• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
Referentiality versus quantification
quickinfo

Syntax allows of the expression of bound variable binding just in case the antecedent and the bound pronoun involved occur within the same main clause. In case two elements occur in two different main clauses, they can only entertain a relation of referentiality. UCV2s turn out to be sensitive to this distinction, because no quantificational relation can be established between an element inside a UCV2 and something outside it. Furthermore, it turns out that the main clause structure in which the UCV2 is embedded must be referential as well.

UCV2s cannot be embedded in a Verb-Final construction, as we saw. In addition, it is the case that the construction in which the UCV2 is embedded must be referential. Put differently, the matrix may not conflict with the asserted truth and declarative illocutionary force of the meaning of the UCV2. As a result, quantification is generally ruled out, except in rare cases in which the asserted truth of the UCV2 is left untouched.

readmore

Question formation is a specific instance of quantification. So a UCV2 is not allowed if it is embedded in a superordinate structure which has been questioned:

Example 1

a. *Troch wa waard der ferteld dat it skip wie juster fergien?
by whom was there told that the ship was yesterday perished
By whom was it told that the ship had sunk yesterday?
b. *Wa hie Jouke in boadskip stjoerd dat hy koe moarn net komme?
who had Jouke a message sent that he could tomorrow not come
Who had Jouke sent a message that he could not come tomorrow?
c. *Is er sa siik dat hy kin dy hjoed net helpe?
is he so ill that he can you today not help
Is he so ill that he cannot help you today?

Equivalent sentences without question formation are grammatical:

Example 2

a. Der waard ferteld dat it skip wie juster fergien
there was told that the ship was yesterday perished
It was told that the ship had sunk yesterday
b. Jouke hie my in boadskip stjoerd dat hy koe moarn net komme
Jouke had me a message sent that he could tomorrow not come
Jouke had sent me a message that he could not come tomorrow
c. Hy is sa siik dat hy kin dy hjoed net helpe
he is so ill that he can you today not help
He is so ill that he cannot help you today

This indicates that the question formation, an instance of quantification, can be a cause of ungrammaticality.

Equivalent sentences in which the UCV2 is replaced with a Verb-Final clause are likewise grammatical, indicating that the sensitivity of UCV2 to the distinction between quantification and referentiality is a cause of ungrammaticality. Examples are provided below:

Example 3

a. Troch wa waard der ferteld dat it skip juster fergien wie?
by whom was there told that the ship yesterday perished was
By whom was it told that the ship had sunk yesterday?
b. Wa hie Jouke in boadskip stjoerd dat hy moarn net komme koe?
who had Jouke a message sent that he tomorrow not come could
Who had Jouke sent a message that he could not come tomorrow?
c. Is er sa siik dat hy dy hjoed net helpe kin?
is he so ill that he you today not help can
Is he so ill that he cannot help you today?

Similarly, just as question formation is excluded in the presence of a UCV2, the matrix construction cannot be negative nor may it contain modals:

Example 4

a. *Der waard net ferteld dat it skip wie juster fergien
there was not told that the ship was yesterday perished
It was not told that the ship had sunk yesterday
b. *Jouke soe my in boadskip stjoere dat hy koe moarn net komme
Jouke would me a message send that he could tomorrow not come
Jouke was going to send me a message that he could not come tomorrow

The UCV2 must semantically represent a proposition that is true in a referential sense, that is, it is not accessible to quantificational modification by the matrix clause in which it is contained. This would tie in with an analysis which holds that the UCV2 and the matrix semantically containing it are two independent, successive expressions as far as syntax is concerned. The relation between the two is handled by the same principles which, though hardly studied, are also responsible for integrating strings of successive main clauses into a coherent whole.

In rare cases, the asserted truth of the UCV2 is left untouched by a quantification in the matrix clause. In that case, the result is grammatical, as in the following example:

Example 5

Hy woe net komme omdat hy moast Teake helpe
he wanted not come because he must Teake helpe
He could not come,because he had to help Teake

So UCV2s are main clauses as far as syntax is concerned. They are interpreted as semantic objects in a superordinate structure through what may be termed the syntax of discourse, that is, they are interpreted as something that is reported, for example. This would seem to entail that the thematic role of direct object can also be assigned outside a main clause, to a string or sequence of main clauses, as in a story which is reported. This is not surprising since it is not just a sentence but a string of sentences which may be assigned the role of direct object to a verb of saying, as in the following example: He said, okay, I'll do it, I will visit the tribe, I will bring them fire.

References:
    Suggestions for further reading ▼
    phonology
    • Dutch
    • Frisian
    • Afrikaans
    Show more ▼
    morphology
    • Dutch
    • Frisian
    • Afrikaans
    Show more ▼
    syntax
    • Dutch
    • Frisian
    • Afrikaans
    • 2.5.1.3. Object experiencer psych-verbs
      [85%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure > 2.5. Special verbs > 2.5.1. Psychological verbs
    • 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
      [85%] Dutch > Syntax > Adpositions and adpositional phrases > 1 Characteristics and classification > 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
    • 11.3.1.1. Wh-movement in simplex clauses (short wh-movement)
      [85%] 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
    • 11.3.4. Wh-exclamatives
      [85%] 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
    • 5.1.2.4. Reported speech
      [85%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses > 5.1. Finite argument clauses > 5.1.2. Direct object clauses
    Show more ▼
    cite
    print