• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
12.2. Arguments, complementives and selected measure phrases
quickinfo

This section discusses extraposition of elements selected by main verbs, subsection I starts by discussing the restrictions on extraposition of arguments: as a general rule extraposition is impossible with nominal arguments, obligatory with clausal arguments and optional with prepositional arguments, subsection II will show that extraposition of complementives is excluded, although there seem to be a number of (apparent) exceptions to this general rule, subsection III discusses constructions with verbs like duren'to last' and shows that measure phrases selected by these verbs cannot be extraposed either.

readmore
[+]  I.  Arguments

The examples in (20a&b) show that nominal arguments differ from clausal arguments in that the former must precede the clause-final verbs, whereas the latter normally follow them. Prepositional complements (including prepositional indirect objects) differ from both nominal and clausal arguments in that they may either precede or follow the clause-final verbs.

Example 20
a. dat Jan me <het verhaal> vertelde <*het verhaal>.
nominal complement
  that  Jan me    the story  told
  'that Jan told me the story.'
b. dat Jan me <*dat zij komt> vertelde <dat zij komt>.
clausal complement
  that  Jan me   that she comes  told
  'that Jan told me that sheʼll come.'
c. dat Jan me <over haar komst> vertelde <over haar komst>.
PP-compl.
  that  Jan me    about her arrival  told
  'that Jan told me about her arrival.'
[+]  A.  Nominal arguments

Nominal arguments precede the verb(s) in clause-final position. This holds for subjects and direct objects alike, regardless of whether they are indefinite or definite.

Example 21
a. dat er <iemand> om hulp riep <*iemand>.
  that  there    someone  for help  called
  'that there was someone calling for help.'
a'. dat <de jongen/Peter > om hulp riep <*de jongen/Peter>.
  that    the boy/Peter  for help  called
  'that the boy/Peter was calling for help.'
b. dat Peter graag <iemand/zijn moeder> bezoekt <*iemand/zijn moeder>.
  that  Peter gladly   someone/his mother  visits
  'that Peter likes to visit someone/his mother.'

This restriction is especially clear in the case of indirect objects: while prepositional indirect objects can easily be extraposed, their nominal counterparts cannot. In order to eliminate possible interference of the presence of a direct object, the examples in (22) illustrate this by means of a regular passive construction.

Example 22
a. Dat boek is (aan) Marie toegestuurd.
  that book  is   to  Marie  prt.-sent
  'That book has been sent to Marie.'
b. Dat boek is toegestuurd *(aan) Marie.
  that book  is prt.-sent     to  Marie
  'That book has been sent to Marie.'

      One apparent exception to the general rule that nominal arguments cannot be extraposed has already been discussed in Section 12.1, sub IV: afterthoughts and backgrounded noun phrases can be placed postverbally. We have seen, however, that these should not be considered extraposed phrases but that they are right-dislocated, parenthetical constituents. VP-topicalization can be used to support this view. The examples in (23) first show that a direct object must be pied piped under VP-topicalization if it is in its base-position; under neutral intonation (that is, without contrastive accent) the direct object can only be stranded if it is scrambled leftwards across the adverb graag'gladly'.

Example 23
a. Ik wil <de directeur> graag [VP <de directeur> spreken].
  want    the manager  gladly  speak
  'Iʼd like to speak to the manager.'
b. De directeur spreken wil ik graag.
  the manager  speak  want  gladly
b'. Spreken wil ik <de directeur> graag <*de directeur>.
  speak  want    the manager   gladly

Example (24b) shows that right-dislocated noun phrases can easily be stranded in postverbal position, while the (c)-examples show that pied piping is only possible in the case of afterthoughts, in which case we have to use quite distinct intonation breaks—and even then some speakers tend to reject it.

