Taalportaal | Weak proform shift

Dutch
Frisian
Afrikaans

Show full table of contents

13.4.Weak proform shift

quickinfo

Weak (phonetically reduced) proforms normally occur in the left periphery of the middle field of the clause, with the exception of weak subject pronouns, which may also occur in clause-initial position; cf. Section 9.3. We can distinguish the three groups of weak elements in (173), all of which have strong counterparts with the exception of expletive and partitive er.

Example 173

Referential personal pronouns; ie/ ze'he/she', ʼ m/ ʼr'him/her', etc.

Reflexive personal pronouns: me'myself', je'yourself', zich'him/herself', etc.

the R-word er: expletive, locational, prepositional and quantitative

The set of elements in (173) closely resembles the set of clitics found in French: see the lemma French personal pronouns at Wikipedia for a brief review. We will see that the relative order of the weak proforms also exhibits a number of similarities with the French clitics, which may justify the claim that the Dutch weak proforms are clitics as well; see Huybregts (1991), Zwart (1993/1996) as well as Haegeman (1993a/1993b) on W-Flemish. It should be noted, however, that the Dutch proforms differ from French clitics in that they do not need a verbal host: while the French clitics always cluster around a main or an auxiliary verb, the Dutch proforms do not require this. In order to not bias the discussion beforehand, we will refer to the movement that places weak proforms in the left periphery of the middle field as weak proform shift. Subsection I starts with a discussion of the weak referential personal pronouns, Subsection II discusses the weak (simplex) reflexive pronouns, and Subsection III concludes with the various uses of the weak R-word er.

I. Referential personal pronouns
II. The simplex reflexive zich
III. The weak R-word er
IV. Conclusion

[+] I. Referential personal pronouns

Table 2 shows the classification of referential personal pronouns, which is more extensively discussed in Section N5.2.1. The discussion in this subsection focuses on the distribution of the weakforms.

Table 2: Referential personal pronouns

		singular				plural
		subject		object		subject		object
		strong	weak	strong	weak	strong	weak	strong	weak
1st person		ik	’k	mij	me	wij	we	ons	—
2nd person	regular	jij	je	jou	je	jullie	—	jullie	—
	polite	u		u		u		u
3rd person	masculine	hij	-ie	hem	’m	zij	ze	henacc hundat	ze
	feminine	zij	ze	haar	(d)’r
	neuter	?het	’t	*?het	’t

[+] A. Weak pronominal subjects of (in)transitive verbs

In embedded clauses weak subject pronouns are right-adjacent to the complementizer (if present), and immediately precede or follow the finite verb in second position in main clauses; cf. Paardekooper (1961). This is illustrated in (174) by means of the 3rd person singular feminine pronoun ze'her'.

Example 174

a.	dat	ze	waarschijnlijk	morgen	komt.	embedded clause
	that	she	probably	tomorrow	comes
	'that sheʼs probably coming tomorrow.'

b.	Ze	komt	waarschijnlijk	morgen.	subject-initial main clause
	she	comes	probably	tomorrow
	'Sheʼs probably coming tomorrow.'

b'.	Waarschijnlijk	komt	ze	morgen.	other main clauses
	probably	comes	she	tomorrow
	'Probably sheʼs coming tomorrow.'

The examples in (175) show that subject pronouns can occur in positions more to the right only if they are strong and carry contrastive focus accent. The question mark in example (175b) is used to indicate that even then strengthening of the pronoun by means of a focus particle is often preferred.

Example 175

a.	*	dat	waarschijnlijk	ze	morgen	komt.
		that	probably	she	tomorrow	comes

b.	dat	waarschijnlijk	?(zelfs) zij	morgen	komt.
	that	probably	even she	tomorrow	comes
	'that even she is probably coming tomorrow.'

The examples in (176) show that the singular third person masculine subject pronoun ie'he' is exceptional in that it cannot occur in clause-initial position: it is a truly enclitic pronoun in that it obligatorily follows the complementizer or the finite verb in second position.

