- Dutch1
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Word stress
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
- Morphology
- Word formation
- Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
- Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
- Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
- Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
- Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
- Word formation
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Phonology
-
- General
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
- Morphology
- Inflection
- Word formation
- Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
- Compositions
- Derivation
- Syntax
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
- Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
- Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
- Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
- Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
- Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
-
- General
- Morphology
- Morphology
- 1 Word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 1.1.1 Compounds and their heads
- 1.1.2 Special types of compounds
- 1.1.2.1 Affixoids
- 1.1.2.2 Coordinative compounds
- 1.1.2.3 Synthetic compounds and complex pseudo-participles
- 1.1.2.4 Reduplicative compounds
- 1.1.2.5 Phrase-based compounds
- 1.1.2.6 Elative compounds
- 1.1.2.7 Exocentric compounds
- 1.1.2.8 Linking elements
- 1.1.2.9 Separable Complex Verbs and Particle Verbs
- 1.1.2.10 Noun Incorporation Verbs
- 1.1.2.11 Gapping
- 1.2 Derivation
- 1.3 Minor patterns of word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 2 Inflection
- 1 Word formation
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
- 0 Introduction to the AP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of APs
- 2 Complementation of APs
- 3 Modification and degree quantification of APs
- 4 Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative
- 5 Attribution of APs
- 6 Predication of APs
- 7 The partitive adjective construction
- 8 Adverbial use of APs
- 9 Participles and infinitives as APs
- Nouns and Noun Phrases (NPs)
- 0 Introduction to the NP
- 1 Characteristics and Classification of NPs
- 2 Complementation of NPs
- 3 Modification of NPs
- 3.1 Modification of NP by Determiners and APs
- 3.2 Modification of NP by PP
- 3.3 Modification of NP by adverbial clauses
- 3.4 Modification of NP by possessors
- 3.5 Modification of NP by relative clauses
- 3.6 Modification of NP in a cleft construction
- 3.7 Free relative clauses and selected interrogative clauses
- 4 Partitive noun constructions and constructions related to them
- 4.1 The referential partitive construction
- 4.2 The partitive construction of abstract quantity
- 4.3 The numerical partitive construction
- 4.4 The partitive interrogative construction
- 4.5 Adjectival, nominal and nominalised partitive quantifiers
- 4.6 Kind partitives
- 4.7 Partitive predication with a preposition
- 4.8 Bare nominal attribution
- 5 Articles and names
- 6 Pronouns
- 7 Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- 8 Interrogative pronouns
- 9 R-pronouns and the indefinite expletive
- 10 Syntactic functions of Noun Phrases
- Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases (PPs)
- 0 Introduction to the PP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of PPs
- 2 Complementation of PPs
- 3 Modification of PPs
- 4 Bare (intransitive) adpositions
- 5 Predication of PPs
- 6 Form and distribution of adpositions with respect to staticity and construction type
- 7 Adpositional complements and adverbials
- Verbs and Verb Phrases (VPs)
- 0 Introduction to the VP in Saterland Frisian
- 1 Characteristics and classification of verbs
- 2 Unergative and unaccusative subjects and the auxiliary of the perfect
- 3 Evidentiality in relation to perception and epistemicity
- 4 Types of to-infinitival constituents
- 5 Predication
- 5.1 The auxiliary of being and its selection restrictions
- 5.2 The auxiliary of going and its selection restrictions
- 5.3 The auxiliary of continuation and its selection restrictions
- 5.4 The auxiliary of coming and its selection restrictions
- 5.5 Modal auxiliaries and their selection restrictions
- 5.6 Auxiliaries of body posture and aspect and their selection restrictions
- 5.7 Transitive verbs of predication
- 5.8 The auxiliary of doing used as a semantically empty finite auxiliary
- 5.9 Supplementive predication
- 6 The verbal paradigm, irregularity and suppletion
- 7 Verb Second and the word order in main and embedded clauses
- 8 Various aspects of clause structure
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
-
- General
- Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
- Segment inventory
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
- Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
- Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
- Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
- Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
- Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
- Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
Haeseryn et al. (1997:956) list a number of constructions of the form V + te-infinitive, in which V potentially functions as a non-main verb. Some typical examples are given in (166); the verbs that potentially function as non-main verbs are given in square brackets.