Example 24
a. Ik wil graag [VP dhr. Jansen spreken], de directeur/directeur.
  want  gladly  Mr. Jansen speak  the manager
  'Iʼd like to speak Mr. Jansen, the manager.'
b. Dhr. Jansen spreken wil ik graag, de directeur/directeur.
  Mr. Jansen  speak  want  gladly  the manager
c. % Dhr. Jansen spreken —de directeur wil ik graag.
  Mr. Jansen  speak      the manager  want  gladly
c'. *? Dhr. Jansen spreken, de directeur, wil ik graag.
  Mr. Jansen  speak  the manager  want  gladly

      Enumerations, such as the one in example (25a), constitute another possible exception to the general rule that nominal arguments must precede the clause-final verbs; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1376). Such enumerations are preceded by an intonation break and cannot be pied piped under VP-topicalization, which again suggests that they are parenthetical in nature: such examples are therefore special in that the "true" direct object does not have to be pronounced.

Example 25
a. Ik moet (de volgende dingen) kopen: papier, potloden en een liniaal.
  must  the following things  buy:  paper,  pencils  and  a ruler
  'I need to buy (the following things): paper, pencils and a ruler.'
b. Kopen moet ik: papier, potloden en een liniaal.
b'. * Kopen: papier, potloden en een liniaal moet ik.

Haeseryn et al. notice further that in more formal contexts nominal arguments can occasionally appear postverbally. This order, which is characterized as "expressive", is quite obsolete: it is specially used if the postverbal noun phrase constitutes newsworthy information: (26) could be used as "breaking news" in a newscast, but not in a biography as a neutral way of expressing where and when the singer André Hazes died. Cases like (26) are clearly part of the periphery of the language and can thus be ignored in a synchronic syntactic description of core grammar.

Example 26
Te Woerden is op 53-jarige leeftijd overleden de zanger André Hazes.
  in Woerden is  at 53-years age  died  the singer André Hazes
'In Woerden the singer André Hazes has died at the age of 53.'

Finally we want to note that free relatives (that is, relative clauses without an overtly realized antecedent) can readily be found in postverbal position, just like relative clauses with an overt antecedent. If free relatives were noun phrases, this would be a counterexample to the claim that nominal arguments cannot be extraposed, but the examples in (27) show that the two cases can be unified if we assume that the antecedents of free relatives are syntactically present but lack phonetic content. We return to extraposition of relative clauses in Section 12.4.

Example 27
a. dat Jan de menseni prijst [diei hij bewondert].
overt antecedent
  that  Jan  the people  praises  who  he  admires
  'that Jan praises the people he admires'
b. dat Jan Øi prijst [wiei hij bewondert].
phonetically empty antecedent
  that  Jan  praises  who  he  admires
  'that Jan praises who(ever) he admires.'
[+]  B.  Clausal complements

Clausal complements occupy the postverbal position, as in (28a). It is normally not possible for complement clauses to precede the postverbal verb(s): example (28b) is only acceptable as a direct speech construction, that is, if Jan has literally pronounced the phrase "dat het hem spijt"; see Section 5.1.2.4, sub II, for a discussion of such cases.

Example 28
a. Hij heeft gezegd [dat het hem spijt].
  he  has  said   that  it  him  regrets
  'He has said that he regrets it.'
b. # Hij heeft [dat het hem spijt] gezegd.

Factive clauses, like the bracketed phrase in (29), constitute another apparent exception to the general rule, but Section 5.1.2.3 has shown that it is plausible that the preverbal clause in (29b) is actually nominal in nature; we refer the reader to this section for detailed discussion.

Example 29
a. Jan heeft nooit betreurd [dat hij taalkundige is geworden].
  Jan has  never  regretted   that  he  linguist  is become
  'Jan has never regretted that he has become a linguist.'
b. Jan heeft [dat hij taalkundige is geworden] nooit betreurd.

Example (30b) shows that the clausal complement in (28a) can be pied piped under VP-topicalization; we added some material to the construction in order to make the resulting structure more balanced. The fact that pied piping is possible strongly suggests that the complement clause is part of the verbal projection. This conclusion may be supported by the fact that stranding of the complement clause is definitely marked compared to pied piping.