Example 176

a.	dat-ie	waarschijnlijk	morgen	komt.	embedded clause
	that-he	probably	tomorrow	comes
	'that heʼs probably coming tomorrow.'

b.	Hij/*Ie	komt	waarschijnlijk	morgen.	subject-initial main clause
	he/he	comes	probably	tomorrow
	'Heʼs probably coming tomorrow.'

b'.	Waarschijnlijk	komt-ie	morgen.	other main clauses
	probably	comes-he	tomorrow
	'Probably heʼs coming tomorrow.'

Example (177) shows that weak subject pronouns differ conspicuously from weak object pronouns in that the latter cannot occur in sentence-initial position.

Example 177

a.	Gisteren	heeft	Jan het boek/ʼt	gelezen.
	yesterday	has	Jan the book/it	read
	'Yesterday Jan read the book/it.'

b.		Het boek/*ʼt	heeft	Jan gisteren	gelezen.
		the book/it	has	Jan yesterday	read

This fact motivated the claim in (178) that subject-initial sentences are not CPs but TPs, as this hypothesis makes it possible to maintain the generalization that weak pronouns cannot be topicalized, that is, wh-moved into the specifier of CP; we refer the reader to Section 9.3 for detailed discussion.

Example 178

a.		Subject-initial sentence

b.		Other main clauses

[+] B. Weak pronominal objects

This subsection discusses weak proform shift of object pronouns. In succession, we will address the placement of weak object pronouns with respect to subjects, the relative order of weak direct and indirect object pronouns, and the relative order of weak object pronouns with respect to accusative subjects of AcI-constructions.

[+] 1. Order of subject and weak object pronouns in main clauses

Example (177) above has already shown that weak object pronouns cannot occur in sentence-initial position but must occupy a position in the middle field of the clause. The examples in (179) further show that they immediately follow the subject if it is not in sentence-initial position; cf. Huybregts (1991). This does not only hold if the subject is in the regular subject position, as in the primeless examples, but also if it is contrastively focused and can be assumed to be located in the specifier of FocP lower in the clause, as in the primed examples; cf. Section 13.3.2.

Example 179

a.	dat	<*ʼt>	Jan/ie <ʼt>	waarschijnlijk <*ʼt>	niet	gelezen	heeft
	that	it	Jan/he	probably	not	read	has
	'that Jan/he probably hasnʼt read it.'

a'.	dat	<*ʼt>	waarschijnlijk	zelfs Jan <ʼt>	niet	gelezen	heeft.
	that	it	probably	even Jan	not	read	has
	'that even Jan probably hasnʼt read it.'

b.	dat	<*ʼm>	Marie/ze <ʼm>	waarschijnlijk <*ʼm>	goede raad	wil	geven.
	that	him	Marie/she	probably	good advice	wants	give
	'that Marie/she probably wants to give him good advice.'

b'.	dat	<*ʼm>	waarschijnlijk	zelfs Marie <ʼm>	goede raad	wil	geven.
	that	him	probably	even Marie	good advice	wants	give
	'that even Marie probably wants to give him good advice.'

In subject-initial main clauses, weak object pronouns immediately follow the finite verb in second position. This is illustrated in (180) by showing that modal adverbs cannot precede the object pronoun but this holds for other constituents as well.

Example 180

a.	Jan heeft	<ʼt>	waarschijnlijk <*ʼt>	niet	gelezen.
	Jan has	it	probably	not	read
	'Jan probably hasnʼt read it.'

b.	Marie wil	<ʼm>	waarschijnlijk <*ʼm>	goede raad	geven.
	Marie wants	him	probably	good advice	give
	'Marie probably wants to give him good advice.'