a. | De voorstelling | is de hele week | te zien. | zijn | |
the performance | is the whole week | to see | |||
'The performance can be seen all week.' |
b. | Ik | vind | haar gedrag | te prijzen. | vinden | |
I | consider | her behavior | to praise | |||
'I consider her behavior commendable.' |
c. | De kat heeft/krijgt | te weinig | te eten. | hebben/krijgen | |
the cat has/gets | too little | to eat | |||
'The cat has/gets too little to eat.' |
d. | Ze | geven | die kat | te veel | te eten. | geven | |
they | give | that cat | too much | to eat | |||
'Theyʼre giving that cat too much to eat.' |
e. | Zij | komt | het geheim | toch | te weten. | komen | |
she | comes | the secret | yet | to know | |||
'Sheʼll get to know the secret anyway.' |
Haeseryn et al. (1997:957) analyze the finite verbs in (166) as non-main verbs but also leave open for at least some of these cases that the te-infinitives may be non-verbal in nature. We would like to go one step further and argue for all te-infinitives in (166) that they are not verbal in nature and that the finite verbs should consequently all be analyzed as main verbs. In order to be able to establish this, we will begin in Subsection I with a discussion of the behavior of the verb hangen'to hang', which most grammars include in the set of semi-aspectual verbs despite the fact that it exhibits deviant behavior in many (but not all) cases; see the discussion in Haeseryn et al. (1997:974), from which we also took the crucial examples. We will argue that te-infinitives in constructions that exhibit this deviant behavior should be analyzed as non-verbal. After having established this, we will show in Subsections II to IV that all te-infinitives in (166) are non-verbal in nature.
The verb hangen is listed in most grammars as a semi-aspectual non-main verb, on a par with zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan'to stand' and lopen'to walk', despite the fact that it exhibits a number of distinctive features that call into question whether it can really be mechanically analyzed as a semi-aspectual verb when it combines with a te-infinitive. We will argue that although hangen can be analyzed as a semi-aspectual verb in a restricted set of cases, it normally functions as a main verb when followed by a te-infinitive. Our investigation will lead to the conclusion that the same in fact holds for zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', etc.
Section 6.3.1, sub I, illustrated by means of example (167a) that semi-aspectual verbs are often interchangeable. This does not hold for hangen, as will be clear from the fact that example (167b) sounds extremely weird and cannot be found on the internet either. The reason for the unacceptability of this example is that it seems very hard to suppress the lexical meaning of main verb hangen.
a. | Jan ligt/zit/staat/loopt | te lezen. | |
Jan lies/sits/stands/walk | to read | ||
'Jan is reading.' |
b. | ?? | Jan | hangt | te lezen. |
Jan | hangs | to read |
Generally speaking, constructions with hangen + te-infinitive are rarer than with the other verbs mentioned above. A typical example in which this combination can be used is given in (168a), but this example differs in various respects from run-of-the-mill semi-aspectual constructions. For example, it can be observed that it does not exhibit the infinitivus-pro-participio (IPP) effect; the most natural way of forming the perfect-tense counterpart is as in (168b). This does not mean that the perfect-tense construction in (168c) with IPP-effect is impossible, but a Google search (7/14/2012) on the strings [te drogen heeft gehangen] and [heeft hangen te drogen] has shown that the latter is much less common than the former; the results of our search are given in square brackets.