Example 30
a. Gezegd [dat het hem spijt] heeft hij nog niet.
  said  that  it  him  regrets  has  he  yet   not
b. ?? Gezegd heeft hij nog niet [dat het hem spijt].
  said  has  he  yet  not   that  it  him regrets

      The (b)-examples in (31) show that the results are quite different when the clause is introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it'. The fact that the clause must be stranded in this case suggests that it occupies a position different from argument clauses that are not introduced by het'it'; it is not extraposed but right-dislocated.

Example 31
a. Jan heeft het nog niet gezegd [dat het hem spijt].
  Jan has  it  yet  not  said that  it  him  regrets
  'Jan hasnʼt said it yet that he regrets it.'
b. * Gezegd [dat het hem spijt] heeft Jan het nog niet.
  said   that  it  him regrets  has  Jan it  yet  not
b'. Gezegd heeft Jan het nog niet [dat het hem spijt].
  said  has  Jan it  yet  not   that  it  him  regrets

This conclusion is also supported by the fact that argument clauses that are not introduced by het show a different behavior with respect to wh-extraction than the corresponding clauses that are introduced by het; Section 11.3.1.1, sub III, has shown that wh-extraction is only allowed in the absence of this anticipatory pronoun only. If the anticipatory pronoun functions as the true direct object while its associate clause is simply an apposition, this follows from the claim that wh-extraction is possible from complement clauses only; see the discussion in Subsection A.

Example 32
a. Jan heeft (het) gezegd [dat hij een mooi boek ging kopen].
  Jan has    it  said   that  he  a beautiful book  went  buy
  'Jan has said (it) that he was going to buy a beautiful book.'
b. Welk boeki heeft Jan gezegd [dat hij ti ging kopen]?
  which book  has  Jan  said  that  he  went  buy
  'Which book has Jan said that he was going to buy?'
b'. * Welk boeki heeft Jan het gezegd [dat hij ti ging kopen]?
  which book  has  Jan  it  said   that  he  went  buy

That the anticipatory pronoun functions as the true object is supported by the fact illustrated in (33) that its associate clause is optional: direct objects are normally obligatory, and it is clear that the pronoun must be present if the clause is omitted. Note in passing that the number sign indicates that the string without the pronoun is used in academic circles as a translation of Latin dixi'I have spoken' with the meaning "I have said all I have to say"; this is clearly not part of Dutch core grammar and can thus be ignored in our syntactic description.

Example 33
Jan heeft *(het) gezegd.
  Jan has      it  said
'Jan has said it.'

This subsection has shown that argument clauses are obligatorily extraposed. This was illustrated for finite clauses only, but the same holds for opaque and semi-transparent infinitival argument clauses, while transparent infinitival argument clauses undergo a process of cluster formation. Since discussing this would simply repeat much of the discussion in Section 5.2, we will not digress on this here.

[+]  C.  PP-complements

Extraposed arguments can be easily distinguished from afterthoughts and backgrounded phrases: because arguments are normally obligatory, afterthoughts and backgrounded phrases require some anchor in the "true" argument position. This can be readily shown by means of the verb houden'to like', which obligatorily selects a PP-complement introduced by van: examples (34b&c) shows that the presence of a pronominal PP such as daarvan'of that' is only possible (and then in fact obligatory) if the postverbal PP is preceded by an intonation break.

Example 34
a. dat Els erg *(van lof) houdt.
  that  Els  a.lot     of chicory  likes
  'that Els likes chicory a lot.'
b. dat Els erg (*daarvan) houdt van lof.
extraposition
  that  Els a.lot     of.that  likes  of chicory
  'that Els likes chicory a lot.'
c. dat Els erg *(daarvan) houdt, van lof/lof.
right dislocation
  that  Els a.lot     there.of  likes  of chicory
  'that Els likes it a lot, chicory.'

