Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.1.2.4.Reported speech

quickinfo

The complement clauses discussed in the preceding sections all have the form of finite embedded clauses, that is, they are introduced by a complementizer (dat'that' or of'whether') or a wh-phrase, and have the finite verb in clause-final position. Complement clauses of this kind are also found in sentences such as (123a), in which the speaker reports what someone else has said, thought, etc. The sentences in (123b&c) show, however, that there are also alternative ways.

123

a.	Jan zei/dacht	dat	hij	ziek	was.	indirect reported speech/quote
	Jan said/thought	that	he	ill	was
	'Jan said/thought that he was ill.'

b.	Jan zei/dacht:	"Ik	ben	ziek".	direct reported speech/quote
	Jan said/thought	I	am	ill
	'Jan said/thought: "Ik ben ziek".'

c.		Jan zei/dacht	hij	was	ziek.	semi-direct reported speech/quote
		Jan said/thought	he	was	ill

Although the examples in (123) show that constructions like these are not strictly limited to speech proper but may also pertain to thoughts, they are normally said to involve reported speech. We will therefore refer to the whole set of constructions as reported speech constructions, and to the parts in italics, which express the reported parts, as quotes. Although quotes are often analyzed as direct object clauses (see, e.g., Haeseryn et al. 1997), we will see that this is not entirely correct for all cases: see also Corver (1994), Corver & Thiersch (2003), and De Vries (2006). For this reason we will refer to the clauses headed by the verb of saying/thinking not as matrix clauses but, more neutrally, as say-clauses.
The way of reporting speech in (123a) is normally referred to as indirect reported speech. An important property of this construction is that the embedded clause(s) does/do not necessarily correspond in a one-to-one fashion to the actual utterance(s) of the source indicated: for example, if Jan is a very talkative person, the embedded clause may simply summarize a story that took 30 minutes to tell, that is, example (123a) does not imply that Jan literally said: "Ik ben ziek". This distinguishes indirect from direct reported speech; example (123b) is only true if Jan pronounced the sentence Ik ben ziek, for which reason we repeated this sentence literally in the translation of (123b). Another difference, which is illustrated in (124), is that direct quotes can consist of a sequence of independent sentences, whereas in indirect reported speech constructions each assertion must be realized as a separate dependent clause.

124

a.	Jan zei/dacht	[[dat hij ziek	was]	en	[dat hij	thuis	bleef]].	indirect
	Jan said/thought	that he ill	was	and	that he	at.home	stayed
	'Jan said that he was ill and that he would stay at home.'

b.	Jan zei/dacht:	"Ik	ben	ziek.	Ik	blijf	thuis".	direct
	Jan said/thought	I	am	ill	I	stay	at.home
	'Jan said: "Ik ben ziek. Ik blijf thuis".'

In example (123c), we are dealing with semi-direct reported speech (also known as erlebte rede), which constitutes a kind of in-between category. It differs from indirect reported speech in that the quote has the form of a main clause. This is clear from the position of the finite verb: if we are dealing with indirect reported speech, the finite verb should occupy the clause-final position, whereas it should be in second position in semi-direct reported speech. The placement of the finite verb is clearly related to the distribution of the complementizer: the examples in (125) show that the complementizer is obligatory in indirect reported speech constructions with declarative quotes, but that it cannot appear in semi-direct reported speech constructions. This also shows that semi-direct reported speech constructions such as (125b) cannot be derived from direct reported speech constructions such as (125a) by deletion of the complementizer dat, but that they constitute a construction type in their own right.

125

a.	Jan zei	*(dat)	hij	ziek	was.	indirect
	Jan said	that	he	ill	was
	'Jan said that he was ill.'

b.		Jan zei	(*dat)	hij	was	ziek.	semi-direct
		Jan said	that	he	was	ill

Although semi-direct reported speech does not involve a literal quote, it differs from indirect reported speech in that the relation with what was actually said is much tighter. Example (123c), for instance, suggests that Jan said something like Ik ben ziek. Semi-direct quotes differ from direct quotes mainly in that first and second person pronouns are replaced by third person pronouns and that the present tense of the reported sentence is adapted to conform to the past tense of the verb zeggen'to say'; cf. Lodewick (1975:169-70). The semi-direct equivalent of the direct reported speech construction in (126a) would then be as in (126b).

126

a.		Jan dacht:	"Ik	haat	je	uit de grond van mijn hart".	direct
		Jan thought	I	hate	you	from the bottom of my heart

b.		Jan dacht,	hij	haatte	hem	uit de grond van zijn hart.	semi-direct
		Jan said	he	hated	him	from the bottom of his heart

Semi-direct reported speech is not often used in colloquial speech but is regularly found as a stylistic device in modern literature, especially for expressing the internal thoughts of the protagonist(s) of a story (the so-called interior monologue); Lodewick in fact claims that it is a characteristic feature of impressionistic writings from around 1900. The use of semi-direct reported speech constructions implies that, like direct quotes, semi-direct quotes may involve sequences of sentences; this expectation is borne out, as is illustrated in (127b) by means of the semi-direct counterpart of the direct reported speech construction in (124b), repeated here as (127b).

127

a.	Jan zei/dacht:	"Ik	ben	ziek.	Ik blijf	thuis".	direct
	Jan said/thought	I	am	ill	I stay	at.home
	'Jan said: "Ik ben ziek. Ik blijf thuis".'

b.		Jan zei/dacht,	hij	was	ziek,	hij	bleef	thuis.	semi-direct
		Jan said/thought	he	was	ill	he	stayed	at.home

Embedded clauses in indirect reported speech constructions such as (123a) can be pronominalized (Jan zei het'Jan said it'), which suggests that they function as direct object clauses. It is often assumed without much argumentation that direct and semi-direct reported speech constructions like (123b&c) also involve direct object clauses; see Haeseryn et al. (1997:1100). This is, however, far from obvious: the quotes in the two examples in (127) consist of series of sentences, and this makes it is very unlikely that quotes have the function of direct object. In fact, it may even be the case that we are dealing with a relation of an entirely different sort given that the part Jan zei need only be used in examples like (123b&c) when the context leaves open what the source of the quote is; if the source is known, it can readily be omitted. This is illustrated in the little scene in (128), which might be used as the start of a story. See also the discussion of what Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1029) call free indirect/direct speech.

128

Jan kwam	in zijn pyjama	de kamer	binnen.
Jan came	in his pajamas	the room	inside
'Jan entered the room in his pajamas.'

a.	(Hij dacht:)	"Ik	ben	ziek.	Ik	blijf	thuis".	direct
	he thought	I	am	ill	I	stay	at.home
	'(He thought:) "Ik ben ziek. Ik blijf thuis".'

b.	(Hij dacht,)	hij	was	ziek;	hij	bleef	thuis.	semi-direct
	he thought	he	was	ill	he	stayed	at.home
	'(He thought,) he was ill. He would stay in.'