[+] 2. Order of direct and indirect object

The previous subsection has shown that weak proform shift cannot affect the unmarked order of the subject and the objects. This is different when it comes to the relative order of direct and indirect objects: while direct objects normally follow nominal indirect objects under a neutral intonation pattern, weak pronominal direct objects normally precede indirect objects. Example (181b) shows that this holds regardless of whether the indirect object is non-pronominal or pronominal. It should further be noted that it also holds if the two object pronouns have the same form: the first object pronoun in dat Peter ʼm ʼm aanbood'that Peter offered it to him' is construed as the direct object.

Example 181

a.	dat	Peter	<*de auto>	Marie	<de auto>	aanbood.
	that	Peter	the car	Marie	the car	prt.-offered
	'that Peter offered Marie the car.'

b.	dat	Peter	<ʼm>	Marie/ʼr <??ʼm>	aanbood.
	that	Peter	him	Marie/her	prt.-offered
	'that Peter offered it to Marie/her.'

Weak objects pronouns are always adjacent to each other, which may be due to the fact illustrated in the previous subsection that they must both be adjacent to the finite verb or the subject if it is not in clause-initial position; the only new thing is that this restriction does not hold for the individual pronouns but for the full cluster. It should also be noted that Haegeman (1993a) observes for W-Flemish that inversion of the indirect and direct object requires the indirect object to be scrambled. Example (182) shows that the same seems to hold in Dutch, although it should be noted that the degraded order improves if the indirect object is assigned contrastive accent.

Example 182

dat	Jan	ʼt	<Marie>	waarschijnlijk <*?Marie>	gegeven	heeft.
that	Jan	it	Marie	probably	given	has
'that Jan has probably given it to Marie.'

This reversal of the direct and the indirect objects is possible only with reduced direct objects. It is not easy, however, to demonstrate reversal for strong referential personal pronouns because they cannot be used to refer to inanimate entities. The examples in (183) therefore illustrate this reversal by means of the demonstrative die'that one'; the judgments only hold under a non-contrastive intonation pattern.

Example 183

a.	dat	Peter	<??die>	Marie <die>	aanbood.
	that	Peter	dem	Marie	prt.-offered
	'that Peter offered Marie that one.'

b.	dat	Peter	<*die>	ʼr <die>	aanbood.
	that	Peter	dem	her	prt.-offered
	'that Peter offered her that one.'

The fact that object pronouns can be inverted while non-pronominal nominal arguments cannot has given rise to the hypothesis that they do not occupy the same position in the middle field of the clause, since only weak pronouns undergo weak proform shift; cf. Zwart (1996). If we assume in addition that weak proform shift is similar to clitic movement in languages like French, this hypothesis can be supported by the fact that third person direct and indirect object clitics in French appear in the same order as in Dutch: Jean leDO luiIO donnera'Jean will give it to him/her'. The fact discussed earlier that weak object pronouns cluster provides additional support to the hypothesis that they are clitic-like.

[+] 3. Order of subject and object in AcI-constructions

Subjects and direct objects of infinitival complement clauses in AcI-constructions are indistinguishable as far as their morphological form is concerned: this holds not only for referential noun phrases but also for their pronominalized counterparts, as both appear as object pronouns. Nevertheless, the examples in (184a&b) show that weak proform shift of an embedded object can optionally cross the subject of the infinitival clause; cf. Zwart (1996). Example (184c) shows that this is in fact the preferred option if the subject is also realized as a weak pronoun. The acceptability of inversion shows that the restriction established above, namely that weak proform shift of objects cannot affect the unmarked order of subjects and objects, only holds if the subject is assigned nominative case.

Example 184

a.	Jan zag/liet	<*het boektheme>	Marieagent < het boektheme>	lezen.
	Jan saw/let	the book	Marie	read
	'Jan saw/let Marie read the book.'

b.		Jan zag/liet	<ʼttheme>	Marieagent <ʼttheme>	lezen.
		Jan saw/let	it	Marie	read

c.		Jan zag/liet	<ʼttheme>	ʼragent <??ʼttheme>	lezen.
		Jan saw/let	it	her	read

The examples in (185) show that weak proform shift of an embedded direct object may also cross the subject if the infinitival clause is ditransitive: the direct object pronoun must cross the indirect object and optionally crosses the embedded subject.