Some verbs, like wachten'to wait' in (35a), optionally take a PP-complement. In such cases, the pattern that arises is different. The (b)-examples in (35) first show that postverbal PPs must be preceded by an intonation break if a pronominal PP such as daar op'for that' is present; in this respect, constructions with an optional PP-complement behave just like constructions with an obligatory PP-complement. Recognizing afterthoughts is not very difficult as the PP is preceded by an intonational break and assigned contrastive accent, but distinguishing extraposed and backgrounded PPs is harder, as this mainly rests on the intonation break, which need not be very prominent in actual speech. The main thing for our present purposes is, however, that the intonational break is optional in slow, careful speech; we can therefore conclude that extraposition and backgrounding right-dislocation are both available.

Example 35
a. dat Jan (op de uitslag) wacht.
  that  Jan   for the result  waits
  'that Jan is waiting for the result.'
b. * dat Jan daarop wacht op de uitslag.
extraposition
  that  Jan for.that   waits  for the result
b'. dat Jan daarop wacht, op de uitslag/uitslag.
right dislocation
  that  Jan for.that   waits  for the result
c. dat Jan wacht op de uitslag.
extraposition
  that  Jan waits  for the result
c'. dat Jan wacht, op de uitslag/uitslag.
right dislocation
  that  Jan waits  for the result

There are at least two reasons for assuming that extraposed PPs are part of the clause. The first reason is phonological in nature and concerns the placement of (non-contrastive) sentence accent. Sentence accent can easily be located on the extraposed PP; it is in fact the neutral placement of this accent. In the case of right dislocation, on the other hand, sentence accent must precede the right-dislocated PP. This is shown in (36), in which sentence accent is given in italics.

Example 36
a. dat Jan wacht op de uitslag.
extraposition
  that  Jan waits  for the result
b. dat Jan wacht, op de uitslag/uitslag.
right dislocation
  that  Jan waits  for the result

The fact that sentence accent can occur on extraposed PPs conclusively shows that extraposed PPs are located clause-internally. A second reason for assuming this is that they can be pied piped under VP-topicalization, as is shown in (37a), although it should be noted that some speakers prefer the order in (37a'), in which the PP-complement is preverbal; this might be due to the fact that there is no information-structural reason for extraposition given that the clause-initial VP as a whole functions as a topic/focus. Example (37b) shows that stranding of the complement-PP gives rise to a degraded result.

Example 37
a. (?) Houden van lof zal ik nooit.
  like  of chicory  will  never
a'. Van lof houden zal ik nooit.
  of chicory like  will  never
b. ?? Houden zal ik nooit van lof.
  like  will  never  of chicory

Because the contrast between the two primeless examples in (37) is not as sharp as one would like, we illustrate the same again in (38) by means of the verb rekenen, which requires a PP-complement headed by op'on' if used as the PO-verb meaning "to count/bank (on)".

Example 38
a. (?) Rekenen op een bonus doet hij niet.
  count  on a bonus  does  he  not
a'. Op een bonus rekenen doet hij niet.
  on a bonus  count  does  he  not
b. *? Rekenen doet hij niet op een bonus.
  count  does  he  not on a bonus

Backgrounded PPs cannot easily be pied piped by VP-topicalization, as is clear from the fact illustrated by the (a)-examples in (39) that for at least some speakers they can only occur postverbally. Example (39b') shows that afterthoughts are marginally possible after topicalized VPs with an anticipatory pronominal PP, but only if preceded and followed by very distinct intonation breaks. Example (39b) shows that afterthoughts may also occur in postverbal position. We illustrate the same again in (40) by means of the verb rekenen (op)'to count/bank on'

Example 39
a. Daarvan houden zal ik nooit, van lof.
  of.that  like  will  never  of chicory
a'. *? Daarvan houden, van lof, zal ik nooit.
  of.that  like  of chicory  will  never
b. Daarvan houden zal ik nooit, van lof.
  of.that  like  will  never  of chicory
b'. Daarvan houden —van lof zal ik nooit.
  of.that  like    of chicory  will  never
Example 40
a. Daarop rekenen doet hij niet, op een bonus.
  on.that  count  does  he  not  on a bonus
a'. ?? Daarop rekenen, op een bonus, doet hij niet.
  on.that  count  on a bonus  does  he  not
b. Daarop rekenen doet hij niet, op een bonus.
  on.that  count  does  he  not  on a bonus
b'. Daarop rekenen —op een bonus doet hij niet.
  on.that  count      on a bonus  does  he  not

