• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
12.4. Parts of constituents
quickinfo

There is a wide range of constructions in which a part of a clausal constituent occurs in postverbal position. Prototypical cases of such extraposed phrases are relative clauses and postnominal clauses/PPs (both modifiers and complements). Examples are provided in (73), in which the italicized parts clearly form a clausal constituent semantically. We refer to cases like these as split extraposition constructions (by analogy to the notion of split topicalization, which refers to cases in which a part of a clausal constituent is topicalized). Italics will be used throughout this subsection to indicate the split clausal constituents.

Example 73
a. Hij heeft de man bezocht die hier gisteren was.
relative clause
  he  has  the man  visited  who  here  yesterday  was
  'He has visited the man who was here yesterday.'
b. dat Jan de vraag stelde of het regende.
complement clause
  that  Jan the question  put  whether  it  rained
  'that Jan asked the question whether it rained.'
c. dat Jan een boek gekocht heeft uit de 16e eeuw.
PP-modifier
  that  Jan a book  bought  has  from the 16th century
  'that Jan has bought a book from the 16th century.'

For a long time, generative grammar has taken it for granted that split extraposition constructions are derived by movement from underlying structures in which the italicized parts are syntactic units; cf. Baltin (2006) for a review, subsection I will show that there are reasons for rejecting such a movement approach, subsection II continues by showing that split extraposition is not limited to relative clauses and complements/modifiers of noun phrases, but that it is a more general phenomenon. We illustrate this in (74) by cases in which an adjectival complementive is split: in (74a) the PP-complement op Peter of the adjective boos'angry' is extraposed, and in (74b), the extraposed clause is part of a complex modifier phrase of the adjective klein'small'.

Example 74
a. dat Marie erg boos is op Peter.
  that  Marie  very angry  is at Peter
  'that Marie is very angry with Peter.'
b. dat de computer zo klein is dat hij overal past.
  that  the computer  so small  is  that  he  everywhere  fits
  'that the computer is so small that it fits everywhere.'

The conclusion that split extraposition cannot be derived by movement may give rise to the idea that we are not dealing with extraposition but with some form of right dislocation; cf. Section 12.1, sub IV, where it is shown that extraposition and right dislocation are sometimes difficult to distinguish, subsection III will argue against this hypothesis by showing that the postverbal parts of split extraposition constructions differ from right-dislocated phrases in that the former cannot be stranded under VP-topicalization; Kaan (1992) has in fact shown that both parts of the split constituent must be pied piped in order to obtain an acceptable result. We illustrate this in the (a)-examples in (75) for the extraposed relative clause in (73a); example (75b) is added to show that the full noun phrase can be stranded under VP-topicalization but in this case the relative clause is simply not extraposed, as is clear from the fact that it precedes the sentential negation niet'not', which cannot occur in postverbal position. Kaan’s generalization will be used as a test for distinguishing the postverbal part in split extraposition constructions from right-dislocated phrases.

Example 75
a. [De man bezocht die hier gisteren was] heeft hij niet.
  the man  visited  who  here  yesterday  was has  he  not
a'. * [De man bezocht] heeft hij niet die hier gisteren was.
a''. * [Bezocht die hier gisteren was] heeft hij de man niet.
b. Bezocht heeft hij [de mandie hier gisteren was] niet.

The (a)-examples clearly show that the postverbal part in split extraposition constructions is clearly clause-internal, subsection IV concludes by discussing a fairly recent alternative for the movement approach initiated by Koster (2000), according to which split extraposition is a form of juxtaposition of the VP and some other phrase.

readmore
[+]  I.  Relative clauses and postnominal complements/modifiers

Prototypical cases of split extraposition involve nominal arguments with a relative clause or a postnominal clause/PP. We illustrate this again in the examples in (76): the primeless examples indicate the structures of the noun phrases in the non-split pattern, while the primed examples illustrate the split extraposition pattern.

Example 76
a. dat hij [de man [die dit boek geschreven heeft]] kent.
  that  he  the man  who  this book  written  has knows
  'that he knows the man who has written this book.'
a'. dat hij de man kent die dit boek geschreven heeft.
  that  he  the man  knows  who  this book  written  has
b. dat hij [de bewering [dat Marie gelogen had]] niet kon weerleggen.
  that  he  the contention   that  Marie lied  had  not  could  rebut
  'that he couldnʼt rebut the claim that Marie had lied.'
b'. dat hij de bewering niet kon weerleggen dat Marie gelogen had.
  that  he  the contention  not  could  rebut  that  Marie lied had
c. dat hij [de man [met het aapje]] gezien heeft.
  that  he   the man  with the monkey  seen  has
  'that he has seen the man with the monkey.'
c'. dat hij de man gezien heeft met het aapje.
  that  he  the man  seen  has  with the monkey

For completeness’ sake, we add the examples in (77) in order to show that split extraposition is not only possible with prepositional phrases but also with post- and circumpositional phrases; cf. Veld (1993:section 4.3).

Example 77
a. dat ze een weg <de berg op> bouwden <de berg op>.
  that  they  a road  the mountain up  built
  'that they built a road up the mountain.'
b. dat ze een gang <onder de weg door> groeven < onder de weg door>.
  that  they  a tunnel  under the road door  dug
  'that they dug a tunnel underneath the road.'

      Until the mid 1990’s many generative grammarians assumed that the split patterns in (76) and (77) are derived by movement. One reason was that a movement analysis immediately accounts for the fact that the postverbal phrase obeys selection restrictions imposed by the presumed selecting head, as well as the fact that the pre- and postverbal PP are in complementary distribution: cf. Corver (1991).

Example 78
dat Jan de hoop <op/*voor hulp> verloor <op/*voor hulp>.
  that  Jan the hope    on/for help  lost
'that Jan lost all hope of help.'

The nature of the movement is not entirely clear, however. One generally accepted derivation involved the postulation of an extraposition transformation (which in the case of PPs was sometimes referred to as PP-over-V), which optionally moves the postnominal clause/PP rightwards into some postverbal position, as illustrated by structure (79a). Another view, which originates from the 1970’s and became quite popular after the publication of Kayne (1994), is the so-called raising (or promotion) analysis. According to this analysis, the noun phrase is generated to the right of the verb and subsequently moved into some position to left of the verb, while optionally stranding its post-nominal part; this is indicated by structure (79b), in which NP* stands for a somewhat larger nominal projection than the moved NP-projection.