Example 185

a.	Jan zag/liet	<*het boektheme>	Elsagent	Petergoal <het boektheme>	aanbieden.
	Jan saw/let	the book	Els	Peter	prt. offer
	'Jan saw/let Els offer Peter the book.'

b.		Jan zag/liet	<ʼttheme>	Elsagent <ʼttheme> Petergoal	<??ttheme>	aanbieden.
		Jan saw/let	it	Els	Peter	prt.-offer

It seems, however that weak embedded indirect object pronouns cannot cross the subject of the infinitival clause: according to us, (186b) can only be interpreted with the pronoun as an agent and Els as a goal. It seems plausible that the deviance of (186b) is related to the fact that the agent and the goal are both +human.

Example 186

a.	Jan zag/liet	<*Petergoal>	Elsagent <Petergoal>	het boektheme	aanbieden.
	Jan saw/let	Peter	Els	the book	prt. offer
	'Jan saw/let Els offer Peter the book.'

b.	*	Jan zag/liet	<ʼmgoal>	Elsagent <ʼmgoal>	het boektheme	aanbieden.
		Jan saw/let	him	Els	the book	prt. offer
		'Jan saw/let Els offer him the book.'

Something similar holds for cases in which both the direct and the indirect object surface as weak pronouns: examples such as (187b), which are given as fully acceptable in Zwart (1993/1996), are only acceptable to us if the pronoun ʼm is interpreted as agent and Els as goal. The unacceptability of (187c) deserves special mention as it is unexpected in the light of the fact that (184c) is fully acceptable; the fact that weak object pronouns must be adjacent to each other again provides support to the hypothesis that they are clitic-like in that they obligatorily cluster.

Example 187

a.	Jan zag/liet	Elsagent	ʼttheme	ʼmgoal	aanbieden.
	Jan saw/let	Els	it	him	prt. offer
	'Jan saw/let Els offer it to him.'

b.	*	Jan zag/liet	ʼttheme	ʼmgoal	Elsagent	aanbieden.
		Jan saw/let	it	him	Els	prt. offer

c.	*	Jan zag/liet	ʼttheme	Elsagent	ʼmgoal	aanbieden.
		Jan saw/let	it	Els	him	prt. offer

Example (188a) shows that if all the arguments of a ditransitive infinitival clause surface as weak pronouns they must occur in the order agent > theme > goal. It should be pointed out, however, that some speakers find a sequence of three weak pronouns difficult to pronounce and may therefore prefer the version in (188b) with a prepositional indirect object; in such cases the theme again preferably precedes the agent.

Example 188

a.	Jan zag/liet	ʼragent	ʼttheme	ʼmgoal	aanbieden.
	Jan saw/let	her	it	him	prt. offer
	'Jan saw/let her offer him the book.'

b.	Jan zag/liet	<ʼttheme>	ʼragent <ʼttheme>	aan ʼmgoal	aanbieden.
	Jan saw/let	it her	her	to him	prt. offer
	'Jan saw/let her offer it to him.'

Example (189) suggests that weak proform shift is able to feed binding: while non-pronominal direct objects cannot bind a reciprocal indirect object, shifted direct object pronouns can.

Example 189

dat	Marie	<zetheme>	elkaargoal	<*de jongenstheme>	voorgesteld	heeft.
that	Marie	them	each.other	the boys	prt.-introduced	has
'that Marie has introduced them to each other.'

Since feeding of binding is generally seen as a hallmark of A-movement, this may also suggest that weak proform shift is A-movement. It should be noted, however, that weak proform shift may be preceded by nominal argument shift and that it may be the case that this is responsible for feeding binding; cf. Haegeman (1993a/1993b). We provisionally assume that weak proform shift of arguments is A'-movement because Subsection III will show that weak proforms that do not function as arguments may undergo a similar shift.