      The discussion above suggests that extraposed and right-dislocated PPs occupy different positions. Since extraposed PPs are like extraposed clauses in that they are obligatorily pied piped under VP-topicalization, the simplest theory would be that these occupy the same structural position in the clause. If true, we would expect that extraposed PPs also behave like extraposed clauses in that they allow wh-extraction. This expectation is not borne out, however, as extraposed PP-complements are islands for wh-extraction; example (41b) shows that wh-extraction is possible only if the stranded preposition immediately precedes the clause-final verb(s).

Example 41
a. Jan heeft <op de brief> gewacht <op de brief>.
  Jan has    for the letter  waited
  'Jan has waited for the letter.'
b. Waari heeft Jan <[op ti ]> gewacht <*[op ti ]>?
  where  has  Jan     for  waited
  'What has Jan waited for?'
[+]  D.  Conclusion

The previous subsections have shown that nominal, clausal and prepositional arguments exhibit different extraposition behavior in the way indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Extraposition of arguments
type of argument extraposition option islandhood of extraposed phrase
nominal impossible n.a.
clausal obligatory extraction possible
prepositional optional extraction impossible

In early generative grammar, it is generally assumed that Dutch has an underlying OV-structure: objects are uniformly base-generated to the left of the verb(s) in clause-final position. This implies that constructions with extraposed objects are derived by rightward movement. De Haan (1979) pointed out the movement analysis of extraposed object clauses is problematic in view of the fact that these allow wh-extraction in bridge verb contexts; this is inconsistent with the movement analysis because movement creates syntactic islands (the so-called freezing effect). De Haan concluded from this that argument clauses are base-generated to the right of the clause-final verbs.
      If nominal and clausal direct objects do have the same underlying base position, there is only one option left: they are base-generated in the surface position of the clause and the nominal phrase undergoes an obligatory movement to the left into a position to the left of the clause-final verbs. Although it raises the question why extraction from nominal arguments is possible (as is clear from, e.g., the so-called wat voor split), this position seems to be currently taken by many (but not all) generative linguists; cf. Zwart (1997/2011:ch.9) and Broekhuis (2008:ch.2).
      The fact that extraposed PP-complements only allow for wh-extraction in preverbal position strongly suggests that they differ in a non-trivial way from extraposed argument clauses. More specifically, they differ from extraposed clauses in that they cannot be base-generated in postverbal position. In principle there are two ways of accounting for extraposed complement PPs: either the PP is moved rightward across the verb into the postverbal position, as was standardly assumed in early generative grammar, or some verbal projection is moved leftward into a position to the left of the PP; we refer the reader to Barbiers (1995) for a discussion of the latter option.
      What is especially relevant for our present discussion is that we can conclude from the discussion above that extraposition cannot be considered a uniform phenomenon that can be accounted for by means of a single (movement) rule. The ramifications of the pattern given in Table 1 are currently still under investigation; a review of a number of theoretical options is given in Section 9.4, sub I, to which we refer the reader for more discussion as well as suggestions for further reading.

[+]  II.  Complementives

This subsection will be short as the main issues were already discussed in Section 2.2.1, sub III and Section 2.2.1, sub IV, to which we refer the reader for a more detailed discussion. The examples in (42) show that complementives occupy a position to the left of the verb(s) in clause-final position, regardless of the type of construction.

Example 42
a. dat Jan <erg nerveus> is <*erg nerveus>.
copular construction
  that  Jan   very nervous  is
  'that Jan is very nervous.'
b. dat Els Jan <erg nerveus> vindt <*erg nerveus>.
vinden-construction
  that  Els Jan   very nervous  considers
  'that Els considers Jan very nervous.'
c. dat Els Jan <erg nerveus> maakt <*erg nerveus>.
resultative construction
  that  Els Jan   very nervous  makes
  'that Els makes Jan very nervous.'