Matrix clauses in indirect reported speech constructions, on the other hand, can only be left unexpressed under very special circumstances. Sentence (129b), for example, cannot replace the continuations of the story in (128a&b), but is only acceptable as an answer to a question such as (129a)—we are dealing with some kind of ellipsis; the part of the answer that can be recovered from the original question (here: the matrix clause) is simply omitted.

129

a.	Wat	zei	Jan?
	what	said	Jan
	'What did Jan say?'

b.	Dat	hij	ziek	was en	dat	hij	thuis	bleef.	indirect
	that	he	ill	was and	that	he	at.home	stayed
	'That he was ill and that he would stay in.'

We will see in Subsection II that this difference is reflected in several other ways, and that there are reasons for assuming that in many cases direct and semi-direct reported speech constructions are not regular transitive constructions. Instead, the quotes function as full-fledged sentences with parenthetical say-clauses.
We already mentioned that semi-direct reported speech is normally used in written language and cannot be found in colloquial speech so frequently, subsection III will show, however, that there is also a reported speech construction that is normally avoided in writing but which is highly frequent in speech; cf. Verkuyl (1977) and Romein (1999). This construction, which is illustrated in (130), involves the quotative prepositionvan followed by an intonation break, which may optionally be preceded by a hesitation marker like eh'er', and a quote. The quote can be either direct or, less frequently, indirect; cf. Verkuyl (1977).

130

a.	Marie dacht	van	(eh) ...	Hij komt	straks	wel	weer	terug.
	Marie thought	van	er	he comes	later	prt	again	back
	'Marie thought something like: "Heʼll probably return later again".'

b.		Marie dacht	van	(eh) ...	dat	hij	straks	wel	weer	terug	komt.
		Marie thought	van	er	that	he	later	prt	again	back	comes

The three types of reported speech constructions introduced above will be discussed in separate subsections, subsection I discusses indirect reported speech and shows that the indirect quote functions as a regular argument clause, subsection II continues with a discussion of (semi-)direct reported speech and argues that the say-clause in such constructions is often (but not always) parenthetical, subsection III concludes with a discussion of the colloquial quotative van-construction in (130).

I. Indirect reported speech
II. Direct and semi-direct reported speech
III. Quotative and polar van-constructions
- A. Quotative van-constructions
- B. Polar van-constructions

[+] I. Indirect reported speech

Quotes in indirect reported speech constructions behave in many respects like other types of direct object clauses. The following subsections will show this for a number of properties of object clauses, which are discussed more extensively in Sections 5.1.2.1 to 5.1.2.3. We will also discuss some facts not mentioned there, which can be used to provide support for the claim that indirect quotes are regular object clauses.

[+] A. Selection restrictions on the embedded clause

The form of indirect quotes is determined to a large extent by the main verb: verbs like zeggen'to say' and denken'to think' select declarative clauses, whereas verbs like vragen'to ask' select interrogative clauses. See Section 5.1.2.1 for a more extensive discussion of the selection restrictions on declarative and interrogative object clauses.

131

a.	dat	Peter zei/dacht	[dat	Jan ziek	was].
	that	Peter said/thought	that	Jan ill	was
	'that Peter said/thought that Jan was ill.'

b.	dat	Marie vroeg	[of	Jan ziek	was].
	that	Marie asked	whether	Jan ill	was
	'that Marie asked whether Jan was ill.'

[+] B. Position of the embedded clause

The examples in (131) show that indirect quotes normally follow the verb(s) in clause-final position—placing such quotes in the middle field is normally marked and triggers a factive reading; cf. Section 5.1.2.3. Topicalization of indirect quotes is possible, in which case they are optionally followed by the resumptive pronoun dat'that'; see Section 5.1.2.2 for a more extensive discussion of the placement of direct object clauses.

132

a.		[Dat	Peter ziek	is]	(dat)	zei/dacht	Jan.
		that	Peter ill	is	that	said/thought	Jan

b.		[Of	Jan ziek	was]	(dat)	vroeg	Marie.
		whether	Jan ill	was	that	asked	Marie

[+] C. The use of an anticipatory pronoun

The use of an anticipatory pronoun seems possible but marked; the examples in (133) are more likely to be construed with a regular, discourse-related interpretation of the pronoun, which again favors a factive reading of the embedded clause; see Section 5.1.2.3, sub IIIB.

133

a.	dat	Peter het	zei/dacht	[dat	Jan ziek	was].
	that	Peter it	said/thought	that	Jan ill	was
	'that Peter said/thought it that Jan was ill.'

b.	dat	Marie het	vroeg	[of	Jan ziek	was].
	that	Marie it	asked	whether	Jan ill	was
	'that Marie asked it whether Jan was ill.'

[+] D. Wh-extraction

Embedded declarative clauses are fully transparent for wh-extraction in the sense that both arguments and adjuncts can be extracted. See Section 5.1.1, sub III, for discussion of the fact that wh-extraction becomes unacceptable if an anticipatory or deictic pronoun is added.

134

a.	Wiei	zei/dacht	je	[dat ti	dat boek	gekocht	had]?	subject
	who	said/thought	you	that	that book	bought	has
	'Who did you say/think had bought that book.'

b.	Wati	zei/dacht	je	[dat	Peter ti	gekocht	heeft]?	object
	what	said/thought	you	that	Peter	bought	has
	'What did you say/think that Peter has bought?'

c.	Wanneeri	zei/dacht	je	[dat	Peter ti	vertrokken	was]?	adjunct
	when	said/thought	you	that	Peter	left	had
	'When did you say/think that Peter had left?'

Wh-extraction is not possible from embedded interrogative clauses. The standard analysis in generative grammar is that this is due to the fact that wh-extraction cannot apply in one fell swoop but must proceed via the clause-initial position of the object clause; this position is available in declarative examples such as (134), but occupied by a wh-phrase in embedded wh-questions such as (135) or a phonetically empty question operator in embedded yes/no-questions.

135

a.	*	Wiei	vroeg	je	[watjtitj	gekocht	heeft]?	subject
		who	asked	you	what	bought	has
		Compare: '*Who did you ask what has bought?'

b.	*	Watj	vroeg	je	[wieititj	gekocht	heeft]?	object
		what	asked	you	who	bought	has
		Compare: '*What did you ask who has bought?'

c.	*	Wanneerj	vroeg	je	[wieititj	vertrokken	was]?	adjunct
		when	asked	you	who	left	had
		Compare: '*When did you ask who had left?'

Note in passing that, contrary to what has been reported for English, wh-extraction of the subject in (134a) is acceptable despite the presence of a complementizer and that most Dutch speakers find the three examples in (135) equally unacceptable. We will not digress on these issues here but refer the reader instead to Section 11.3.1 for an extensive discussion of the restrictions on wh-extraction. Note also that example (135c) is fully acceptable if wanneer'when' is construed as a modifier of the matrix clause but this is, of course, not the reading intended here (as is indicated by the placement of the tracetj within the embedded clause).