[+] C. Pronominal subjects of passive and unaccusative constructions

Section 2.1.2 has shown that derived subjects can either precede or follow an indirect object; this is illustrated again in (190a) by means of the passivized counterpart of the ditransitive construction dat Jan Peter/ʼm de baan aanbood'that Jan offered Peter/him the job'. Example (190b) shows that the weak subject pronoun must precede the indirect object (which is not very surprising because strong subject pronouns are obligatorily moved into the regular subject position by nominal argument object shift; see 13.2, sub IB). The examples in (191) show the same for the dyadic unaccusative (nom-dat) verb bevallen'to please'.

Example 190

a.	dat	<de baan>	Peter/ʼm <de baan>	aangeboden	werd.
	that	the job	Peter/him	prt.-offered	was
	'that the job was offered to Peter/him.'

b.	dat	<ie>	Peter/ʼm	<*ie>	aangeboden	werd.
	that	he	Peter/him	he	prt.-offered	was
	'that it was offered to Peter/him.'

Example 191

a.	dat	<de film>	Peter/ʼm <de film>	bevallen	is.
	that	the movie	Peter/him	pleased	is
	'that the movie has pleased Peter/him.'

b.	dat	<ie>	Peter/ʼm	<*ie>	bevallen	is.
	that	he	Peter/him	he	pleased	is
	'that it has pleased Peter/him.'

[+] 4. Conclusion

The previous subsections have shown that weak object pronouns cannot be moved across nominative subjects. At first sight, this would suggest that weak proform shift cannot affect the unmarked order of nominal arguments (agent > goal > theme), but this turns out not to be correct, as is clear from the fact that weak direct object pronouns preferably precede nominal indirect objects, and that they can also be moved across an embedded subject in an AcI-construction. That weak proform shift can affect the unmarked order of nominal argument shows that weak pronouns can occupy positions in the clause that are not accessible to their non-pronominal counterparts, which in turn gives credence to the hypothesis that they are clitic-like. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that weak object pronouns obligatorily cluster together.
Weak subject and object pronouns exhibit various properties often attributed to clitics. The examples in (192) show, for example, that they cannot be used as independent utterances and cannot be topicalized or coordinated; see Haegeman (1993b) for relevant discussion. Zwart (1996) notes, however, that these properties also hold for the English reduced pronouns, which behave syntactically as regular pronouns, and concludes from this that they are not defining characteristics of clitics but simply follow from the fact that weak pronouns cannot be accented.

Example 192

a.		Wie	heb	je	gezien?	Hem/*ʼm.
		who	have	you	seen	him/him

b.	Hem/*ʼm	heb	ik	niet	gezien.
	him/him	have	I	not	seen
	'Him, I havenʼt seen.'

c.		[hem	en	haar]/	*[ʼm	en	ʼr]
		him	and	her	him	and	her

A potential problem for the claim that Dutch weak pronouns are clitics is that they differ from run-of-the-mill clitics in that they are not hosted by a verb. A related problem is that they can occur in PPs: bij ʼm'with him'; cf. Haegeman (1993b). The hypothesis that Dutch weak pronouns are clitics thus requires there to be some (phonetically empty) functional head that they can cliticize to. Currently, there does not seem to be a generally accepted analysis available but the tentative proposals in Haegeman (1993a/1993b) and Zwart (1993/1996) do agree on the fact that the prospective functional head(s) have nominal (case or agreement) features. We leave this claim for future research.

[+] II. The simplex reflexive zich

Section N5.2.1.5 has shown that Dutch has two types of reflexive pronouns: simplex reflexive pronouns such as third person zich and complex ones such as third person zichzelf'him/herself/themselves'. Simplex reflexive pronouns differ from complex ones in that they must precede modal adverbs such as waarschijnlijk'probably'; cf. Huybregts (1991). We refer the reader to N5.2.1.5 for a more extensive discussion of these two forms.