      The placement of the complementive is not affected by its categorial status either: the copular examples in (43) show that nominal, adjectival and adpositional complementives must all precede the verbs in clause-final position.

Example 43
a. dat Jan <een vervelende knul> is <*een vervelende knul>.
NP
  that  Jan    an annoying guy  is
  'that Jan is an annoying guy.'
b. dat Jan <erg vervelend> is <*erg vervelend >.
AP
  that  Jan  very annoying  is
  'that Jan is very annoying.'
c. dat Jan <in zijn werkkamer> is <*?in zijn werkkamer>.
PP
  that  Jan    in his study  is
  'that Jan is in his study.'

The examples in (44) show the same for the vinden-construction; note that locational PPs cannot be used in the vinden-construction due to the fact that the complementive must be subjective in nature. For this reason we have used an idiomatic PP with adjectival meaning in the sense that it denotes a property.

Example 44
a. dat Els Jan <een vervelende knul> vindt <*een vervelende knul>.
NP
  that  Els Jan    an annoying guy  considers
  'that Els considers Jan an annoying guy.'
b. dat Els Jan <erg vervelend> vindt <*erg aardig>.
AP
  that  Els Jan  very annoying  considers
  'that Els considers Jan very annoying.'
c. dat Els Jan <erg in de contramine> vindt <*erg in de contramine>.
PP
  that  Els Jan  very in the contramine  considers 
  'that Els considers Jan very uncooperative.'

The examples in (45a&b) show the same for resultative constructions with an adjectival and a prepositional complementive; we added an instance with the verbal particle neer, which can likewise be considered a complementive; see Section 2.2.1, sub II. Resultative constructions do not take nominal complementives.

Example 45
a. dat Jan het hek <blauw> verfde <*blauw>.
AP
  that  Jan the gate     blue  painted
  'that Jan painted the gate blue.'
b. dat Jan het boek <op de tafel> legde <*op de tafel>.
PP
  that  Jan the book    on the table  put
  'that Jan put the book on the table.'
c. dat Jan het boek <neer> legde <*neer>.
particle
  that  Jan the book    down  put
  'that Jan put the book down.'

In light of the examples in (45b&c), example (46a) constitutes a potential problem for the claim that complements cannot follow the verb(s) in clause-final position, as the PP op de tafel can easily be extraposed. It seems plausible, however, that this PP in fact does not function as complementive, given that clauses cannot contain more than one complementive; the fact illustrated in (46b) that the particle neer cannot be extraposed suggests that this is the true complementive and that the PP performs some other function. We refer the reader to Section 2.2.1, sub IV, for a more detailed discussion and for further suggestions.

Example 46
a. dat Jan het boek <op de tafel> neer legde <op de tafel>.
  that  Jan the book   on the table  down  put
  'that Jan put the book down on the table.'
b. dat Jan het boek op de tafel <neer> legde <*neer>.
  that  Jan the book   on the table   down  put
  'that Jan put the book down on the table.'

The examples in (47) show that we can find a similar phenomenon in resultative constructions headed by verbs prefixed with be-. Example (47a) shows that complementive tot-phrases typically precede the verb in clause-final position. However, if the tot-phrase is selected by a verb prefixed with be-, it can either precede or follow the verb.

Example 47
a. dat de koning Jan <tot ridder> heeft geslagen <*tot ridder>.
  that  the king  Jan   to knight  has  hit
  'that the king made Jan a knight.'
b. dat de koning Jan <tot adviseur> heeft benoemd <tot adviseur>.
  that the king  Jan   to advisor  has  appointed
  'that the king has appointed Jan as counselor.'