[+] E. Binding

Referential personal pronouns as part of an indirect quote can be bound by an antecedent in the say-clause; see Section N5.2.1.5, for an extensive discussion of binding of such pronouns. Since such pronouns can also co-refer with some referential expression as a result of accidental coreference, we have to appeal to examples in which the antecedent is a quantified expression like iedereen'everyone' or niemand'nobody' in order to show this. Example (136a) first shows that the pronoun hij cannot be used as referentially dependent on a universally/negatively quantified expression if the latter is part of some other sentence; in such cases, the pronoun must refer to some known entity in the domain of discourse. The fact that the pronoun can have a bound-variable reading, that is, can be interpreted as referentially dependent on the quantifiers in (136b) shows that we are not dealing with accidental coreferentiality but with binding. Italics indicate the intended binding relation.

136

a.	*	Iedereen/Niemand	bleef	thuis.	Hij	was	ziek.
		everybody/nobody	stayed	at.home	he	was	ill

b.	Iedereen/Niemand	zei	[dat	hij	ziek	was].
	everybody/nobody	said	that	he	ill	was
	'Everybody/Nobody said that he was ill.'

The acceptability of the bound variable reading in (136b) unambiguously shows that we are dealing with an object clause; if the indirect quote were not the object of the verb zeggen'to say', there would be no c-command relation between the subject of the say-clause and the pronoun and, consequently, binding would be wrongly predicted to be impossible, just as in (136a).

[+] F. Licensing of negative polarity items

That indirect quotes are object clauses is also shown by the fact that negative polarity items (NPIs) like ook maar iets'anything' as part of an indirect quote can be licensed by some negative element in the say-clause. The reason is that, like binding, NPI licensing requires c-command between the NPI and its licenser. NPI-licensing is excluded in (137a) since the NPI and its potential licenser niemand'nobody' are not in the same sentence and there is consequently no c-command relation between them; NPI-licensing is possible in (137b) since the subject of the matrix clause does c-command the NPI in the embedded object clause. Italics indicate the relation between the NPI and its intended licenser.

137

a.		Niemand	bleef	thuis.	*Hij	had	daar	ook maar iets	te doen.
		nobody	stayed	at.home	he	had	there	anything	to do

b.	Niemand	dacht	dat	hij	thuis	ook maar iets	te doen	had.
	nobody	thought	that	he	at.home	anything	to do	had
	'Nobody thought that he had anything to do at home.'

[+] G. Conclusion

The previous subsections have shown that quotes in indirect reported speech constructions are direct object clauses. They exhibit the behavior of regular object clauses, which was discussed more extensively in Sections 5.1.2.1 to 5.1.2.3. Additionally, the discussion of binding and NPI-licensing has established that subjects of say-clauses c-command the constituents in indirect quotes, which lends credence to the claim that such quotes are regular direct object clauses.

[+] II. Direct and semi-direct reported speech

This subsection discusses the question as to whether (semi-)direct quotes should be considered direct object clauses, subsections A and B show that the evidence is rather varied, from which we will conclude that (semi-)direct reported speech constructions are often structurally ambiguous, subsection C provides some additional support for this conclusion, and Subsection D concludes with a brief note on the internal structure of the relevant constructions. Since (semi-)direct reported speech constructions have not yet been studied extensively from a syntactic point of view, much of what follows is tentative in nature and should therefore be taken with care.

[+] A. Direct reported speech

Direct reported speech constructions are often ambiguous. We will argue that such constructions allow not only an analysis as regular transitive constructions in which the quote functions as a direct object, but also an analysis in which the quote can function as a main clause with an embedded parenthetical say-clause; cf. De Vries (2006).

[+] 1. Are direct quotes direct objects?

Example (138a) strongly suggests that the direct quote in (138b) functions as the direct object of the verb zeggen'to say'. The fact that the pronoun in (138a) cannot be omitted shows that zeggen is a transitive verb that cannot be used pseudo-intransitively. The fact that the direct quote is the only candidate that could function as direct object in (138b) therefore seems to leave us no other option than to conclude that it must have this syntactic function.

138

a.		Jan zei	*(het).
		Jan said	it

b.		Jan zei:	"Ik	ben	ziek".
		Jan said	I	am	ill

Although this line of argumentation seems quite convincing, there are various reasons to reject the conclusion that direct quotes always function as object clauses. First, it seems that introducing the direct quote with an anticipatory/deictic pronoun het'it' is not normally possible. Although example (139a) is fully acceptable, the pronoun het does not seem to refer to the direct quote but to some other proposition. This is evident from the fact illustrated in (139b) that the pronoun can be replaced by an indirect quote such as the one in square brackets. Besides, example (139c) shows that we would rather use phrases like als volgt'as follows' or the manner adverb zo'thus' if we want to anticipate the direct quote.

139

a.		Jan vroeg het haar eindelijk: "Als ik je zie begint mijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Ik kan niet langer zonder jou!"
		'Jan finally asked her it: "Whenever I see you my heart starts pounding boom, boom, boom ... I can no longer live without you!"'

b.		Jan vroeg haar eindelijk [of ze met hem wilde trouwen]: "Als ik je zie begint mijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Ik kan niet langer zonder jou!"Jan vroeg haar eindelijk [of ze met hem wilde trouwen]: "Als ik je zie begint mijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Ik kan niet langer zonder jou!"
		'Jan finally asked her whether she would marry him: "Whenever I see you my heart start pounding boom, boom, boom ... I can no longer live without you!"'

c.		Jan vroeg het haar als volgt/zo: "Als ik je zie begint mijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem .... Ik kan niet langer zonder jou!"
		'Jan finally asked her it as follows/thus: "Whenever I see you my heart starts pounding boom, boom, boom ... I can no longer live without you!"'

From the discussion of the examples in (139) we are forced to conclude that the direct quote does not function as a direct object in the examples in (139). Barbiers (2000:190) even suggests that postverbal direct quotes are not even part of the preceding say-clauses given that their intonation contour is entirely independent; they are always preceded by a distinct intonation break. He suggests that this makes it more likely that postverbal direct quotes function as some kind of afterthought since afterthoughts exhibit the same prosodic effect. Barbiers does not claim that direct quotes are never direct objects, but he asserts that they can only have this function if they occur in the middle field of the clause, as in (140), in which case they have the same distribution as nominal objects. Note in passing that examples such as (140) quickly degrade when the quote gets longer.

140

a.	Jan heeft	"hallo"	tegen de leraar	gezegd.
	Jan has	hello	to the teacher	said
	'Jan has said "hallo" to the teacher.'

b.	Jan heeft	"ik	ben	ziek"	tegen de leraar	gezegd.
	Jan has	I	am	ill	to the teacher	said
	'Jan has said "Ik ben ziek" to the teacher.'