Example 193

a.	Marie heeft	<zichzelf>	waarschijnlijk <zichzelf>	aan Jan	voorgesteld.
	Marie has	herself	probably	to Jan	prt.-introduced
	'Marie has probably introduced herself to Jan'

b.	Marie heeft	<zich>	waarschijnlijk <*zich>	voorgesteld	aan Jan.
	Marie has	refl	probably	prt.-introduced	to Jan
	'Marie has probably introduced herself to Jan.'

Simplex reflexive pronouns behave like object pronouns in that they cannot precede subject pronouns. We illustrate this in (194) by means of a number of strong singular referential personal pronouns; the judgments do not change if we replace the strong subject pronouns by their weak counterparts.

Example 194

a.	dat	<*me>	ik <me>	nog	niet	heb	voorgesteld.
	that	refl	I	yet	not	have	prt.-introduced
	'that I havenʼt introduced myself yet.'

b.	dat	<*je>	jij <je>	nog	niet	hebt	voorgesteld.
	that	refl	you	yet	not	have	prt.-introduced
	'that you havenʼt introduced yourself yet.'

c.	dat	<*zich>	zij <zich>	nog	niet	heeft	voorgesteld.
	that	refl	she	yet	not	has	prt.-introduced
	'that she hasnʼt introduced herself yet.'

Simplex reflexive pronouns are special, however, in that they normally precede non-specific indefinite and negative subject pronouns, which we illustrate in (195) by means of expletive- there constructions; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1314). This means that they differ from object pronouns, which can never be moved across the subject of their clause but instead push the subject up into the regular subject position: see Section 13.2, sub IC1, for discussion.

Example 195

a.	dat	er	<zich>	drie vaten bier <*zich>	in de kelder bevinden.
	that	there	refl	three barrels [of] beer	in the cellar are.located
	'There are three barrels of beer in the cellar.'

b.	dat	er	<zich>	een meisje <*zich>	in de kelder	opgehangen	heeft.
	that	there	refl	a girl	in the cellar	prt.-hanged	has
	'that a girl has hanged herself in the cellar.'

With respect to specific indefinite and generic subject pronouns simplex reflexive pronouns again behave like object pronouns in that they follow them; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1314).

Example 196

a.	dat	<*zich>	een vriendin van hem <zich>	in de kelder	opgehangen	heeft.
	that	refl	a friend of him	in the cellar	prt.-hanged	has
	'that a lady friend of his has hanged herself in the cellar.'

b.	dat	<*zich>	een puber <zich>	nu	eenmaal	zo	gedraagt.
	that	refl	an adolescent	prt	prt	like.that	behaves
	'that an adolescent will behave like that.'

The ordering with respect to definite subjects seems to be relatively free, as is clear from example (197b). The placement of the subject in this example seems to be determined by the information structure of the clause: it follows the reflexive if it is part of the new information of the clause, while it precedes the reflexive if it is part of the presupposition; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1315).

Example 197

a.	dat	er	zich	hier	een drama	heeft	afgespeeld.
	that	there	refl	here	a tragedy	has	prt.-played
	'that a tragedy took place here.'

b.	dat <dat drama> zich	hier <dat drama>	afgespeeld	heeft.
	that that tragedy refl	here	prt.-played	has
	'that that tragedy took place here.'

This is consistent with the observation in Haeseryn et al. that the order reflexive–subject is found especially with inherently reflexive predicates that denote a process of appearing or coming into existence. Some examples are given in (198).

Example 198

a.	In de verte	verhieven	zich	de Alpen.
	in the distance	rose	refl	the Alps
	'In the distance rose the Alps.'

b.	Er	dienen	zich	twee problemen	aan.
	there	present	refl	two problems	prt.
	'Two problems present themselves.'

c.	Er	tekende	zich	een kleine meerderheid	af.
	there	silhouetted	refl	a small majority	prt.
	'A small majority became apparent.'