Example 79
a. [... [NP ... N ti ] ... V [rel-clausei/clause/PP]i]
extraposition/PP-over-V
b. [... [NP ... N]i ... V [NP*ti [rel-clausei/clause/PP]]]
raising/promotion

Despite the popularity of the two proposals there are many theoretical and empirical problems with them; we will provide some of the most important issues below and refer the reader to Koster (1973/1995/2000), Kaan (1992), De Vries (2002:ch.7), Boef (2013:ch.3), and references cited there for more detailed discussions.
      A quite problematic aspect of the extraposition analysis in (79a) is that it presupposes that relative clauses and postnominal PPs can be extracted from noun phrases, while there is actually no independent evidence to support that claim. For example, while virtually any clausal constituent can be moved into clause-initial position, topicalization of relative clauses and postnominal clauses/PPs is excluded, as is illustrated by the primed examples in (80). The number sign in (80c') indicates that this example is acceptable if the met-PP is interpreted as a comitative adverbial phrase; this reading is irrelevant here.

Example 80
a. Hij kent [de man [die dit boek geschreven heeft]].
  he  knows  the man  who  this book  written  has
  'He knows the man who has written this book.'
a'. * Die dit boek geschreven heeft kent hij de man.
  who  this book  written  has  knows  he  the man
b. Hij kon [de bewering [dat Marie gelogen had]] niet weerleggen.
  he  could   the contention   that  Marie lied  had  not  rebut
  'He couldnʼt rebut the claim that Marie had lied.'
b'. * Dat Marie gelogen had kon hij de bewering niet weerleggen.
  that  Marie lied  had  could  he  the contention  not  rebut
c. Hij heeft [de man [met het aapje]] gezien.
  he  has  the man  with the monkey  seen
  'He has seen the man with the monkey.'
c'. # Met het aapje heeft hij de man gezien.
  with the monkey  has  he  the man  seen

The unacceptability of the primed examples follows from the hypothesis that noun phrases are islands for movement (cf. Section 11.3.1.1, sub VB), but this hypothesis would make the extraposition analysis in (79a) highly implausible anyway. Of course, there are also arguments in favor of the extraposition analysis but these do not seem very strong. For example, it has been argued that noun phrases such as het debuut van Hella Haasse do allow topicalization of their postnominal PP. However, topicalization of this sort is possible only if the PP is headed by van or over, and Section N2.2.1, sub VC, has shown that such topicalized PPs can be analyzed as restrictive adverbial phrases.

Example 81
a. Hij heeft [het debuut van Hella Haasse] gelezen.
  he  has   the debut  of Hella Haasse  read
  'He has read Hella Haasseʼs debut novel.'
b. Hij heeft het debuut gelezen van Hella Haasse.
extraposition
  he  has  the debut  read  of Hella Haasse
b'. Van Hella Haasse heeft hij het debuut gelezen.
topicalization
  of Hella Haasse  has  he  the  debut  read

A more convincing argument in favor of the analysis in (79a) might be that scrambling of the object across a clausal adverb has a deteriorating effect on extraposition; this may follow from the so-called freezing effect, according to which moved phrases are islands for extraction. It should be noted, however, that Guéron (1980) has argued on the basis of English that extraposition is possible only from noun phrases that are part of the focus (new information) of the clause, while scrambled nominal arguments are typically part of the presupposition.

Example 82
a. Hij heeft waarschijnlijk die man <met het aapje> gezien <met het aapje>.
  he  has  probably  that man    with the monkey  seen
  'He has probably seen that man with the monkey.'
b. Hij heeft die man <met het aapje> waarschijnlijk gezien <*met het aapje>.
  he  has  that man  with the monkey  probably  seen

Another potential argument against the freezing approach and in favor of Guéron’s proposal is that De Vries (2002:244) claims that split extraposition is possible in the case of topicalized phrases. It is not so clear, however, whether examples such as (83) indeed involve extraposition or whether we are dealing with right dislocation; the percentage signs in these examples indicates that according to some speakers an intonation break is preferred, which would suggest that we are dealing with right dislocation. Unfortunately, the VP-topicalization test from Section 12.1, sub IV, cannot be used to help us out in this case because the clause-initial position is already filled by the topicalized noun phrase itself; we therefore have to leave this issue for future research.

Example 83
a. Dat boek heb ik de man gegeven %(,) dat hij graag wilde hebben.
  that book  have  the man  given  which  he  gladly  wanted  have
  'I have given that man the book which he liked to have.'
b. Twee boeken heeft Jan hem gegeven %(,) met mooie foto’s.
  two books  has  Jan him given  with beautiful pictures
  'Jan has given the man two books with beautiful pictures.'

Guéron’s claim may also tally with the fact that extraposition from noun phrases with definite articles is difficult and perhaps even impossible in English; cf. Baltin (2006). It should be noted, however, that replacing the demonstrative die'that' by the definite article de'the' in Dutch examples such as (82a) does not have the same far-reaching effect on acceptability judgments as in English, as is clear from the full acceptability of the examples in (76); see also Koster (2000). Whatever accounts for this conspicuous difference between English and Dutch, the main conclusion for the moment is that it is not a priori clear that an appeal to the syntactic notion of freezing is needed to account for the acceptability contrast indicated in the two examples in (82). This conclusion seems supported by the acceptability judgments on the examples in (84), which show that split extraposition becomes more difficult in general if more material intervenes between the extraposed phrase and its intended associate, which is given in italics; cf. Corver (1991:134).

Example 84
a. Els zei dat het zoontje had opgebeld van de buren.
  Els said  that  the sondim.  had prt.-called  of the neighbors
  'Els said that the son of the neighbors had called.'
b. ?? Els zei dat het zoontje haar had opgebeld van de buren.
  Els said  that  the sondim.  her  had prt.-called  of the neighbors
  Intended reading: 'Els said that the son of the neighbors had called her.'
c. * Els zei dat het zoontje haar vriendin had opgebeld van de buren.
  Els said  that  the sondim.  her friend  had prt.-called  of the neighbors
  Intended reading: 'Els said that the son of the neighbors had called her friend.'