In (140) it is not entirely clear whether we are really dealing in (140) with reported speech in the sense intended here. It may also be the case that we simply have to do with an autonomous use of the word/phrase in question. That this may be the case is strongly suggested by the fact that an utterance such as (140a) can quite naturally be followed by something such as (141a). De Vries (2006) provides a similar example and adds that the quote can also be in a language other than Dutch. This again suggests that quotes may involve the autonomous use of the word/phrase in question, and that this is the reason why they behave syntactically as nominal arguments of the verb. In the discussion below we will ignore the autonomous use of quotes in the middle field of the clause.

141

a.	Dat is onbeleefd:	hij had	"goedemorgen"	moeten	zeggen.
	that is rude	he should	good.morning	have	said
	'That is rude: he should have said "goedemorgen".'

b.	John heeft	"I am ill"	tegen de leraar	gezegd.
	John has	I am ill	to the teacher	said
	'John has said "Iʼm ill" to the teacher.'

Barbiers does not discuss direct quotes in the left periphery of the utterance, as in (142), but it seems that such constructions show that direct quotes have an ambiguous syntactic status. Although the construction in (142a) is the one commonly used, the examples in (142b&c) show that it is also possible to add the demonstrative pronoun dat or the manner adverb zo as a resumptive element.

142

a.	"Ik	ben	ziek",	zei	Jan.
	I	am	ill	said	Jan
	'"Ik ben ziek", Jan said.'

b.		"Ik	ben	ziek",	dat	zei	Jan.
		I	am	ill	that	said	Jan

c.		"Ik	ben	ziek",	zo	zei	Jan.
		I	am	ill	thus	said	Jan

Subsection B will show that example (142b) can be analyzed as a left-dislocation construction. This example would then receive a similar analysis as example (143a) in which the resumptive pronoun dat has a neuter singular antecedent functioning as the logical direct object of the sentence. Example (143b) is added to show that other resumptive pro-forms are used when the left-dislocated element has some other logical function: the resumptive pro-form dan, for example, is used when the left-dislocated element is the temporal adverb morgen'tomorrow'.

143

a.	Dat boek,	dat	heb	ik	al	gelezen.
	that book	that	have	I	already	read
	'That book, Iʼve already read it.'

b.	Morgen,	dan	ga	ik	naar Groningen.
	tomorrow	then	go	I	to Groningen
	'Tomorrow, Iʼll be going to Groningen then.'

Although Subsection B will argue that (142c) is not a left-dislocation construction, the fact that the manner adverb zo is used in a similar resumptive function immediately suggests that the direct quote does not function as the logical direct object of the say-clause. This conclusion receives further support from (144). Example (144a) shows that the left-dislocation construction with the resumptive pronoun dat does not allow the addition of the object pronoun het, which is to be expected given that the resumptive pronoun already performs this function. Example (144b), on the other hand, shows that, in the right context, the addition of the object pronoun het is admissible in the construction with zo, which proves that the direct quote does not function as the logical direct object of the say-clause in this case.

144

a.		"Ik	ben	ziek",	dat	zei	Jan	*(het).
		I	am	ill	that	said	Jan	it

b.		"Ik	ben	ziek",	zo	zei	Jan	(het).
		I	am	ill	thus	said	Jan	it

The fact that direct quotes need not function as (logical) direct objects of the say-clause, established by the examples in (139) and (142) to (144), shows that our earlier conclusion on the basis of example (138a) that the verb zeggen'to say' may not occur without a direct object is wrong; if a direct quote is present with some other function than (logical) direct object of the say-clause, the direct object of the verb zeggen can apparently remain unexpressed.
To sum up, this subsection has provided evidence that direct quotes preceded by a say-clause do not function as the (logical) direct object of this say-clause. The situation is different when the say-clause follows the quote; the quote may then have the function of (logical) direct object, in which case the resumptive pronoun dat can be inserted between the quote and the finite verb, or it may have an adverbial function, in which case the resumptive pro-form surfaces as the manner adverb zo. Observe that this conclusion raises the question as to how the selection restrictions imposed by the matrix verbs on the direct quote can be accounted for if the latter functions as an adjunct. Given that this cannot be accounted for by normally assumed syntactic means (that is, subcategorization), a pragmatic account seems to be called for. We leave this for future research.

145

a.	Jan	zei/*vroeg:	"Els	wil	vast	wel	een ijsje".
	Jan	said/asked	Els	wants	prt	prt	an ice.cream
	'Jan said: "Iʼm sure Els would like to have an ice cream".'

b.	Jan vroeg/*zei:	"Wie	wil	er	een ijsje?".
	Jan asked/said	who	wants	there	an ice.cream
	'Jan asked: "Who would like to have an ice cream?".'

[+] 2. Direct quotes and parenthetical clauses

The previous subsection has shown that direct quotes can but need not function as direct object clauses of verbs of saying/thinking when they precede the say-clause. The following question now arises: what is the structure of those constructions in which the quote does not function as direct object? This subsection argues that direct quotes are regular main clauses in such cases, which contain a parenthetical say-clause. A first step in the argument involves the possible word orders in the three constructions in (146).

146

a.	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen",	zei Marie.
	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring	said Marie
	'"Peter zal het boek morgen brengen", Marie said.'

b.		"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen",	dat	zei	Marie.
		Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring	that	said	Marie

c.		"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen",	zo	zei	Marie.
		Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring	thus	said	Marie

We begin our discussion with example (146b), which we analyze as a left-dislocation construction. Example (147a) shows that the direct quote need not precede the say-clause but can also be right-dislocated, in which case the resumptive pronoun dat will be replaced by the proximate demonstrative pronoun dit'this'. The example which is crucial for our discussion is (147b), which shows that the direct quote cannot be split by the say-clause.

147

a.	Marie zei	dit:	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen".
	Marie said	this:	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring
	'Marie said the following: "Peter zal het boek morgen brengen".'

b.	*	"Peter",	dat/dit	zei	Marie,	"zal	het boek	morgen	brengen".
		Peter	that/this	said	Marie	will	the book	tomorrow	bring

We should keep in mind, however, that reliable judgments on examples such as (147b) are sometimes hampered by the fact that the same string is acceptable with a non-quote interpretation: the speaker then simply provides a statement of his own and uses a parenthetical clause to point at Marie as his source of information. This is brought out in example (148a), in which the adverb tenminste'at least' forces the intended non-quote reading. Example (148b) shows that the parenthetical clause cannot appear in a position preceding the constituent in sentence-initial position (here: Peter).

148

a.	"Peter",	dat	zei	Marie	tenminste,	"zal	het boek	morgen	brengen".
	Peter	that	said	Marie	at.least	will	the book	tomorrow	bring
	'According to Marie at any rate, Peter will bring the book tomorrow.'

b.	*	Marie	zei	dat/dit	tenminste,	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen".
		Marie	said	that/this	at.least	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring

Putting aside the non-quote reading, we are forced to conclude that the construction in (146b) with resumptive dat differs sharply from the construction in (146a) without a resumptive pronoun. The examples in (149) bear out that in the latter case the direct quote can be split in various places by the say-clause. The examples in (150) show that the same thing holds for construction (146c) with zo.

