Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

7.2.4.Distribution of heel and its alternants as independent constituents

quickinfo

This section discusses the syntactic distribution of the various forms of heel examined in Section 7.2.2 as independent syntactic constituents (arguments, predicates and adjuncts), as well as their use as so-called floating quantifiers.

I. Distribution as arguments
II. Distribution as predicates
III. Distribution as adjuncts and floating quantifiers

[+] I. Distribution as arguments

This subsection briefly discusses the use of pre-determiner bare heel, post-determiner inflectible heel and geheel as independent arguments. The conclusion we may draw from the discussion in the following subsections is that the possibilities for independent uses of these elements are quite limited.

[+] A. Bare heel

The bare form heel does not readily occur in argument position. Examples of the type in (288a), where een heel is a noun phrase denoting a whole loaf of bread, do occur, but it is doubtful that heel functions as an argument here; een heel is optionally accompanied by wit/volkoren, which can function as nouns themselves, so that when een heel occurs on its own, one may assume there to be a null noun present in the structure. Note that the bare form half occurs in the same syntactic context; it can also be affixed with the diminutive suffix -je here (which would be awkward for heel: *een heeltje (wit)).

288

a.	Ik	wil	graag	een heel (wit/volkoren).
	I	want	please	a whole white/whole-wheat
	'I would like to have one loaf of (white/whole-wheat) bread, please.'

b.	Ik	wil	graag	een half/halfje (wit/volkoren).
	I	want	please	a half/halfdim white/whole-wheat
	'I would like to have half a loaf of white/whole-wheat bread, please.'

[+] B. Inflected hele

The schwa-inflected form hele sporadically shows up in argument positions, as in (289), but for such cases, it can again plausibly be argued that there is a null noun in the noun phrase containing hele.

289

a.		Dit	is een hele,	en	dat	is een halve.
		this	is a whole	and	that	is a half

b.	Hij	speelde	de bal	over de hele.
	he	played	the ball	over the whole
	'He played a passing shot which crossed the full width of the soccer field.'

[+] C. Geheel

The variant of heel prefixed with ge- also shows up independently in noun phrases, in which case it arguably functions as the head of the noun phrase. Examples are given in (290). That geheel is a noun is especially clear from (290a), taken from the internet, where it is contrasted with the noun delen'parts'.

290

Wat	is de relatie	tussen	het geheel/*heel	en	zijn delen?
what	is the relation	between	the whole/whole	and	its parts
'the whole and its parts'

In clause-adverbs like in zʼn geheel in (291a), geheel only shows up in possessed noun phrases; zʼn'its' does not alternate with het. By contrast, if the PP in question functions as an adverbial intensifier of negation, as in (291b&c), it is only het that is possible. The distribution of zʼn and het seems to correlate with the fact that in zʼn geheel always has an antecedent in the clause (the noun phrases het huis in (291a)), while in het geheel does not.

291

a.	Ik	heb	het huis	in zʼn geheel	een opknapbeurt	gegeven.
	I	have	the house	in its whole	a cleaning	given
	'I gave the house in its entirety a cleaning.'

b.	Dat	heb	ik	[in het geheel niet]	gezegd.
	that	have	I	in the whole not	said
	'I didnʼt say that at all/I didnʼt say any such thing.'

c.	Ik	heb	[in het geheel geen]	vertrouwen	in hem.
	I	have	in the whole no	trust	in him
	'I donʼt trust him at all.'

[+] II. Distribution as predicates

As already pointed out in the discussion of the semantics of heel, purely adjectival heel occurs as a predicate; in example (292a) heel functions as the predicate of a copular construction, and in (292b) as a supplementive. In contexts like these, heel does not alternate with hele or geheel.

292

a.	Die vaas	is gebroken,	maar	deze	is nog	heel.
	that vase	is broken	but	this.one	is still	whole
	'That vase is broken but this one is still unscathed.'

b.	De archeoloog	had	de vaas	graag	heel	gevonden.
	the archeologist	would.have	the vase	prt	whole	found
	'The archeologist would have liked to have found the vase in an unbroken state.'

[+] III. Distribution as adjuncts and floating quantifiers

One respect in which heel and hele differ robustly from geheel is the fact that heel/hele cannot be construed as a floating quantifier at all. That is, sentences of the type in (293a) are entirely impossible. The grammaticality of (293b), on the other hand, may seem to suggest that geheel can be a floating quantifier, but claims to this effect are immediately refuted by the fact that geheel (in contradistinction to heel/hele) cannot be construed with noun phrases; cf. *geheel dat boek'whole that book'. Rather than functioning as a floating quantifier, geheel in (293b) is an adjunct, replaceable with the PP in zʼn geheel (discussed at the end of Subsection I) or the adverb helemaal. From (293b) we conclude, then, that geheel can occur on its own as an adjunct, and differs in this regard from heel and hele.