a. | De was | hangt | buiten | te drogen. | |
the laundry | hangs | outside | to dry | ||
'The laundry is hanging outside to dry.' |
b. | De was | heeft | buiten | te drogen | gehangen. | 67 | |
the laundry | has | outside | to dry | hung | |||
'The laundry has hung outside to dry.' |
c. | De was | heeft | buiten | hangen | te drogen. | 3 | |
the laundry | has | outside | hang | to dry | |||
'The laundry has hung outside to dry.' |
The main issue for our present purposes is that example (168b) shows that we should at least allow an analysis in which the verb hangen does not function as a semi-aspectual verb. The fact that hangen surfaces as a past participle strongly suggests that the te-infinitive in (168b) is not verbal, as the IPP-effect is normally obligatory in verbal complexes of the type Auxperfect-V(non-)main-(te) Vinf. An independent reason for rejecting a verbal analysis of the te-infinitive is that it seems quite a robust generalization that main verbs in the form of te-infinitives always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster; the fact that the te-infinitive precedes the past participle in (168b) thus strongly militates against a verbal analysis. That hangen can be used as a main verb in (168a) is also supported by the fact illustrated in (169) that it exhibits the causative alternation discussed in Section 3.2.3, just like the unequivocal main verb hangen in the pair De jas hangt in de kast'The coat hangs in the closet' and Jan hangt de jas in de kast'Jan is hanging the coat in the closet'. Such alternations would be entirely unexpected for non-main verbs by definition since they do not take arguments.
a. | De was | hangt | buiten | te drogen. | |
the laundry | hangs | outside | to dry | ||
'The laundry is hanging outside to dry.' |
b. | Jan hangt | de was | buiten | te drogen. | |
Jan hangs | the laundry | outside | to dry | ||
'Jan is hanging the laundry outside to dry.' |
It is nevertheless important to decide whether or not hangen can be also be used as a semi-aspectual verb in (168a), that is, whether (168c) is part of Dutch core grammar or a case of hypercorrection. The former cannot be excluded: example (170b) does exhibit an obligatory IPP-effect in the perfect tense and should therefore be seen as a semi-aspectual construction; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:974).
a. | De appels hangen | aan de boom | te rotten. | |
the apples hang | on the tree | to rot | ||
'The apples are rotting on the tree.' |
b. | De appels | hebben | aan de boom | hangen | te rotten. | |
the apples | have | on the tree | hang | to rot |
c. | *? | De appels | hebben | aan de boom | te rotten | gehangen. |
the apples | have | on the tree | to rot | hung |
This strongly suggests that example (168a) is ambiguous between the non-main and main verb reading of hangen and that the ambiguity can be resolved by means of perfect tense. If true, we predict the following: in perfect-tense constructions such as (168b) without the IPP-effect, the verb hangen is a main verb and causativization is therefore predicted to be possible; in constructions such as (168c) with the IPP-effect, the verb hangen is a non-main verb and causativization is predicted to be excluded. The examples in (171) show that these predictions are indeed correct.
a. | Jan heeft | de was | buiten | te drogen | gehangen. | |
Jan has | the laundry | outside | to dry | hung | ||
'Jan has hung the laundry outside to dry.' |
b. | * | Jan heeft | de was | buiten | hangen | te drogen. |
Jan has | the laundry | outside | hang | to dry |
The discussion so far has shown that constructions with hangen + te-infinitive may exhibit a number of properties that are unexpected if hangen categorically functioned as a semi-aspectual verb: (i) the lexical meaning of the main verb hangen is difficult to suppress, (ii) often the IPP-effect does not occur, (iii) the te-infinitive may precede the verbs in the clause-final verb cluster, and (iv) constructions with hangen may undergo causativization. These properties strongly suggest that hangen can be used as a main verb when followed by a te-infinitive. Note, however, that this does not imply that hangen is never used as a semi-aspectual verb since we have seen that the construction in (170) is a likely candidate for such an analysis.