      Let us now turn to the raising analysis in (79b). A potential problem for this analysis is related to the fact that extraposition is not only possible from direct objects but also from indirect objects and subjects. In (85), we provide examples with extraposed relative clauses: the relative clauses and their antecedents are again in italics.

Example 85
a. Jan heeft iemand ontmoet die hem wil helpen.
direct object
  Jan has  someone  met who  him  wants  help
  'Jan has met someone who wants to help him.'
b. Jan heeft iemand 10 euro gegeven die hem wil helpen.
indirect object
  Jan has  someone  10 euro  given  who  him wants  help
  'Jan has given 10 euros to someone who wants to help him.'
c. Er heeft iemand opgebeld die hem wil helpen.
subject
  there  has  someone  prt.-called  who  him  wants  help
  'Someone who wants to help him has telephoned.'

The examples in (85) involve indefinite nominal arguments but the examples in (86) show that split extraposition is also possible with definite nominal arguments (although the result seems slightly marked in case of an indirect object), provided that the nominal arguments are part of the focus (new information) of the clause and thus follow clausal adverbs such as waarschijnlijk'probably' (if present); placement of de man further to the left gives rise to a degraded result. Note in passing that the examples in (86) refute De Haan’s (1974:176-7) claim that split extraposition is excluded in the case of (definite) indirect objects and subjects.

Example 86
a. Jan heeft waarschijnlijk de man ontmoet die hem wil helpen.
  Jan has  probably  the man  met  who  him wants  help
b. (?) Jan heeft waarschijnlijk de man 10 euro gegeven die hem wil helpen.
  Jan has  probably  the man  10 euro  given  who  him wants  help
c. Gisteren heeft waarschijnlijk de man opgebeld die hem wil helpen.
  yesterday  has  probably  the man  prt.-called  who  him wants  help

Split extraposition with PPs is illustrated in (87). The case with an indirect object in (87b) is again somewhat marked but the case with a subject in (87c) is impeccable. Note that the acceptability of the (b)- and (c)-examples in (86) and (87) refutes De Haan’s (1974:176-7) claim that split extraposition is excluded in the case of (definite) indirect objects and subjects; the marked status of split extraposition with the indirect object in the (b)-examples should probably be attributed to the intervention effect noted in (84).

Example 87
a. Jan heeft hier veel mensen ontmoet met financiële problemen
  Jan has  here many people  met  with financial problems
  'Jan has met a lot of people with financial problems here.'
b. ? Marie heeft veel mensen raad gegeven met financiële problemen.
  Marie has  many people  advice  given  with financial problems
  'Marie has given advice to many people with financial problems.'
c. Hier hebben altijd veel mensen gewoond met financiële problemen.
  here have  always  many people  lived  with financial problems
  'Many people with financial problems have lived here over time.'

The problem that the acceptability of the examples in (85) to (87) poses for the raising analysis is that this analysis presupposes that relative clauses can appear postverbally only if the noun phrases they modify are base-generated in a position following the surface position of the clause-final verbs. While this is plausible for objects, this is quite unlikely for subjects: assuming that the subject in (85c) is base-generated to the right of the surface position of the main verb is incompatible with the standard assumption presented in Section 9.2 that the clause-final verb is located within VP and thus follows the base position of the external argument (subject) of the main verb. The raising analysis therefore makes it necessary to revise the standard analysis of Dutch clauses, which should not be done light-heartedly; see also Koster (2000:8). Note in passing that the so-called scattered deletion approach proposed in Wilder (1995) and Sheehan (2010), which we did not discuss here, has the same flaw (which is in fact presented as a virtue by Sheehan on the basis of English data); we refer the reader to De Vries (2002:ch.7) for a more extensive review of this approach.
      A problem for either proposal in (79) is that extraposition is also possible from a noun phrase that does not function as a clausal constituent itself but is embedded in a clausal constituent. This is illustrated in (88) for cases in which the noun phrases function as the complement of a prepositional object.

Example 88
a. Jan heeft [op [die man [die hem wil helpen]]] gewacht.
  Jan has  for  that man   who  him  wants  help  waited
  'Jan has waited for that man who wants to help him.'
a'. Jan heeft [op die man] gewacht die hem wil helpen.
b. Jan moet [op [de bevestiging [dat hij mag komen]]] wachten.
  Jan must  for  the confirmation   that  he  may  come  wait
  'Jan has to wait for the confirmation that he is allowed to come.'
b'. Jan moet [op de bevestiging] wachten dat hij mag komen.
c. Jan heeft [op [die man <met het aapje>]] gewacht.
  Jan has   for   that man    with the monkey  waited
  'Jan has waited for that man with the monkey.'
c'. Jan heeft [op die man] gewacht met het aapje.

The problem for the extraposition analysis in (79a) is that we must assume that the extraposed phrase is extracted, not just from a noun phrase but also from the containing PP: cf. ... [PP P [NP ... N ti ]] ... V [rel-clause/clause/PP]i. The fact that examples such as *Wiei wacht je [PP op ti]?'Who are you waiting for?' are unacceptable shows that Dutch PPs normally behave as islands for movement, and this makes the extraposition analysis quite implausible because the extraposed phrase is not only extracted from a noun phrase but also from a PP. The problem with the raising approach is of a different nature: the presumed leftward movement involves the non-constituent op die man (cf. [PPop [NPdie man [rel-clausedie ...]]]). Under normal circumstances we would expect that movement of this PP cannot strand the postnominal phrase. It should be noted, however, that this argument only applies to theories that assume that the PP is base-generated as a unit; if we assume that complement-PPs are created in the course of the derivation, as suggested by Kayne (2004), this problem need not arise.
      It is also generally assumed that extraposition is possible from noun phrases that are embedded in a postnominal PP, although there seem to be several restrictions on this option that are not yet well understood. Example (89a) has two alternating versions with extraposition. The first version is given in (89b) and simply involves extraposition of a postnominal PP from a direct object. The second alternant, which is given in (89c), is the one that is relevant here: it involves extraposition of a relative clause from a noun phrase that is embedded in a postnominal modifier (as is clear from the fact that the relative pronoun die cannot take the noun boek as antecedent because it does not agree with it in gender (cf. Het boek dat ik gelezen heb'the book I have read'), and thus must be construed with the noun plaatjes).