293

a.	*	Ik	heb	dat boek	gisteren	heel/hele	gelezen.
		I	have	that book	yesterday	all/whole	read

b.		Ik	heb	dat boek	gisteren	geheel	gelezen.
		I	have	that book	yesterday	whole	read

b'.		Ik	heb	dat boek	gisteren	in zʼn geheel/helemaal	gelezen.
		I	have	that book	yesterday	in its whole/altogether	read

The form geheel and the adverb helemaal also show up in a number of other adverbial contexts of a highly idiomatic character. Some examples are given in (294). It is difficult to tell whether geheel/helemaal in (294) are constituents of the noun phrases/PPs with which they combine, or whether they are constituents of the VP or clause in which these expressions occur; the examples in (295) show that topicalizing the noun phrase/PP and pied piping geheel/helemaal is not very felicitous, although stranding geheel/helemaal under topicalization is appreciably worse.

294

a.	Ik	ben	geheel/helemaal/*heel	de Uwe.
	I	am	whole/altogether/whole	the yours
	'Iʼm entirely/all yours.'

b.	Ik	ben	geheel/helemaal/*heel	in de war.
	I	am	whole/altogether/whole	confused
	'Iʼm entirely completely confused.'

295

a.	??	Geheel/Helemaal	in de war	bleek	hij	te zijn.
		whole/altogether	the sucker	turned.out	he	to be

b.	*	In de war	bleek	hij	geheel/helemaal	te zijn.
		the sucker	turned.out	he	whole/altogether	to be

To conclude this discussion of adverbially construed heel forms, we return to an observation made in the discussion of the semantics of heel in Section 7.2.1. We observed there that adnominal heel sometimes seems to quantify a constituent larger than the noun phrase that it is syntactically construed with, and contributes a semantics which is essentially the same as that of adverbial helemaal. Examples of the type in (296) illustrate this. The interpretation of helemaal in (296c) is that of a VP-level adverb; the semantic contribution of heel and hele in (296a&b) seems to be completely on a par with that of helemaal.

296

a.	Heel de tafel	zit	onder de vlekken.
	all the table	sits	under the stains
	'The whole table is stained.'

b.	De hele tafel	zit	onder de vlekken.
	the whole table	sits	under the stains
	'The whole table is stained.'

c.	De tafel	zit	helemaal	onder de vlekken.
	the table	sits	altogether	under the stains
	'The table is profusely covered with stains.'

In (297c), on the other hand, helemaal is not interpreted as a VP-level adverb but as a modifier of in de hoek'in the corner'; helemaal in de hoek can be translated as all the way in the corner. Correlated with the fact that helemaal is a PP-modifier rather than a VP-level adverb is the fact that (297c) has no counterparts with adnominal heel/hele: the examples in (297a&b) are entirely unacceptable.

297

a.	*	Heel de tafel	staat	in de hoek.
		all the table	stands	in the corner

b.	*	De hele tafel	staat	in de hoek.
		the whole table	stands	in the corner

c.	De tafel	staat	helemaal	in de hoek.
	the table	stands	altogether	in the corner
	'The table is standing all the way in the corner.'

That helemaal and adnominal heel/hele cannot always be used interchangeably can also be shown in the other direction by means of the examples in (298).

298

a.		Heel de stad	ontwaakte.
		all the town	woke.up

b.		De hele stad	ontwaakte.
		the whole town	woke.up

c.	*	De stad	ontwaakte	helemaal.
		the town	woke.up	altogether

For completeness’ sake note that we analyzed helemaal as a VP-modifier, while allemaal has been analyzed in Section 7.1.5 as a floating quantifier (with scope over the antecedent noun phrase only). There are a number of syntactic and semantic differences between these two elements that justify this difference in analysis. First of all, allemaal can only be used with a plural antecedent, whereas helemaal can be used with both plural and singular count-nouns, as illustrated in example (299).

299

a.		Ik	heb	de boeken/*het boek	allemaal	gelezen.
		I	have	the books/the book	all	read

b.		Ik	heb	de boeken/het boek	helemaal	gelezen.
		I	have	the books/the book	completely	read

Second, helemaal readily combines with substance nouns, whereas allemaal seems to give rise to a degraded result in such constructions (although judgments differ; Haeseryn et al. (1997: 350) give (300a) with allemaal as fully acceptable).

300

a.	De alcohol	was	helemaal/??allemaal	verdampt.
	the alcohol	was	completely/all	evaporated
	'The alcohol had completely/all evaporated.'

b.		De boter	was	helemaal/??allemaal	gesmolten.
		the butter	was	completely/all	melted

These differences can, of course, easily be accounted for: if helemaal has scope over the entire VP, it is unlikely to impose constraints on any noun phrase within that VP, while allemaal obviously does impose constraints on its antecedent. We may therefore conclude that helemaal and allemaal differ both in scope and in meaning. This conclusion leads to the expectation that it should be possible for the two elements to occur in one and the same construction. As shown in example (301a) this expectation is indeed borne out. Note, finally, that the two quantifiers cannot appear in the order given in example (301b), which suggests that helemaal does indeed have scope over the entire VP.

301