149

a.	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen",	zei Marie.
	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring	said Marie
	'Peter will bring the book tomorrow, Marie said.'

"Peter", zei Marie, "zal het boek morgen brengen".

"Peter zal", zei Marie, "het boek morgen brengen".

"Peter zal het boek ", zei Marie, "morgen brengen".

"Peter zal het boek morgen", zei Marie, "brengen".

150

a.		"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen",	zo	zei Marie.
		Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring	thus	said Marie

"Peter", zo zei Marie, "zal het boek morgen brengen".

"Peter zal", zo zei Marie, "het boek morgen brengen".

"Peter zal het boek ", zo zei Marie, "morgen brengen".

"Peter zal het boek morgen", zo zei Marie, "brengen".

The fact that the direct quotes can be split in (149) and (150) suggests that we are dealing with parenthetical constructions. A potential problem is that example (151a) shows that the presumed parenthetical say-clause in (149) may also precede the quote; this is unexpected as example (148b) has shown that parenthetical clauses cannot do so. However, there seems to be more to this than meets the eye given that the say-clause in (150) behaves as expected and is indeed unable to precede the quote: example (151b) is only acceptable if the sentence contains an object pronoun like het.

151

a.		Marie zei:	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	komen	brengen".
		Marie said	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	come	bring

b.		Marie zei	*(het)	zo:	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	komen	brengen".
		Marie said	it	thus	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	come	bring

The fact that the addition of het to the examples in (150) is unusual, to say the least, suggests that (149) and (150) involve constructions entirely different from (151); whereas the former involve parenthetical say-clauses, the say-clauses in the latter may be regular transitive main clauses.
If we are indeed concerned with parenthetical clauses in (149) and (150), we expect to find a wider range of examples that do not involve verbs of saying/thinking. This expectation is borne out; in fact, writers have created an infinite number of variations on this theme. A number of rather conventional examples are given in (152). Note that the quotes cannot be analyzed as arguments of the verbs beginnen'to start', vervolgen'to continue', and besluiten'to conclude' in these examples: these verbs already have a direct object, zijn verhaal'his story'; see De Vries (2006) for a number of less conventional examples.

152

a.	"De wind",	(zo)	begon	hij	zijn verhaal,	"was stormachtig".
	the wind	thus	started	he	his story	was tempestuous
	'"The wind", (thus) he started his story, "was tempestuous".'

b.	"De boot"	(zo)	vervolgde	hij	zijn verhaal,	"was in gevaar".
	the boat	thus	continued	he	his story	was in danger
	'"The boat", (thus) he continued his story, "was in danger".'

c.	"De schipper",	(zo)	besloot	hij	zijn verhaal,	"spoelde	dood	aan".
	the skipper	thus	concluded	he	his story	washed	dead	ashore
	'"The skipper", (thus) he concluded his story, "washed ashore dead".'

In order to give an impression of the semantic verb types that can be used in parenthetical say-clauses, we provide a small sample in (153), adapted from De Vries (2006). Note that this list includes a number of intransitive verbs like schreeuwen'to shout', which provides further support for the claim that a direct quote does not function as an argument of the main verb in parenthetical say-clauses.

153

Saying, thinking and writing: antwoorden'to answer', denken'to think', prediken'to preach', schrijven'to write', vertellen'to tell', vragen'to ask', zeggen'to say'Saying, thinking and writing: antwoorden'to answer', denken'to think', prediken'to preach', schrijven'to write', vertellen'to tell', vragen'to ask', zeggen'to say'

Manner of speech and sound emission, schreeuwen'to shout', vloeken'to curse', zuchten'to sigh', giechelen'to giggle', schateren'to roar', trompetteren'to trumpet', sissen'to hiss', zingen'to sing'Manner of speech and sound emission, schreeuwen'to shout', vloeken'to curse', zuchten'to sigh', giechelen'to giggle', schateren'to roar', trompetteren'to trumpet', sissen'to hiss', zingen'to sing'

Thinking, observation and explanation: concluderen'to conclude', denken'to think', fantaseren'to fantasize', opmerken'to observe', peinzen'to contemplate', verduidelijken'to clarify'Thinking, observation and explanation: concluderen'to conclude', denken'to think', fantaseren'to fantasize', opmerken'to observe', peinzen'to contemplate', verduidelijken'to clarify'

[+] B. Semi-direct reported speech

Semi-direct reported speech constructions exhibit more or less the same syntactic behavior as their direct counterparts. The direct reported speech constructions in (139), for instance, can easily be transformed into the semi-direct reported speech constructions in (154). It shows that, like direct quotes, semi-direct quotes need not function as direct objects of the verb zeggen'to say'. It may therefore be the case that in examples such as (154) the direct quote is actually not part of the first sentence, but consists of a series of independent sentences.

154

a.		Jan vroeg het haar eindelijk. Als hij haar zag, begon zijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Hij kon niet langer zonder haar!
		'Jan finally asked her it. Whenever he saw her his heart started pounding boom, boom, boom ... He could no longer live without her!'

b.		Jan vroeg haar eindelijk of ze met hem wilde trouwen. Als hij haar zag, begon zijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Hij kon niet langer zonder haar!Jan vroeg haar eindelijk of ze met hem wilde trouwen. Als hij haar zag, begon zijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Hij kon niet langer zonder haar!
		'Jan finally asked her whether she would marry him. Whenever he saw her his heart started pounding boom, boom, boom ... He could no longer live without her!'

c.		Jan vroeg het haar als volgt/zo. Als hij haar zag, begon zijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Hij kon niet langer zonder haar!Jan vroeg het haar als volgt/zo. Als hij haar zag, begon zijn hart te bonken: boem, boem, boem ... Hij kon niet langer zonder haar!
		'Jan finally asked her it as follows/thus. Whenever he saw her his heart started pounding boom, boom, boom ... He could no longer live without her!'

The hypothesis that semi-direct quotes are independent sentences may also account for the fact that semi-direct quotes cannot be embedded whereas direct reported speech constructions can. The acceptability contrast between the two primed examples in (155) illustrates this. However, it may not be a syntactic issue after all: embedding semi-direct speech constructions may simply be inconsistent with the fact that a semi-direct quote is a stylistic means used for expressing the internal thoughts of the protagonist(s) of a story; see the discussion in the introduction to Section 5.1.2.4. We leave this issue for future research.

155

a.		Jan dacht:	"Ik	ben	ziek".
		Jan thought	I	am	ill

a'.		Ik	weet	zeker	dat	Jan	dacht:	"Ik	ben	ziek".
		I	know	for.sure	that	Jan	thought	I	am	ill

b.		Jan dacht:	hij	was	ziek.
		Jan thought	he	was	ill

b'.	$	Ik	weet	zeker	dat	Jan	dacht	hij	was	ziek.
		I	know	for.sure	that	Jan	thought	he	was	ill

Like direct quotes, semi-direct quotes seem to have an ambiguous syntactic status, as is clear from the fact that the direct quotes in (142) can be replaced by semi-direct quotes without any difficulty.