The contrast with respect to the placement of the tot-PP between the two examples in (47) would follow under the hypothesis discussed in Section 3.3.2, sub IIB, that the prefixes be-, ver- and ont- syntactically function as incorporated complementives; on the hypothesis that clauses cannot contain more than one complementive, we must conclude that the tot-PP in (47b) performs some function other than complementive, as is also clear from the fact that it can be omitted: dat de koning Jan heeft benoemd'that the king has appointed Jan'.
      This section has shown that complementives cannot be extraposed whatever their categorial status: NPs, APs and PPs behave alike in this respect. Given that postpositional and circumpositional phrases always function as complementives if used as clausal constituents, we expect that they do not occur in extraposed position. This expectation seems indeed borne out; postpositional and circumpositional phrases only occur in extraposed position if they function as postnominal modifiers (see Section 12.4 for examples).

Example 48
a. dat Jan <het dak op> klom <*het dak op>.
  that  Jan   the roof  onto  climbed
  'that Jan climbed onto the roof.'
b. dat Jan <over het hek heen> sprong <*over het hek heen>.
  that Jan over the fence heen  jumped
  'that Jan jumped over the fence.'

What may be more surprising is that the circumpositional phrases cannot be split by extraposition but that this is possible under wh-movement. An illustration of this contrast is given in (49) for the circumpositional phrase achter de optocht aan. We refer the reader to Section P1.2.5 for detailed discussion.

Example 49
a. dat de kinderen achter de optocht aan renden.
  that  the children  after the parade  AAN  ran
  'that the children ran after the parade.'
b. Achter welke optocht renden de kinderen aan?
  after which parade  ran  the children  aan
  'After which parade did the children run?'
c. * dat de kinderen aan renden achter de optocht.
  that  the children  AAN  ran  after the parade
[+]  III.  Other cases

Measure phrases selected by verbs like duren'to last', wegen'to weigh' and kosten'to cost' probably do not function as complementives but nevertheless seem selected by the verb, as omitting the measure phrase would lead to a degraded result (unless the verb is contrastively stressed). The examples in (50) show that these phrases cannot be extraposed, whatever their categorial status.

Example 50
a. dat de workshop <erg lang> duurt <*erg lang>.
  that  the workshop   very long  lasts
  'that the workshop takes a very long time.'
b. dat de workshop <een hele week> duurt <*een hele week>.
  that  the workshop   a whole week  lasts
  'that the workshop takes a whole week.'
c. dat de workshop <tot tien uur> duurt <??tot tien uur>
  that  the workshop  until ten hour  lasts
  'The workshop continues until 10 oʼclock.'

The examples in (51) show that the same holds for APs and PPs that accompany verbs like wonen'to live' and verblijven'to lodge/live'.

Example 51
a. dat Jan <in Utrecht> woont <*in Utrecht>.
  that  Jan    in Utrecht  lives
  'that Jan lives in Utrecht.'
b. dat Jan <erg comfortabel> woont <*erg comfortabel>.
  that  Jan   very comfortably  lives
  'that Jan lives quite comfortably.'
[+]  IV.  Conclusion

The previous subsections have discussed the extraposition options of clausal constituents selected by the verb (arguments, complementive and measure phrases). The discussion has shown that extraposition of arguments depends on their categorial status: extraposition is impossible with nominal arguments, obligatory with clausal arguments and optional with prepositional arguments. Extraposition of complementives is impossible, irrespective of their category. The same holds for measure phrases selected by verbs such as duren'to last'. One thing that we did not discuss but should be mentioned is that extraposition of clausal arguments does not seem to affect the proposition expressed by the clause (although we have seen that extraposition of PP-complements may have an effect on the information structure of the clause). This will become relevant in our discussion of postverbal clausal constituents that function as modifiers in Section 12.3.

References:
  • Barbiers, Sjef1995The syntax of interpretationThe Hague, Holland Academic GraphicsUniversity of Leiden/HILThesis
  • Broekhuis, Hans2008Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languagesStudies in Generative GrammarBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Haan, Ger de1979Conditions on rulesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Zwart, Jan-Wouter1997Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of DutchDordrechtKluwer Academic Publishers
  • Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • 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
  • 12.4. Parts of constituents
    [94%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
  • 11.3.3. Topicalization
    [94%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement) > 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
  • 12.1. General introduction
    [94%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
  • 14.3. Right dislocation
    [93%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 14 Main-clause external elements
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.