Example 89
a. dat Jan [een boek [met plaatjes [die ingekleurd zijn]]] heeft gekocht.
  that  Jan   a book   with pictures   which colored are  has  bought
  'that Jan has bought a book with colored pictures.'
b. dat Jan een boek heeft gekocht met plaatjes die ingekleurd zijn.
  that  Jan a book  has  bought  with pictures  which colored are
c. (?) dat Jan een boekmet plaatjes heeft gekocht die ingekleurd zijn.
  that  Jan a book with pictures  has  bought  which colored are

Example (89c) is perhaps slightly marked compared to (89b), but seems fully acceptable; the contrast may be computational in nature in the sense that speakers simply tend to connect extraposed relative clauses to the (structurally) closest antecedent. In (89c), this is, of course, the nominal projection een boek met plaatjes, and not the more deeply embedded phrase plaatjes. For one reason or another, this effect seems stronger if the extraposed phrase is of the same category as the postnominal modifier. This is illustrated in (90) for PPs.

Example 90
a. dat Jan [een boek [met plaatjes [in kleur]]]] heeft gekocht.
  that  Jan   a book   with pictures   in color  has  bought
  'that Jan has bought a book with colored pictures.'
b. dat Jan een boek heeft gekocht met plaatjes in kleur.
  that  Jan a book  has  bought  with pictures  in color
c. ? dat Jan een boekmet plaatjes heeft gekocht in kleur.
  that  Jan a book with pictures  has  bought  in color

Example (90c) is reasonably acceptable but there are cases with a similar structure that are judged infelicitous by at least some speakers: see Haeseryn et al. (1997:1381ff.) for a range of cases which they claim resist split extraposition of the kind under discussion; see Johnson (1991: section 3.3.4 for similar data from English. Examples such as (91c), for instance, are given as unacceptable, although some of our informants consider them fairly acceptable, which we have indicated by a percentage sign.

Example 91
a. dat Jan [een boek [met foto’s [van zijn hond]]] heeft.
  that  Jan   a book   with pictures   of his dog  has
  'that Jan has a book with pictures of his dog.'
b. dat Jan een boek heeft met foto’s van zijn hond.
  that  Jan a book  has  with pictures of his dog
c. % dat Jan een boekmet foto’s heeft van zijn hond.
  that  Jan a book with pictures  has  of his dog

Although it is unclear to us what determines whether extraposition of a more deeply embedded PP leads to a generally accepted result or not, we conjecture that the restrictions are not of a syntactic nature, but that considerations of processing, semantic coherence, prosody, etc. are involved; because we are not aware of any in-depth investigations of this, we have to leave this to future research. If our provisional conclusion that all the (c)-examples in (89) to (91) are syntactically well-formed turns out to be well-founded, it would lead to problems of the kind that were already pointed out for the examples in (88). This time we are not aware of any existing proposal that can be utilized to solve the problem for the raising analysis. For completeness’ sake, note that the scattered deletion approach, which we dismissed earlier, would be able to handle this problem; see De Vries (2002:ch.7) for this.
      Finally, we want to point out that the split extraposition pattern is also possible if the noun phrase is the complement of a locational/temporal adverbial PP; this is illustrated in (92) by means of a relative clause. The acceptability of the primed examples is again a severe problem for the movement analyses in (79), as such adverbial phrases are often considered to be absolute islands for movement. In addition, the raising approach is problematic because it requires the adjunct PPs to be base-generated postverbally and to be moved into their preverbal surface position, while there are good reasons for assuming the opposite: that the adverbial phrase is base-generated in preverbal position can be supported by the fact that this is the unmarked position for non-prepositional adverbial phrases like morgen'tomorrow' and gisteren'yesterday'; see Section 12.3, sub IV. Note in passing that this problem also holds for the scattered deletion approach mentioned earlier.

Example 92
a. Ik heb Els [tijdens [een workshop [waar zij een lezing gaf]]] gezien.
  have  Els   during   a workshop  where  she  a talk  gave  seen
  'I saw Els during a workshop where she gave a talk.'
a'. Ik heb Els tijdens een workshop gezien waar zij een lezing gaf.
  have  Els during a workshop  seen  where  she  a talk  gave
b. Ik heb Els voor het laatst [in [een park [waar ik vaak kom]]] gezien.
  I have Els for the last.time   in   a park  where  often  come  seen
  'The last time I saw Els was in a park I like to frequent.'
b'. Ik heb Els voor het laatst in een park gezien waar ik vaak kom.
  have  Els for the last.time  in a park  seen  where  often  come

      All things considered, we may conclude from the data in this subsection that the split extraposition pattern cannot be accounted for by the two movement analyses in (79); these proposals can only be maintained if we allow the proposed movements to violate otherwise well-motivated island constraints on movement. The raising (as well as the scattered deletion) approach furthermore requires that we adopt the quite unorthodox claim that the external argument (≈ subject) of the verb has a base-position that is structurally lower than (or, in linear terms, to the right of) the surface position of the clause-final verb.

[+]  II.  Other cases of split extraposition

Subsection I has illustrated the split extraposition pattern for nominal phrases. Although this is the prototypical case, it has been known for a long time that the split also occurs with other categories; cf. Koster (1974). We illustrate this in (93a) for complementive adjectival phrases with a PP-complement. It should be noted that such cases cannot easily be used to argue against a movement analysis of extraposition because the PP-complements can also be moved leftwards, as is illustrated in the primed examples by means of topicalization.