156

a.	Hij	was ziek,	zei	Jan.
	he	was ill	said	Jan
	'He was ill, Jan said.'

b.		Hij	was	ziek,	dat	zei	Jan.
		he	was	ill	that	said	Jan

c.		Hij	was ziek,	zo	zei	Jan.
		he	was ill	thus	said	Jan

The acceptability of (156b&c) suggests that semi-direct quotes may function as independent sentences with parenthetical say-clauses. This is confirmed by the examples in (157), which show that the say-clauses may split the quotes.

157

a.		Hij,	zei	Jan,	was	ziek.
		he	said	Jan	was	ill

b.		Hij,	zo	zei	Jan,	was	ziek.
		he	thus	said	Jan	was	ill

The acceptability of (156b) suggests that semi-direct quotes may also function as direct objects, which seems to be confirmed by the fact illustrated in (158a) that the say-clause with resumptive dat cannot split the quote. Note, however, that this sentence is fully acceptable if it is interpreted as an assertion made by the speaker himself, who simply points to Jan as his source of information by means of a parenthetical clause, as in (158b).

158

a.	*	Hij,	dat zei Jan,	was ziek.	semi-direct quote
		he,	that said Jan,	was ill

b.		Hij,	dat zei Jan tenminste,	was ziek.	non-quote
		he,	that said Jan at least,	was ill

The difference between the semi-direct reported speech constructions in (157) and the non-quote construction in (158b) can be brought out even more clearly by taking coreferentiality into account: whereas the pronouns in the quotes in (157) can be interpreted as coreferential with the subject Jan of the say-clauses, the pronoun in (158b) does not allow this so easily. We illustrate this in the primeless examples of (159) by means of slightly more elaborate examples. Example (159b') shows that the proper name in (159b) must be replaced by a pronoun in order to allow the intended coreferentiality reading, and even then this reading is often emphasized in speech by addition of the emphatic marker zelf'himself'. Note that some of our informants do allow the intended coreference relation indicated in (159b); this is indicated by the percentage sign.

159

a.	Morgen	zou	hij,	(zo) zei	Jan,	vroeg	vertrekken.
	tomorrow	would	he,	thus said	Jan	early	leave
	'He, said Jan, would leave early tomorrow.'

b.	%	Morgen	zou	hij,	dat	zei	Jan	tenminste,	vroeg	vertrekken.
		tomorrow	would	he,	thus	said	Jan	at.least	early	leave

b'.		Morgen	zou	hij,	dat	zei	hij	tenminste	(zelf),	vroeg	vertrekken.
		tomorrow	would	he,	thus	said	he	at.least	himself	early	leave

Although the discussion above suggests that semi-direct quotes may function not only as independent sentences but also as direct objects of the verb of saying, it should be noted that they never occur in the middle field of the say-clause: the direct reported speech construction in (140b), repeated here as (160a), does not have a semi-direct counterpart: example (160b) is unacceptable under the intended reading and can at best be interpreted as a direct quote, that is, with the interpretation that Jan literally said "Hij was ziek".

160

a.	Jan heeft	"ik	ben	ziek"	tegen de leraar	gezegd.
	Jan has	I	am	ill	to the teacher	said
	'Jan has said "Iʼm ill" to the teacher.'

b.	#	Jan heeft	hij was ziek	tegen de leraar	gezegd.
		Jan has	he was ill	to the teacher	said

In addition, the examples in (161) show that it is impossible to use semi-direct quotes as the complement of a noun.

161

a.		Jan beweerde:	"ik	ben	ziek".
		Jan claimed	I	am	ill

a'.		Jans bewering	"Ik ben ziek"	kwam	als een nare verrassing.
		Janʼs assertion	I am ill	came	as a nasty surprise

b.		Jan beweerde	hij	was	ziek.
		Jan claimed	he	was	ill

b'.	*	Jans bewering	hij was ziek	kwam	als een vervelende verrassing.
		Janʼs assertion	he was ill	came	as a nasty surprise

If say-clauses without resumptive dat are indeed parenthetical clauses, we expect that, just as in the case of direct quotes, we should find a wider range of examples that do not involve verbs of saying/thinking. This expectation is again borne out. A number of rather conventional examples are given in (162). As in (152), the quote cannot be analyzed as an argument of the verbs beginnen'to start', vervolgen'to continue', and besluiten'to conclude' since these already have a direct object, zijn verhaal'his story'. Analyzing the say-clauses as parentheticals seems the only option therefore.

162

a.	Hij moest,	(zo)	begon	de schipper	zijn verhaal,	bij storm	uitvaren.
	he had.to	thus	started	he skipper	his story	during storm	out sail
	'He had to set sail, (thus) the skipper started his story, during a gale.'

b.	Zijn boot	(zo)	vervolgde	de schipper	zijn verhaal,	was in gevaar.
	his boat	thus	continued	the skipper	his story	was in danger
	'His boat, (thus) the skipper continued his story, was in danger.'

c.	Dit,	(zo)	besloot	de schipper	zijn verhaal,	redde hem van de dood.
	this	thus	concluded	the skipper	his story	saved him from the death
	'This, thus the skipper concluded his story, saved him from death.'

[+] C. Additional evidence for structural ambiguity

This subsection discusses a number of additional arguments, mainly taken from Corver (1994) and Corver & Thiersch (2003), in favor of the conclusion reached in the previous subsections that (semi-)direct reported speech constructions can be structurally ambiguous. Their point of departure is the observation in Reinhart (1983) that (semi-)direct reported speech constructions can also be semantically ambiguous; the say-clause may be either subject- or speaker-oriented. We will see that this semantic ambiguity correlates with the structural ambiguity discussed in the previous subsections.

[+] 1. Subject-oriented reading

The subject-oriented reading is triggered by questions such as (163a). The interrogative clause is transitive and directed towards the subject matter of the addressee's thoughts; the answer in (163b) therefore plausibly involves a transitive structure as well. The fact that the direct quote in (163b) may be replaced by the indirect quote in (163b') provides additional support for this conclusion, given that Subsection I has established that an indirect quote also has the function of direct object.

163

a.	Wat	denk	je?
	what	think	you
	'What do you think?'

b.		Ik	vertrek	om zeven uur,	denk ik.
		I	leave	at seven oʼclock	think I

b'.		[Dat	ik	om zeven uur	vertrek]	denk	ik.
		that	I	at seven oʼclock	leave	think	I

[+] 2. Speaker-oriented reading

The speaker-oriented reading is triggered by questions such as (164a). The person asking the question is not interested in the addressee's thoughts but in information about a specific state of affairs. The person answering the question simply adds a parenthetical say-clause as a warning; he is not completely sure that his answer is/will come true. The suggestion that we are dealing with a parenthetical say-clause implies that the direct quote in (164b) is a main clause, and this correctly predicts that it cannot be replaced by an indirect quote, as the latter functions as an embedded clause; example (164b') is not a felicitous answer to question (164a).