The fact that hangen can be a main verb when accompanied by a non-verbal te-infinitive leads one to expect that the main verb zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan and lopen'to walk' may sometimes also be combined with a non-verbal te-infinitive. Fortunately, we now have three tests that can used to distinguish the main verbs from the semi-aspectual ones: (i) the occurrence of the IPP-effect, (ii) the placement of the te-infinitive, and (iii) causativization. We illustrate this by means of the examples in (172) and (173). The examples in (172) show that with a typical activity verb like lezen'to read' we find all the properties attributed to the semi-aspectual constructions; IPP is obligatory, the te-infinitive must follow the verb liggen'to lie', and causativization is impossible. Note in passing that the verb leggen'to put' in (172d) is the causative counterpart of liggen'to lie'.
a. | De kinderen | liggen | in bed | te lezen. | |
the children | lie | in bed | to read | ||
'The children are reading in bed.' |
b. | De kinderen | hebben | in bed | liggen | (te) | lezen. | IPP | |
the children | have | in bed | lie | to | read | |||
'The children have been reading in bed.' |
c. | * | De kinderen | hebben | in bed | te lezen | gelegen. | No IPP |
the children | have | in bed | to read | lain |
d. | * | Marie heeft | de kinderen in bed | te lezen | gelegd. | causativization |
Marie has | the children in bed | to read | put |
The examples in (173), on the other hand, seem to be ambiguous, as is clear from the optionality of the IPP-effect; the numbers in square brackets following the perfect-tense examples in (173b&c) refer to results of a Google search (7/14/2012) on the strings [heeft/hebben liggen te drogen] and [te drogen heeft/hebben gelegen]. As expected, (173b&c) also show that the placement of the te-infinitive depends on the occurrence of IPP; in the construction with IPP, the te-infinitive is verbal and must therefore follow liggen, whereas in the construction without IPP, the te-infinitive is non-verbal and must therefore precede liggen. Finally, the acceptability of the causative construction in (173d) unequivocally shows that liggen need not be interpreted as a semi-aspectual non-main verb in (173a) but can also be construed as a main verb.
a. | De tomaten | liggen | in de schuur | te drogen. | |
the tomatoes | lie in | the shed | to dry | ||
'The tomatoes are drying in the shed/lie in the shed to dry.' |
b. | De tomaten | hebben | in de schuur | liggen | te drogen. | IPP/40 | |
the tomatoes | have | in the shed | lie | to dry | |||
'The tomatoes have been drying in the shed.' |
c. | De tomaten | hebben | in de schuur | te drogen | gelegen. | no IPP/10 | |
the tomatoes | have | in the shed | to dry | lain | |||
'The tomatoes have lain in the shed to dry.' |
d. | Jan heeft | de tomaten | in de schuur | te drogen | gelegd. | causativization | |
Jan has | the tomatoes | in the shed | to dry | put | |||
'Jan has put the tomatoes in the shed to dry.' |
A similar conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the behavior of particle verbs such as wegrotten'to rot': if the te-infinitive is verbal, the particle and the verbal part are separated by the infinitival marker te, but this is not the case if the te-infinitive is non-verbal. The acceptability contrast between (174b&c) indicates that te-infinitives in IPP-constructions and te-infinitives in constructions without IPP have a different categorial status.
a. | De tomaten | liggen | in de schuur | weg | te rotten. | |
the tomatoes | lie in | the shed | away | to rot | ||
'The tomatoes are rotting away in the shed.' |
b. | De tomaten | hebben | in de schuur | liggen | weg | te rotten. | IPP | |
the tomatoes | have | in the shed | lie | away | to rot | |||
'The tomatoes have been rotting away in the shed.' |
c. | * | De tomaten | hebben | in de schuur | weg | te rotten | gelegen. | no IPP |
the tomatoes | have | in the shed | away | to rot | lain |
This subsection has shown that verbs like zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan'to stand' and hangen'to hang' should not be mechanically analyzed as semi-aspectual verbs in combination with a te-infinitive given that they are potentially ambiguous between a main and a semi-aspectual, non-main verb reading. The two readings can be distinguished by considering whether the corresponding perfect-tense constructions exhibit the IPP-effect, the placement of the te-infinitive with respect to the clause-final verbs and the possibility of causativization.