Example 93
a. dat Marie [AP erg boos <op Peter>] is <op Peter>.
  that  Marie  very angry    at Peter  is
  'that Marie is very angry with Peter.'
a'. [Op Peter]i is Marie [AP erg boos ti].
  at Peter  is Marie  very angry
b. dat Jan [AP erg dol <op chocola>] is <op chocola>.
  that  Jan  very fond   of chocolate  is
  'that Jan is very fond of chocolate.'
b'. [Op chocola]i is Jan [AP erg dol ti].
  of chocolate  is Jan  very fond

Things are different if the extraposed phrase is part of a modifier of the adjective. This is illustrated in (94) by means of the discontinuous degree phrase zo ... dat hij overal past'so .. that it fits everywhere'. Despite the fact that A3.1.3, sub IB, has shown that the finite degree phrase is part of the AP (they can be extraposed together), it is preferably in extraposed position; placing the clause in the position preceding the copular verb zijn gives rise to a quite marked result. Nevertheless, the fact illustrated by (94b) that the degree clause cannot be topicalized in isolation strongly suggests that it cannot be extracted from the AP; cf. Rijkhoek (1998).

Example 94
a. dat de computer zo klein is dat hij overal past.
  that  the computer  so small  is  that  he  everywhere  fits
  'that the computer is so small that it fits everywhere.'
b. * Dat hij overal past is de computer zo klein.

The unacceptability of (94b) thus suggests again that the split extraposition pattern in (94a) is not island-sensitive. This is further supported by the examples in (95), which show that the AP can easily be more deeply embedded: in (94b) the split AP is part of a direct object and in (94c) it is part of a PP-object.

Example 95
a. dat Jan [een zo kleine computer] wil hebben dat hij overal past.
  that  Jan   a  so small  computer want  have  that he fits everywhere
  'that Jan wants to have such a small computer that it fits everywhere.'
b. dat Jan [naar [een zo kleine computer]] zoekt dat hij overal past.
  that  Jan   for   a  so small  computer looks  that he fits everywhere
  'that Jan is looking for such a small computer that it fits everywhere.'

That extraposition of degree clauses is not island-sensitive is also clear from the fact that they can be associated with modified manner adverbs such as hard'loud' in (96), despite the fact that such adverbial phrases are often considered to be absolute islands for movement.

Example 96
dat de band zo hard speelt dat je elkaar niet kan verstaan.
  that  the band  so loudly  plays  that  one  each.other  not  can  hear
'that the band plays so loudly that you canʼt hear each other.'

We find essentially the same with dan/als-phrases accompanying comparatives; see Section A4. The examples in (97) first show that despite the fact that the dan/als-phrases cannot be topicalized, the split extraposition pattern is possible (and perhaps even preferred). This again suggests that split extraposition is not island-sensitive.

Example 97
a. dat zijn computer minder snel <dan de mijne> is <dan de mijne>.
  that  his computer  less fast    than the mine  is
  'that his computer is less fast than mine.'
b. * Dande mijne is zijn computer minder snel.

More support comes from the fact that the comparative can easily be more deeply embedded: in (98a) the split AP is part of a direct object and in (98b) it is part of a PP-object.

Example 98
a. dat Jan [een snellere computer] wil hebben dande mijne.
  that  Jan   a  faster  computer wants  have  than the mine
  'that Jan wants to have a faster computer than mine.'
b. dat Jan [naar [een snellere computer]] zoekt dande mijne.
  that  Jan   for   a  faster computer looks  than the mine
  'that Jan is looking for a faster computer than mine.'

That extraposition of dan/als-phrases is not sensitive to islands is also clear from the fact that they can be associated with modified manner adverbs such as sneller'faster' in (99), despite the fact that such adverbial phrases are often considered to be absolute islands for movement.

Example 99
dat Jans computer sneller werkt dan de mijne.
  that  Janʼs computer  faster  works  than the mine
'that Janʼs computer works more quickly than mine.'

For completeness’ sake, observe that split extraposition is not possible in the case of attributively used adjectives. This is illustrated by means of the examples in (100); while the PP-complement of the adjective verliefd can be extraposed if the AP is used as a complementive, it cannot if it is used as an attributive modifier.

Example 100
a. dat Jan verliefd <op Marie> is <op Marie>.
  that  Jan in-love   with Marie  is
  'that Jan is in love with Peter.'
b. dat ik een <op Peter> verliefde jongen ontmoette <*op Peter>.
  that   with Marie  in.love  boy  met
  'that I met a boy who is in love with Peter.'
[+]  III.  VP-topicalization

Subsections I and II have shown that split extraposition is not sensitive to islands for extraction, which suggests that we are not dealing with movement, which subsequently raises the question as to what extraposition is. One possibility is that we are dealing with right dislocation. This does not seem the correct solution, however, given that Section 12.1, sub IV, has shown that right-dislocated phrases have a tendency of stranding under VP-topicalization, while postverbal phrases in split extraposition constructions tend to be pied piped, as illustrated in (101) for extraposed postnominal phrases. Observe that the primed examples are acceptable with the typical intonation contour of an afterthought, that is, with an intonation break and an additional accent in the phrase following this break. This would suggest that while the dislocated phrases are external to the preposed verbal projection, the extraposed phrases in (101) are internal to it. Recall from the introduction to this section that the nominal phrase in preverbal position must also be pied piped in order to arrive at an acceptable result (Kaan’s generalization); this is, of course, expected given that Subsection I has shown that scrambling blocks the split extraposition pattern.

Example 101
a. [De man kennen die dit boek geschreven heeft] doet hij niet.
  the man  know  who  this book  written  has  does  he  not
  'He doesnʼt know the man who has written this book.'
a'. [De man kennen] doet hij niet *(,) die dit boek geschreven heeft.
b. [De bewering weerleggen dat Marie gelogen had] kon hij niet.
  the contention  rebut  that  Marie lied had  could  he  not
  'He couldnʼt rebut the claim that Marie had lied.'
b'. [De bewering weerleggen] kon hij niet *(,)dat Marie gelogen had.
c. [De man gezien met het aapje] heeft hij niet.
  the man  seen  with the monkey  has  he  not
  'He hasnʼt seen the man with the monkey.'
c'. [De man gezien] heeft hij niet *(,)met het aapje.

The examples in (102) show essentially the same as the examples in (101) but now we are dealing with cases in which the split noun phrase is embedded in a PP-object. In accordance with Kaan’s generalization, pied piping of the extraposed phrase requires the PP to be pied piped as well, as in the primeless examples. As in the case of nominal objects the full PP can be stranded under VP-topicalization: cf. Gewacht heeft Jan niet op die man die hem wil helpen.