164

a.	Hoe laat	vertrek	je?
	how late	leave	you
	'When will you leave?'

b.		Ik	vertrek	om zeven uur,	denk ik.
		I	leave	at seven o'clock,	think I

b'.	#	[dat	ik	om zeven uur	vertrek],	denk	ik.
		that	I	at seven o'clock	leave	think	I

Note in passing, however, that the transitive construction Ik denk dat ik om zeven uur vertrek'I think that I will leave at seven o'clock' would be a felicitous answer to (164). It is not entirely clear why this is possible and why a similar transitive reading of the say-clause is blocked for example (164b').

[+] 3. Differences between the subject- and the speaker-oriented reading

Our suggestion that the subject- and speaker-oriented readings are associated with, respectively, transitive and parenthetical structures is supported by a number of additional facts, although it should be noted that judgments of the relevant examples are sometimes subtle. First, since we have seen that (semi-)direct quotes can only be split by parenthetical clauses, we predict that an example such as (165) cannot be used as an answer to the question Wat denk je?'What do you think?' in (163a); it does seem that it can only be used as an answer to the question Hoe laat vertrek je?'At what time will you leave?' in (164a).

165

		Ik	vertrek,	denk	ik,	om zeven uur.
		I	leave	think	I	at seven oʼclock

Secondly, we predict that the direct object clause will be semantically reconstructed in its original object position in the subject-oriented construction. This means that a referential expression like Jan that is embedded in the quote cannot be bound by, e.g., the subject of the say-clause because this would violate binding condition C on referential expressions. This also seems to be the case: whereas the pronoun hij can readily be interpreted as coreferential with Jan in (166b), this seems excluded in example (166b'); see Reinhart (1983) for similar judgments on English. Of course, the intended interpretation is that Jan is the brother of the person answering the question.

166

a.	Wat	zei	je broer?
	what	said	your brother
	'What did your brother say?'

b.		Hij was ziek,	zei Jan.
		he was ill	said Jan

b'.	*	Jan	was ziek,	zei	hij.
		Jan	was ill	said	he

Reconstruction is not relevant in the case of the speaker-oriented reading, and we therefore correctly predict that the question in (167a) can be answered by the primed (b)-example. Corver & Thiersch claim that the primeless (b)-example is marked as an answer to (167a). If so, this may follow from the fact that, apart from cases of reconstruction, referential expressions tend to precede pronouns that they are coreferential with.

167

a.	Waarom	bibbert	je broer	zo?
	why	shivers	your brother	like.that
	'Why is your brother shivering like that?'

b.	%	Hij was ziek,	zei Jan.
		he was ill	said Jan

b'.		Jan	was ziek,	zei	hij.
		Jan	was ill	said	he

Corver & Thiersch provide similar evidence based on bound-variable readings of pronouns. Our prediction is that such readings are only possible if the say-clause is transitive, that is, if it has a subject-oriented reading. Corver & Thiersch claim that this is indeed borne out, but some speakers have difficulty with getting a bound variable reading in both cases. For this reason we have added a percentage sign to example (168a').

168

a.	Wat	zei	iedereen?
	what	said	everyone
	'What did everyone say?'

a'.	%	Hij	zou	staken,	zei	iedereen.
		he	would	go.on.strike	said	everyone

b.	Waarom	loopt	iedereen	weg?
	why	walks	everyone	away
	'Why is everyone walking away?'

b'.	*	Hij	zou	staken,	zei	iedereen.
		he	would	go.on.strike	said	everyone

A final piece of evidence supporting the claim that subject- and speaker-oriented readings are associated with, respectively, the transitive and the parenthetical structure is provided in (169). The tag question ... of toch niet? is used as an afterthought expressing doubt on the part of the speaker about the preceding assertion: De auto is kapot, ... of toch niet'The car is broken, ... or maybe not?' The (a)-examples in (169) show that the tag question can have scope over the entire preceding clause when we are dealing with the transitive, subject-oriented construction: the speaker expresses doubt about whether Jan did indeed say that the car was broken. In the (b)-examples, on the other hand, the tag question has scope over the quote only; the speaker expresses his doubt about whether the car was broken at all, not about whether Jan was his source of information. This contrast will follow from our proposal if parenthetical clauses are not part of the core information. The scope of the tag questions in (169) is indicated by italics.

169

a.	Wat	zei	Jan	over die auto?
	what	said	Jan	about that car
	'What did Jan say about that car?'

a'.	Hij	was	kapot,	zei Jan, ...	of toch	niet?
	he	was	broken	said Jan,	or prt	not
	'It was broken, said Jan, ... or did he not?'

b.	Wat	is	er	met die auto?
	what	is	there	with that car
	'What is the matter with that car?'

b'.	Hij	was	kapot,	zei Jan, ...	of toch	niet?
	he	was	broken	said Jan,	or prt	not
	'It was broken, said Jan, ... or was it not?'

[+] D. The structure of parenthetical (semi-)direct reported speech constructions

The discussion in the previous subsections has shown that analyzing the say-clauses such as (170) as parentheticals seems a feasible option. It is, however, far from clear what the internal structure of these parenthetical clauses is. Due to the fairly recent discovery that (semi-)direct reported speech constructions may involve parenthetical clauses, the issue has not received much attention in the literature so far.

170

"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	brengen",	(zo)	zei Marie.
Peter will	the book	tomorrow	bring	thus	said Marie
'"Peter zal het boek morgen brengen", Marie said.'

An analysis was proposed for English in Branigan & Collins (1993), Collins & Branigan (1997) and Collins (1997); it involves movement of a phonetically empty operator that functions as the object of the verb of saying into the clause-initial position of the parenthetical say-clause. The desired interpretation is derived by assuming that the empty operator is coindexed with the quote. Applied to the Dutch cases, this would correctly account for the fact that the verb of saying is the first visible element in the parenthetical clause in (146a) as the first position of the clause is filled by a phonetically empty element.

171

[Ik ben ziek]i ,

[OPi zei Jan ti].

[Hij was ziek]i ,

[OPi zei Jan ti].

However, the proposal in (171) does not account for the fact established in the previous subsections that the overt counterpart of the postulated empty operator is zo'so', not dat'that' (which in fact also holds for English). A proposal that would solve this problem can be found in Corver (1994) and Corver & Thiersch (2003), who assume that zo is phrasal and, in fact, contains a phonetically empty pronominal element pro functioning as a direct object; see De Vries (2006) for a similar intuition.

172

[Ik ben ziek]i ,

[[pro-zo]i zei Jan ti].

[Hij was ziek]i ,

[[pro-zo]i zei Jan ti].