The ordering vis-a-vis negative subjects also has a semantic effect: while (199) expresses that there are no registrations at all, example (199b) does not necessarily imply this but may also be used to express that no individual from a contextually defined set has registered; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1315).

Example 199

a.	dat	zich	nog	niemand	heeft	aangemeld.
	that	refl	yet	nobody	has	prt.-registered
	'that nobody has registered yet.'

b.	dat	niemand	zich	nog	heeft	aangemeld.
	that	nobody	refl	yet	has	prt.-registered
	'that nobody has registered yet.'

In some cases it is virtually impossible for the reflexive pronoun to precede the subject; in (200) the simplex reflexive must follow the negative subject even though this means that it cannot be shifted across the modal adverb; cf. (193b). The acceptability contrast indicated is confirmed by the fact that a Google search (7/14/2015) on the string [ zich n iemand herinnert] resulted in no more than five relevant examples from the 19th century, while the alternative order resulted in 48 hits. It is not yet clear what determines precisely whether the order reflexive pronoun–subject is possible or not, although it is conspicuous that all examples given in Haeseryn et al. (1997) involve intransitive inherently reflexive verbs.

Example 200

a.	dat	(waarschijnlijk)	niemand	zich	die man	herinnert.
	that	probably	nobody	refl	that man	remembers
	'that probably nobody remembers that man.'

b.	??	dat	zich	(waarschijnlijk)	niemand	die man	herinnert.
		that	refl	probably	nobody	that man	remembers

In transitive constructions, the relative order of weak object and simplex reflexive pronouns seems to be relatively free, although there is a clear preference for the former to precede the latter. We checked this for the pronoun het'it', which is virtually always weak in speech, by doing a Google search (7/14/2015) on the search strings [ het zich (niet) herinner t] and [ zich het (niet) herinner t].

Example 201

a.	dat	Jan	ʼt	zich	(niet)	herinnert.	207 hits
	that	Jan	it	refl	not	remembers
	'that Jan remembers it/that Jan doesnʼt remember it.'

b.	dat	Jan	zich	ʼt	(niet)	herinnert.	36 hits
	that	Jan	refl	it	not	remembers
	'that Jan remembers it/that Jan doesnʼt remember it.'

For completeness’ sake, it should be noted that the preferred Dutch order differs from the one found in French, where the reflexive clitic precedes the object clitic: cf. Il se le rappelle'He remembers it'.

[+] III. The weak R-word er

The phonetically weak R-word er has the four distinctive functions illustrated in (202). Expletive er normally introduces some indefinite subject (cf. N8.1.4) but also occurs in impersonal passives (cf. 3.2.1.2), locational er refers to some contextually defined location, prepositional er represents the nominal part of a pronominalized PP (cf. P5), and quantitative er is associated with an interpretative gap [e] in a quantified noun phrase (cf. N6.3). Sometimes a single occurrence of er expresses more than one function, but this will be ignored here; see Section P5.5 for extensive discussion.

Example 202

a.	dat	<er>	waarschijnlijk <*er>	iemand	ziek	is.	expletive
	that	there	probably	someone	ill	is
	'that there is probably someone ill.'

b.	dat	Jan	<er>	waarschijnlijk <*er>	geweest	is.	locational
	that	Jan	there	probably	been	is
	'that Jan has probably been there.'

c.	dat	Jan <er>	waarschijnlijk <?er>	over	wil	praten.	prepositional
	that	Jan there	probably	about	wants	talk
	'that Jan probably wants to talk about it.'

d.	dat	Jan <eri>	waarschijnlijk <*eri>	[twee/veel [ei]]	heeft.	quantitative
	that	Jan there	probably	two/many	has
	'that Jan probably has two/many of them.'

This subsection will focus on the distribution of the various types within the clause. The examples in (202) already show that all types resemble weak pronouns in that they normally precede modal adverbs such as waarschijnlijk'probably'. Details concerning their placement will be discussed in separate subsections.

[+] A.