Example 102
a. [Op die man gewacht die hem wil helpen] heeft Jan niet.
  for that man  waited  who him wants help  has  Jan not
  'Jan hasnʼt waited for that man who wants to help him.'
a'. [Op die man gewacht] heeft Jan niet *(,) die hem wil helpen.
b. [Op de bevestiging gewacht dat hij mag komen] heeft Jan niet.
  for the confirmation  waited  that  he  may  come  has  Jan not
  'Jan hasnʼt waited for the confirmation that he is allowed to come.'
b'. [Op de bevestiging gewacht] heeft Jan niet*(,) dat hij mag komen.
c. [Op de man gewacht met het aapje] heeft Jan niet.
  for the man  waited   with the monkey  has  Jan not
  'Jan hasnʼt waited for the man with the monkey.'
c'. [Op de man gewacht] heeft Jan niet *(,)met het aapje.

The examples in (103) illustrate the same again but now for split APs. The degraded status of (103a'') is especially telling as dol meaning "fond (of)" obligatorily takes an op-PP as its complement, and we have seen in Subsection IC that such obligatory PPs can only be right-dislocated if a pronominal PP is present in preverbal position. Note in passing that in accordance with Kaan’s generalization the complementive and the manner adverb in the singly-primed examples cannot be stranded under VP-topicalization; this is expected given that this also holds for cases of VP-topicalization with a simple adjective: cf. Hard spelen zal de band niet versus *Spelen zal de band <hard> niet <hard>.

Example 103
a. Ik ben mijn hele leven [dol <op chocola>] gebleven <op chocola>.
  am  my whole life  fond  of chocolate  stayed
  'I have remained fond of chocolate my whole life.'
a'. [Dol gebleven op chocola] ben ik mijn hele leven.
a''. * [Dol gebleven] ben ik mijn hele leven (,) op chocola.
b. De band zal niet zo hard spelen dat je elkaar niet kan verstaan.
  the band will  not  so loudly  play  that  you  each.other  not  can  hear
  'The band wonʼt play so loudly that you canʼt hear each other.'
b'. [Zo hard spelen dat je elkaar niet kan verstaan] zal de band niet.
b''. [Zo hard spelen] zal de band niet *(,) dat je elkaar niet kan verstaan.

For completeness’ sake we conclude by providing similar examples in (104) with a comparative dan/als-phrase.

Example 104
a. [Een snellere computer vinden dan de mijne] kon hij niet.
  a faster computer  find  than the mine  could  he  not
  'He couldn't find a faster computer than mine.'
a'. * [Een snellere computer vinden ] kon hij niet dan de mijne.
b. [Sneller werken dan de mijne] doet Jans computer niet.
  faster  work  than the mine  does  Janʼs computer  not
  'Janʼs computer doesnʼt work faster than mine.'
b'. * [Sneller werken ] doet Jans computer nietdan de mijne.

The examples above show that extraposed phrases in the split extraposition construction differ from right-dislocated clauses in that they are internal to the preposed verbal projection. Consequently, we are in need of another non-movement account for the split extraposition pattern.

[+]  IV.  An alternative analysis

Koster (1995/2000) proposes to analyze split extraposition as a form of juxtaposition. The initial motivation for this was that we find the split pattern also in coordinate structures; a movement analysis of an example such as (105a) would go against the coordinate structure constraint, which is held to be universally valid. De Vries (2002) further claimed that split coordination resembles split extraposition in that the postverbal part can be pied piped under VP-topicalization, and we do indeed detect a sharp contrast between the pied piping case in (105b) and the stranding case in (105b'), which is severely degraded (even if the second part of the conjunction is preceded by an intonation break). The percentage sign in (105b) is used to indicate that while De Vries gives this example as fully acceptable, we find the result somewhat marked.

Example 105
a. Marie heeft [Jan <en Peter>] bezocht <en Peter>.
  Marie has   Jan   and Peter  visited
  'Marie has visited Jan and Peter.'
b. % [Jan bezocht en Peter] heeft Marie niet.
  Jan visited en Peter  has  Marie  not
b'. * [Jan bezocht] heeft Marie niet (,) en Piet.
  Jan  visited  has  Marie not  and Piet

That the split pattern cannot be derived by movement is also made clear when considering subjects: while the non-split pattern in (106a) triggers plural agreement on the finite verb, the split pattern in (106b) does not; Koster (2000) notes that this would be unexpected if (106b) were derived from (106a) by movement.

Example 106
a. Jan en Peter hebben/*heeft dit boek gelezen.
  Jan and Peter  have/has  this book  read
  'Jan and Peter have read this book.'
b. Jan heeft/*hebben dit boek gelezen en Peter.
  Jan has/have  this book  read  and Peter
  'Jan has read this book and Peter.'

Another unexpected fact under the movement approach is that while the non-split-pattern is subject to the coordinate structure constraint, which prohibits extraction of/from a single conjunct, the split pattern is not subject to this constraint. This is illustrated by the contrast between the two (b)-examples in (107).

Example 107
a. Zij heeft [Jan <en Peter>] bezocht <en Peter>.
  she  has  Jan   and Peter  visited
  'She has visited Jan and Peter.'
b. * Jani heeft zij [ti en Peter] bezocht.
b'. Jani heeft zij ti bezocht en Peter.

Koster proposes that the split patterns differ from the non-split patterns in that they do not involve coordination of equals, as in (108a), but rather have the form in (108b) where the equal of the second conjunct is embedded in a larger phrase. The split pattern may involve coordination of various verbal projections (VP, TP, or CP) and a noun phrase, as indicated in (108b). Note in passing that in cases like (108b) the second conjunct is actually external to the clause, for which reason we may analyze this as a kind of right dislocation; we ignore this issue here and refer the reader to Section 14.3, sub VII, for a brief discussion of a proposal which would imply this.

Example 108
a. [XP & XP], e.g., [Jan en Peter]
b. [[YP ... XP ...] & XP]
i. Marie heeft [[VP Jan bezocht] en Peter].
ii. [[TP Jan heeft dit boek gelezen] en Peter].
iii. [[CP Jani heeft zij ti bezocht] en Peter].