main verb | non-main verb | |
IPP | — | + |
Order w.r.t. (other) clause-final verbs | non-verbal te-infinitive precedes the clause-final verbs | verbal te-infinitive follows the clause-final verbs |
causativization | + | — |
If the analysis in this subsection is on the right track, we should conclude that the te-infinitive is non-verbal in nature if verbs such as zitten are used as main verbs, and are thus not part of the verbal complex. This raises the question as to what the function of the te-infinitive is when it is combined with a main verb. A plausible analysis seems to be that it functions as a complementive, as the examples in (176) show that it must be immediately left-adjacent to the clause-final verb cluster, a hallmark of such phrases; see Section 2.2.
a. | De tomaten | hebben | in de schuur | te drogen | gelegen. | |
the tomatoes | have | in the shed | to dry | lain | ||
'The tomatoes have been lying in the shed to dry.' |
b. | * | De tomaten | hebben | te drogen | in de schuur | gelegen. |
the tomatoes | have | to dry | in the shed | lain |
Although causativization is restricted to a small groups of unaccusative verbs, we can certainly use the pattern in the first two rows of Table (175) as a diagnostic in order to establish the (non-)verbal status of te-infinitives more generally: this leads to the generalizations in (177), which the following subsections will apply to the constructions in (166).
a. | Verbal te-infinitives trigger the IPP-effect and follow the (other) verbs in clause-final position; |
b. | Non-verbal te-infinitives are incompatible with the IPP-effect and precede the verbs in clause-final position. |
This subsection discusses whether the verbs zijn'to be' and vinden/achten'to consider' function as non-main verbs in the primeless examples in (178), as suggested by Haeseryn et al. (1997:956). This suggestion is in fact slightly surprising in view of the fact that Haeseryn et al. (1997:1037) also note that these cases are very similar to the complementive constructions in the primed examples. Note in passing that the difference between vinden and achten is a matter of register: the latter is mainly used in more formal contexts.
a. | De komeet | is de hele week | te zien. | |
the comet | is the whole week | to see | ||
'The comet can be seen all week.' |
a'. | De komeet | is de hele week | zichtbaar. | |
the comet | is the whole week | visible | ||
'The comet is visible all week.' |
b. | Ik | vind/acht | haar gedrag | te prijzen. | |
I | consider | her behavior | to praise | ||
'I consider her behavior commendable.' |
b'. | Ik | vind/acht | haar gedrag | prijzenswaardig. | |
I | consider | her behavior | commendable | ||
'I consider her behavior commendable.' |
If we assume that the te-infinitives are like the adjectives in that they also function as complementives, we will immediately account for the following two facts illustrated in (179): there is no IPP-effect in the corresponding perfect-tense constructions, and the te-infinitives must precede the verbs zijn and vinden when they are in clause-final position; cf. (177). Note in passing that wezen in (179a) is the form of zijn that normally occurs in IPP-contexts, as is clear from the fact that Jan is wezen vissen'Jan has been fishing' functions as the perfect-tense counterpart of Jan is vissen'Jan is fishing'; see Section 6.4.2 for discussion.
a. | De komeet | is de hele week | te zien | geweest/*wezen. | |
the comet | is the whole week | to see | been/be | ||
'The comet could be seen all week.' |
a'. | De komeet is de hele week <te zien> geweest <*te zien>. |
b. | Ik | heb | haar gedrag | altijd | te prijzen | gevonden/vinden. | |
I | have | her behavior | always | to praise | considered/consider | ||
'Iʼve always considered her behavior commendable.' |
b'. | Ik heb haar gedrag altijd <te prijzen> gevonden <*te prijzen>. |
We will adopt this complementive analysis here, especially since analyzing the verbs zijn and vinden in (179) as non-main verbs undermines the otherwise robust generalization that verbal te-infinitives always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster. A more detailed discussion of the primeless examples in (178) is given in Section A9 on modal infinitives.
