hoop, Helen de & Kosmeijer, Wim1995Case and scrambling: D-structure versus S-structureHaider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan & Vikner, Sten (eds.)Studies in comparative Germanic syntaxDordrecht/Boston/LondonKluwer Academic Publishers139-158
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Huybregts, M.A.C & Riemsdijk, Henk van1985Parasitic gaps and ATBProceedings of NELS 15Amherst168-187
  • Kayne, Richard S1984Connectedness and binary branchingDordrechtForis Publications
  • Kayne, Richard S1984Connectedness and binary branchingDordrechtForis Publications
  • Kayne, Richard S1984Connectedness and binary branchingDordrechtForis Publications
  • Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique1982Variables and the bijection principleThe Linguistic Review2139-160
  • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
  • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
  • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
  • Lasnik, Howard1999Minimalist analysisOxfordBlackwell
  • Lee, Young-Suk & Santorini, Beatrice1994Towards resolving Webelhuth's paradox: evidence from German and KoreanCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on Scrambling: movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter257-300
  • Mahajan, Anoop1990The A/A-bar distinction and movement theoryMITThesis
  • Mahajan, Anoop1990The A/A-bar distinction and movement theoryMITThesis
  • Mahajan, Anoop1994Toward a unified theory of scramblingCorver, Norbert & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.)Studies on Scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Müller, Gereon & Sternefeld, Wolfgang1994Scrambling as A-bar movementCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Neeleman, Ad1994Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenonCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter387-429
  • Neeleman, Ad1994Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenonCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter387-429
  • Neeleman, Ad1994Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenonCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter387-429
  • Neeleman, Ad1994Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenonCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter387-429
  • Pollock, Jean-Yves1989Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IPLinguistic Inquiry20365-424
  • Rizzi, Luigi1996Residual Verb Second and the wh CriterionBelletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.)Parameters and functional heads. Essays in comparative syntaxOxford/New YorkOxford University Press63-90
  • Rizzi, Luigi1997The fine structure of the left peripheryHaegeman, Liliane (ed.)Elements of grammar. Handbook of generative grammarDordrecht/Boston/LondenKluwer Academic Publishers
  • Safir, Ken1987The anti-c-command condition on parasitic gapsLinguistic Inquiry18678-683
  • Webelhuth, Gert1989Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languagesUniversity of MassachusettsThesis
  • Webelhuth, Gert1989Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languagesUniversity of MassachusettsThesis
  • Webelhuth, Gert1992Principles and parameters of syntactic saturationNew YorkOxford University Press
  • Webelhuth, Gert1992Principles and parameters of syntactic saturationNew YorkOxford University Press
  • Wyngaerd, Guido vanden1988Raising-to-object in English and DutchDutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics14
  • Wyngaerd, Guido vanden1989Object shift as an A-movement ruleMIT Working Papers in Linguistics11256-271
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
  • 11.3.1.1. Wh-movement in simplex clauses (short wh-movement)
    [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 > 11.3.1. Wh-questions
  • 6.5. Clausal subjects
    [94%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
  • 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
  • 11.3.4. Wh-exclamatives
    [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
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.