The form of coordination in (108b) raises a lot of questions, especially the fact that the two conjuncts are not parallel in categorial status, syntactic function and meaning. We will not go into this here, because De Vries (1999/2002) has proposed an alternative, according to which we are dealing with coordination of two verbal projections plus deletion of identical material. According to this proposal, the three examples in (108b) receive the representations in (109).

Example 109
a. VP & VP: Marie heeft [[VP Jan bezocht] en [VP Peter bezocht]].
b. IP & IP: [[IP Jan heeft dit boek gelezen] en [IP Peter heeft dit boek gelezen]].
c. CP & CP: [[CP Jani heeft zij ti bezocht] en [CP Peteriheeft zijti bezocht]].

Note in passing that structures such as (109c) will be analyzed as right dislocations in Section 14.3 but in order to not complicate the discussion we will ignore this issue here, while noting that we cannot apply the VP-topicalization test to this case so that there is no syntactic evidence to reject the right dislocation analysis here.
      The hypothesis put forward by Koster is that split extraposition is a specific case of parallel construal; this notion refers to a larger set of structures in which two (or more) elements are juxtaposed and in which the second phrase specifies the first. For concreteness’ sake, we will follow De Vries who argues that the split extraposition pattern can also be analyzed as asyndetic specifying coordination plus ellipsis; see also Bianchi (1999:264ff.). The primed examples in (110) illustrate his analysis of split extraposition for a direct object; the element &: marks a phonetically empty conjunction with a specifying meaning.

Example 110
a. Jan heeft de man ontmoet die hem wil helpen.
  Jan has  the man  met  who  him wants  help
  'Jan has met the man who wants to help him.'
a'. Jan heeft [[VPde man ontmoet] &: [VPde mandie hem wil helpenontmoet]].
b. Jan heeft veel mensen ontmoet met financiële problemen.
  Jan has  many people  met  with financial problems
  'Jan has met many people with financial problems.'
b'. Jan heeft [[VPveel mensen ontmoet]&: [VPveel mensenmet financiële problemenontmoet]].

Given that the examples in (111) show that ellipsis may affect subparts of phrases and words, it does not come as surprise that split extraposition is also able to affect subparts of phrases like the relative clause and postnominal modifier in (110).

Example 111
a. [Jan zit [links van Peter]] en [Els zit [rechts van Peter]].
  Jan  sits  to.the.left  of  Peter  and   Els  sits  to.the.right  of  Peter
  'Jan is sitting to the left and Els is sitting to the right of Peter.'
b. [[invoer] and [uitvoer]]
  import  and   export

Following this line of reasoning, we can expect that the extraposed phrase may originate in quite deeply embedded positions. This is illustrated in (112a) for split extraposition involving a noun phrase that functions as the complement of a prepositional object and in (112b) of a noun phrase that is part of a postnominal modifier.

Example 112
a. Jan heeft op die man gewacht die hem wil helpen.
  Jan has  for that man  waited  who  him  wants  help
  'Jan has waited for that man who wants to help him.'
a'. Jan heeft [[VP [PP op die man] gewacht] &: [VP [PPop die mandie hem wil helpen] gewacht]].
b. Jan heeft een boekmet plaatjes gekocht die ingekleurd zijn.
  Jan has  a book with pictures  bought  which colored are
  'Jan has bought a book with colored pictures.'
b'. Jan heeft [[VP [NP een boek [PP met plaatjes]] gekocht] &: [VP [NPeen boek [PPmet plaatjes [REL-clausedie ingekleurd zijn]]] gekocht]].

Another advantage of De Vries’ analysis is that it can account for the fact shown in (113) that the extraposed phrase obeys selection restrictions imposed by its associate, for the simple reason that the two form a unit in the second conjunct. It is not immediately clear how Koster’s proposal could account for this.

Example 113
a. Jan heeft de hoop <op/*voor hulp> verloren <op/*voor hulp>.
  Jan has  the hope    on/for help  lost
  'that Jan has lost all hope of help.'
b. Jan heeft [[VP [NP de hoop] verloren] &: [VP [NPde hoop [PP op hulp]] verloren]].

Furthermore, De Vries’ analysis immediately derives the fact that the extraposed part of the "split" phrase cannot be stranded. The primed representations in (110) and (112) show that stranding can only be derived by moving the first conjunct (here: VP) of the coordinate structure, but this would violate the coordinate structure constraint. Given that this constraint also prohibits subextraction from one of the conjuncts, we may have a principled account for Kaan’s generalization that it is impossible to pied piped the postverbal part while stranding the preverbal part (thus making an appeal to Guéron’s semantic restriction on split extraposition unnecessary). Finally, we can also derive Ross’ (1967) Right Roof Constraint on extraposition illustrated in (114), according to which the postverbal part cannot be "moved" out of its own minimal finite clause. The reason is that coordination always involves clause-internal elements; example (114b) is excluded because the reduced phrase [VP [NPde vrouw die hier net was] kent] cannot be coordinated with the VP of the topicalized clause.

Example 114
a. [Clause` Dat hij de vrouw kent die hier net was] is duidelijk.
  that  he  the woman  knows  who  here just.now  was  is clear
  'It is clear that he knows the woman who was here just now.'
b. * [Clause Dat hij de vrouw kent] is duidelijk die hier net was.

A potential drawback of De Vries’ proposal is that it requires forward deletion (deletion in the second conjunct) of material in the right periphery of the second conjunct, while this type of conjunction reduction can only be applied backwards, as is clear from the contrast between (115a&b).

Example 115
a. [[Jan heeft een boek gekocht] en [Marie heeft een CD gekocht]].
  Jan  has  a book  bought and   Marie has  a CD  bought
  'Jan has bought a book and Marie has bought a CD.'
b. * [[Jan heeft een boek gekocht] en [Marie heeft een CD gekocht]].
  Jan  has  a book  bought and   Marie has  a CD  bought

It should be noted, however, that there are also cases which perhaps can be analyzed as forward deletion. De Vries (2011a/2011b) provides examples such as (116).