This subsection discusses whether the verbs geven'to give', hebben'to have' and krijgen'to get' function as non-main verbs in the examples in (180), as suggested by Haeseryn et al. (1997:956).
a. | Ze | geven | de kat | erg veel | te eten. | geven | |
they | give | the cat | very much | to eat | |||
'They give the cat a lot to eat.' |
b. | De kat heeft/krijgt | erg veel | te eten. | hebben/krijgen | |
the cat has/gets | very much | to eat | |||
'The cat has/gets a lot to eat.' |
The fact that the verbs in (180) express the same meaning as the unequivocal main verbs in (181) strongly suggest that the verbs geven, hebben and krijgen also function as main verbs in the former examples.
a. | Ze | geven | de kat | erg veel voer. | |
they | give | the cat | very much food | ||
'They give the cat a lot of food.' |
b. | De kat heeft/krijgt | erg veel voer. | |
the cat has/gets | very much food | ||
'The cat has/gets a lot of food.' |
Again Haeseryn et al. (1997:1030-1/44) suggest the same thing by saying that the te-infinitives may function as postnominal modifiers, that is, in (180) te eten can be seen as a kind of reduced relative clause of the nominal expression erg veel. That such an analysis may indeed be tenable is clear from the fact that it is possible to place the combination of the noun phrase and the te-infinitive in clause-initial position, as is shown by the primeless examples in (182). A potential problem, however, is that it is also possible to strand the te-infinitive, as in the primed examples; normally, this is not possible with postnominal modifiers.
a. | Erg veel te eten | geven | ze | de kat | niet. | |
very much to eat | give | they | the cat | not |
a'. | Erg veel geven ze de kat niet te eten. |
b. | Erg veel te eten | heeft/krijgt | de kat | niet. | |
very much to eat | has/gets | the cat | not |
b'. | Erg veel heeft/krijgt de kat niet te eten. |
Another virtue of the suggested analysis is that it immediately accounts for the fact illustrated in (183) that the construction does not exhibit the IPP-effect and that the te-infinitive may precede the verbs in clause-final position; cf. (177).
a. | Ze | hebben | de kat | erg veel | te eten | gegeven/*geven. | |
they | have | the cat | very much | to eat | given/give | ||
'Theyʼve given the cat a lot to eat.' |
a'. | Ze hebben de kat erg veel <te eten> gegeven <*te eten>. |
b. | De kat heeft | erg veel | te eten | gehad/*hebben. | |
the cat has | very much | to eat | had/have | ||
'The cat has had a lot to eat.' |
b'. | De kat heeft erg veel <te eten> gehad <*te eten>. |
c. | De kat heeft | erg veel | te eten | gekregen/*krijgen. | |
the cat has | very much | to eat | got/get | ||
'The cat has been given a lot to eat.' |
c'. | De kat heeft erg veel <te eten> gekregen <*te eten>. |
We will therefore adopt this analysis here, especially since analyzing the verbs geven, hebben and krijgen as non-main verbs would again undermine the otherwise robust generalization that te-infinitives with the function of main verb always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster.
Besides the constructions discussed above, Haeseryn et al. (1997:1029) distinguish a second type of hebben/krijgen + te-infinitive construction with a deontic modal meaning. The examples in (184) show that in such cases the te-infinitive often seems acceptable both in front of and after the finite verb in clause-final position. The numbers between brackets provide the results of a Google search (7/15/2012) on the strings [te doen heeft wat], [heeft te doen wat], [tegenslagen te verwerken had] and [tegenslagen had te verwerken], and show that the te-infinitives preferably precede hebben in clause-final position but that the alternative order is still reasonably common.
