• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
12.6. Bibliographical notes

The early versions of generative grammar normally assumed that phrases occupying the postverbal field are base-generated in the middle field of the clause, in line with Koster’s hypothesis that the underlying structure of Dutch is OV in nature, and are subsequently moved into postverbal position by a rule known as extraposition in the case of clauses and PP-over-V in the case of PPs; we simply refer to this rule as extraposition. A problem for this proposal was that it is not in line with Emonds’ (1976) structure preservation principle, which requires movement to target an independently motivated position; cf. Emonds (1976).
      If this was not enough, extraposition also came up against an important empirical problem related to the freezing principle, which prohibits wh-extraction from a moved phrase. At first sight, extraposition of PPs seems to provide strong evidence in favor of a movement analysis, as it only allows wh-extraction if the PP is in preverbal position; if the postverbal position of the PP in (136b) is indeed a derived position, the freezing principle correctly predicts wh-extraction from that position to be impossible.

Example 136
a. Jan heeft dagen <op het pakketje> gewacht < op het pakketje>.
  Jan has  days    for the parcel  waited
  'Jan has been waiting for the parcel for days.'
b. Waar heeft Jan dagen <[op ti ]> gewacht <*[op ti ]>?
  where  has  Jan  days     for  waited
  'What has Jan been waiting for for days.'

However, this principle also predicts that wh-extraction from an extraposed clause is impossible, but this is clearly wrong given that it is possible in so-called bridge-verb contexts; cf. De Haan (1979).

Example 137
a. Marie zei [dat Jan haar boek gekocht had].
  Marie said   that  Jan her book  bought  had
  'Marie said that Jan had bought her book.'
b. Welk boek zei Marie [dat Jan ti gekocht had]?
  which book  said  Marie   that  Jan  bought  had
  'Which book did Marie say that Jan had bought?'

The contrast between the extraction possibilities from extraposed PPs and clauses has given rise to the claim that extraposition is not a unitary phenomenon. Barbiers (1995/2000), for example, provides two completely different but compatible analyses for the examples in (136) and (137). That extraposition is not a unitary phenomenon becomes even clearer when we include split extraposition, which has resisted a satisfactory syntactic account for a very long time. Since Kaan (1992), analyses have been developed that give up the idea that split extraposition is derived from a structure in which the split parts form a constituent underlyingly. Koster (2000) and De Vries (1999/2002) have claimed that split extraposition is actually a form of juxtaposition (with or without deletion). For more historical background we refer the reader to Section 9.4, as well as Corver (1991), Kaan (1992), Koster (2000), Baltin (2006), De Vries (2002), and references cited there.

  • Baltin, Mark2006ExtrapositionEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing237-271
  • Barbiers, Sjef1995The syntax of interpretationThe Hague, Holland Academic GraphicsUniversity of Leiden/HILThesis
  • Barbiers, Sjef2000The right periphery in SOV languages: English and DutchSvenonius, Peter (ed.)The derivation of VO and OVAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins45-67
  • Emonds, Joseph1976A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformationsNew YorkAcademic Press
  • Emonds, Joseph1976A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformationsNew YorkAcademic Press
  • Foolen, Ad1993De betekenis van partikels. Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek, met bijzondere aandacht voor maarKatholieke Universiteit NijmegenThesis
  • Haan, Ger de1979Conditions on rulesDordrechtForis Publications
  • Kaan, Edith1992A minimal approach to extrapositionGroningenUniversity of GroningenThesis
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • Koster, Jan2000Extraposition as parallel construal
  • 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
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.