Example 116
a. [Jan heeft een boek gekocht] en [Marie heeft ook een boek gekocht].
  Jan  has  a book  bought  and   Marie  has  also  a book  bought
  'Jan has bought a book and Mary has too.'
b. [Jan heeft een boek gekocht] en [Marie heeft een CD gekocht].
  Jan  has  a book  bought and   Marie has  a CD  bought
  'Jan has bought a book and Marie a CD.'

Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) points out that unifying the deletion operation postulated in the derivation of extraposition with the deletion operation that derives the so-called gapping construction in (116b) overgenerates: the remnants in the gapping constructions are normally clausal constituents and not parts of clausal constituents; cf. Hankamer (1971) and Neijt (1979:ch.3). Unifying the two deletion operations thus wrongly predicts the gapping constructions in (117) to be acceptable. We will leave this issue to future research and refer the reader to the discussion between De Vries and Vanden Wyngaerd for more details.

Example 117
a. * [Jan heeft het gerucht gehoord dat Marie zwanger is] en [Peter heeft het gerucht gehoord dat Els bevallen is].
  Jan  has  the rumor  heard  that Marie pregnant  is  and   Peter  has  the rumor  heard  that  Els  given.birth  is
  Intended reading: 'Jan has heard the rumor that Marie is pregnant and Peter has heard the rumor that Els has given birth.'
b. * [Jan heeft meer artikelen gelezen dan boeken] en [Peter heeft meer artikelen gelezen dan recensies].
  Jan  has  more articles  read  than books  and  Peter  has  more articles  read  than reviews
  Intended reading: 'Jan has read more articles than books and Peter has read more articles than reviews.'
[+]  V.  Conclusion

This subsection has shown that there are several problems in analyzing split extraposition as the result of movement analyses. We therefore concluded our discussion by introducing fairly recent proposal, according to which split extraposition is actually a form of juxtaposition (with or without deletion). The approach seems to be relatively successful in deriving the basic facts; it is not surprising therefore that attempts are being made to derive a wider range of data from the same mechanism: non-split extraposition (Koster 1995/1999), appositional constructions (Heringa 2012), contrastive left dislocation (Ott 2014), backgrounding right dislocation (De Vries & Ott 2012/2015), etc. We will return in Section 14.2 and Section 14.3 to the cases of left and right dislocation.

References:
  • Baltin, Mark2006ExtrapositionEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing237-271
  • Baltin, Mark2006ExtrapositionEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing237-271
  • Bianchi, Valentina1999Consequences of antisymmetry. Headed relative clausesBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Boef, Eefje2013Doubling in relative clauses. Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in DutchUniversity UtrechtThesis
  • Foolen, Ad1993De betekenis van partikels. Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek, met bijzondere aandacht voor maarKatholieke Universiteit NijmegenThesis
  • Foolen, Ad1993De betekenis van partikels. Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek, met bijzondere aandacht voor maarKatholieke Universiteit NijmegenThesis
  • Guéron, Jacqueline1980On the syntax and semantics of PP extrapositionLinguistic Inquiry11637-678
  • Haan, Ger de1974On extrapositionSpektator4161-183
  • Haan, Ger de1974On extrapositionSpektator4161-183
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Hankamer, Jorge1971Constraints on deletion in syntaxYale UniversityThesis
  • Heringa, Herman2012Appositional constructionsGroningenUniversity of GroningenThesis
  • Johnson, Kyle1991Object positionsNatural Language & Linguistic Theory9577-636
  • Kaan, Edith1992A minimal approach to extrapositionGroningenUniversity of GroningenThesis
  • Kaan, Edith1992A minimal approach to extrapositionGroningenUniversity of GroningenThesis
  • Kayne, Richard S1994The antisymmetry of syntaxLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 25Cambridge, MAMIT Press
  • Kayne, Richard S2004Prepositions as probesBelletti, Adriana (ed.)Structures and beyondNew YorkOxford University Press192-212
  • Koster, Jan1973PP over V en de theorie van J. EmondsSpektator2294-309
  • Koster, Jan1974Het werkwoord als spiegelcentrumSpektator3601-618
  • Koster, Jan1995Lege objectenTabu25179-184
  • Koster, Jan1995Lege objectenTabu25179-184
  • Koster, Jan1995Lege objectenTabu25179-184
  • Koster, Jan1999Empty objects in Dutch
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Neijt, Anneke1979Gapping. A Contribution to Sentence GrammarForis
  • Ott, Dennis2014An ellipsis approach to contrastive left dislocationLinguistic Inquiry45269-303
  • Rijkhoek, Paulien1998On degree phrases and result clausesGroningenRUGThesis
  • Ross, John1967Constraints on variables in syntaxBloomingtonIndiana university linguistics club
  • Sheehan, Michelle2010Extraposition and antisymmetryLinguistic Variation Yearbook10201-251
  • Veld, Joop1993Postverbal constituents in Dutch and TurkishUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de1999Extraposition of relative clauses as specifying coordinationCambier-Langeveld, Tina, Lipták, Anikó, Redford, Michael & Torre, Eric Jan van der (eds.)Proceedings of ConSole VIILeiden293-309
  • Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
  • Vries, Mark de2011ExtrapositieNederlandse Taalkunde16273-295
  • Vries, Mark de2011Extrapositie: een reactie op Vanden WyngaerdNederlandse Taalkunde16301-303
  • Vries, Mark de & Ott, Dennis2012Thinking in the right direction: an ellipsis analysis of right-dislocationLinguistics in the Netherlands29123-133
  • Vries, Mark de & Ott, Dennis2015Right dislocation as deletionNatural Language & Linguistic Theory33
  • Wilder, Chris1995Rightward movement as leftward deletionLutz, Uli & Pafel, Jürgen (eds.)Extraction and extraposition in GermanAmsterdamJohn Benjamins229-258
  • Wyngaerd, Guido vanden2011Extrapositie als coordinatie: reactie op De VriesNederlandse Taalkunde16296-300
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • In prenominal position
    [90%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Adjectives
  • Cardinal numbers
    [89%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Numerals
  • Ellipsis
    [89%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Adjectives
  • Weak verbs
    [88%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • -s
    [88%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Adverbial suffixes > Noun as base
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
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.