a. | dat | Jan maar | <te doen> | heeft <te doen> | wat | ik zeg. | 27/8 | |
that | Jan prt | to do | has | what | I say | |||
'that Jan only needs to do as I say.' |
b. | dat | ze | veel tegenslagen | <te verwerken> | had/kreeg <te verwerken>. | 61/7 | |
that | she | many setbacks | to process | had/got | |||
'that she had to cope with many setbacks.' |
It is not so clear what examples of the type in (184) tell us; they are after all somewhat idiomatic and seem to belong to the formal register. This holds especially for example (184a): (185a) shows that this example cannot occur in the perfect tense, as a result of which we cannot test whether it exhibits the IPP-effect. The (b)-examples in (185) show that example (184b) does have a perfect-tense counterpart; the facts that the IPP-effect does not occur and that the te-infinitive must precede the past participle gehad strongly suggest that the te-infinitive is non-verbal in nature. This means that the order had te verwerken in (184b) may be a case of hypercorrection, a common feature of constituents looking like verbal elements (here: te verwerken); see Haeseryn et al. (1997:111).
a. | * | Hij | heeft | maar | <te doen> | hebben/gehad <te doen> | wat | ik zeg. |
he | has | prt | to do | have/had | what | I say |
b. | Ze heeft veel tegenslagen | <te verwerken> | gehad/gekregen <*te verwerken>. | |
she has many setbacks | to process | had/gotten |
b'. | * | Ze heeft veel tegenslagen | <te verwerken> | hebben/krijgen <te verwerken>. |
she has many setbacks | to process | had/get |
Because of the problems discussed above we will put the examples in (184) aside together with many other more or less fixed expressions with hebben/krijgen mentioned in Haeseryn et al. (1997:1029ff.). The fact that these expressions normally allow, prefer or even require the te-infinitive to be to the left of the clause-final verbs strongly suggests that the te-infinitives involved are non-verbal in nature; the less frequent cases in which these non-verbal te-infinitives follow the clause-final verbs should again be seen as hypercorrection or imperfect learning of the more formal register.
This subsection concludes with a discussion of examples such as (186a). The (b)-examples show the by now familiar properties of constructions with a non-verbal te-infinitive: there is no IPP-effect and the te-infinitive precedes the verbs in clause-final position.
a. | Jan komt | dat | niet | te weten. | |
Jan comes | that | not | to know | ||
'Jan wonʼt find that out.' |
b. | Jan is | dat | niet | <te weten> | gekomen <*te weten>. | |
Jan is | that | not | to know | comepart | ||
'Jan hasnʼt found that out.' |
b'. | * | Jan is dat | niet | <te weten> | komen <te weten>. |
Jan is that | not | to know | comeinf |
The examples in (187) constitute a potential problem for the claim that komen does not function as a non-main verb when combined with a te-infinitive because they exhibit all the hallmarks of constructions with a verbal te-infinitive: they may exhibit the IPP-effect and when they do the te-infinitive must follow the verbs in clause-final position. According to Haeseryn et al. (1997:983) the form in (187b') is the more common one, which was confirmed by a Google search on the strings [duur te staan gekomen] and [duur komen te staan]. We should, however, put this example aside since it is clearly idiomatic in nature: the meaning is non-compositional and paradigmatically restricted, as is clear from the fact that neither duur nor staan can be replaced by some other form.
a. | Dat komt | Peter duur | te staan. | |
that comes | Peter expensive | to stand | ||
'That will cost Peter dearly.' |
b. | Dat | is Peter duur | <te staan> | gekomen <*te staan>. | 138 | |
that | is Peter expensive | to stand | comepart | |||
'That has cost Peter dearly.' |
b'. | Dat | is Peter duur | <*te staan> | komen <te staan>. | 429.000 | |
that | is Peter expensive | to stand | comeinf | |||
'That has cost Peter dearly.' |
Other cases mentioned by Haeseryn et al. (1997) in which the te-infinitive exhibits verbal behavior are given in (188), but since these examples have an idiomatic flavor we will ignore them as well. Note, however, that if one were to argue that such constructions are productively formed and thus part of Dutch core grammar, we would have to modify our earlier claim in such a way that besides the semi-aspectual verbs discussed in 6.3.1, the semi-aspectual non-main verb komen is also able to select a te-infinitive. This would not affect our more significant claim that te-infinitives are non-verbal in constructions that do not exhibit the IPP-effect or allow the te-infinitive to precede the verbs in clause-final position.