Although this proposal may raise all kinds of technical issues (like the fact that Dutch normally does not allow pro objects and that pro is not directly related by movement to the object position of the parenthetical clause), it would account for the fact that het cannot be present in parenthetical say-clauses. In structures such as (173) the direct object is expressed twice; once by pro and once by the pronoun het.

173

[Ik ben ziek]i ,

[[pro-zo]i zei Jan het ti].

[Hij was ziek]i ,

[[pro-zo]i zei Jan het ti].

A potential problem for this proposal is that zo can sometimes be combined with a direct object; this was shown in (152) and (162) above where the (optional) noun phrase zijn verhaal'his story' clearly functions as a direct object. In examples such as (151b), repeated below as (174b), a direct object is even obligatory: whereas the pronoun het can be left out in the (transitive) direct reported speech construction in (174a), it must be present in the construction with zo in (174b). If zo indeed contained an empty pronominal element, this would be surprising.

174

a.		Marie zei:	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	komen	brengen".
		Marie said	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	come	bring

b.		Marie zei	*(het)	zo:	"Peter zal	het boek	morgen	komen	brengen".
		Marie said	it	thus	Peter will	the book	tomorrow	come	bring

For completeness' sake, it should be noted that there are also (transitive) direct reported speech constructions with zo in which the pronoun can be left out. This is the case in constructions such as (175) containing discourse particles like nog and maar.

175

a.		Ik	zei	(het) nog	zo;	"je	moet	opletten	voor die auto".
		I	said	it	prt. so	you	must	take.heed	of that car

b.		Ik	zeg	(het)	maar	zo:	"morgen	is er	weer	een dag".
		I	say	it	prt.	so	tomorrow	is there	again	a day

The discussion above seems to lead to the rather ad hoc assumption that in certain constructions zo obligatorily contains the empty pronoun pro, whereas in other constructions it cannot or only optionally do so. However, if we reject Corver & Thiersch' proposal for this reason, we have to conclude that we may leave the direct object of the verb zeggen unexpressed in examples like (149) and (150), despite the fact that example (138a) has shown that the verb zeggen normally cannot occur without a direct object. This position would be equally ad hoc. It shows that we do not yet have a fully satisfactory analysis for parenthetical say-clauses at our disposal. Since we have nothing more enlightening to say about this issue at the moment, we leave it for future research and simply conclude that direct and semi-direct reported speech constructions can be ambiguous.

[+] III. Quotative and polar van-constructions

We conclude the discussion of reported speech with a look at quotative van-constructions such as (176), which are typically (but not exclusively) found in colloquial speech and informal writing; see Verkuyl (1977), Romein (1999), and, especially, Foolen et al. (2006). The literature often claims that the quotative preposition van is of a similar kind as the preposition van that we find in polar van-constructions such as (176b). For this reason, we will also discuss the latter construction in this subsection.

176

a.	Jan zei	van ...	kom	morgen	maar	even	langs.
	Jan said	van	come	tomorrow	prt	along	come
	'Jan said something like: "Drop in tomorrow, if you like".'

b.	Jan zei	van	niet/wel.
	Jan said	van	not/aff
	'Jan denied/affirmed it.'

Observe that we do not use quotation marks in the quotative van-construction since we will see that it differs from the direct reported speech construction discussed in Subsection II in that it is not used to reproduce utterances literally.

[+] A. Quotative van-constructions

This subsection investigates the quotative van-construction and is organized as follows, subsection 1 discusses the internal make-up of the quotative van-phrase, Subsection 2 the meaning of the quotative van-construction as a whole, and Subsection 3 some of its syntactic properties. As we go along, we will point out a number of differences between quotative van-constructions and reported speech constructions without van.

[+] 1. The quotative van-phrase

Quotative van-constructions involve the quotative prepositionvan, which is followed by an optional hesitation marker like eh'er', an intonation break, and a quote. The examples in (177) show that the quote can be declarative or interrogative in nature; the reader can find many more interrogative examples on the internet by doing a Google search on, e.g., the strings [vroeg van kan] (... asked van be able ...) or [vroeg van hoe] (... asked van how ...).

177

a.	Marie dacht	van	(eh) ...	hij komt	straks	wel	weer	terug.
	Marie thought	van	er	he comes	later	prt	again	back
	'Marie thought something like: "Heʼll probably come back later".'

b.	Marie vroeg van	(eh) ...	kan	je	me	even	helpen?
	Marie asked van	er	can	you	me	for.a.moment	help
	'Marie asked something like: "Can you help me a moment?".'

b'.	Marie vroeg van	(eh) ...	wie	leest	zoʼn boek	nou?
	Marie asked van	er	who	reads	such.a book	now
	'Marie asked something like: "Who on earth reads a book like that?".'

The examples in (177) involve direct quotes but it is also possible to have indirect quotes. The examples in (178) show that the quotes can again be declarative or interrogative in nature; the reader can find many more interrogative examples on the internet by a Google search on, e.g., the strings [vroeg van of] (... asked van whether ...) or [vroeg van hoe] (... asked van how ...).

178

a.		Marie dacht	van	(eh) ...	dat	hij	straks	wel	weer	terug	komt.
		Marie thought	van	er	that	he	later	prt	again	back	comes

b.		Marie vroeg van	(eh) ...	of	ik	eventjes	kan	helpen.
		Marie asked van	er	whether	I	for.a.moment	can	help

b'.		Marie vroeg van	(eh) ...	wie	zoʼn boek	nou leest?
		Marie asked van	er	who	such.a book	now reads

Quotative van-constructions frequently occur with verbs normally taking a direct quote in writing. Romein (1999) even suggests that the preposition van has a similar function as the colon in written language. It should be noted, however, that the quotative van-phrase may also be used as modifier/complement of non-verbal phrases that cannot be used in direct reported speech constructions without van; cf. Foolen et al. (2006). This will be clear from the difference in acceptability between the primeless and primed examples in (179).

179

a.	Hij	zit	daar	met een gezicht	van ...	ik	heb	niets verkeerds	gedaan.
	he	sits	there	with a face	van	I	have	nothing wrong	done
	'He sits there with a face expressing: "I havenʼt done anything wrong".'

a'.	*	Hij	zit	daar	met een gezicht:	"ik	heb	niets verkeerds	gedaan".
		he	sits	there	with a face	I	have	nothing wrong	done

b.	Hij	had	het idee	van ...	nu	eventjes	doorbijten!
	he	had	the idea	van	now	for.a.while	keep.trying
	'He had the idea: "Just grin and bear it for a while!".'

b'.	*	Hij	had	het idee:	"Nu	eventjes	doorbijten!".
		he	had	the idea	now	for.a.while	keep.trying

[+] 2. Meaning aspects of the quotative van-construction

Direct reported speech constructions without van differ in another respect: the quote following quotativevan need not be identical to the reported utterance or thought, but is presented as an approximation at best; cf. Van Craenenbroeck (2002) and Foolen et al. (2006: 142-3). This is clear from the fact illustrated in (180) that quotative van-phrases often co-occur with the indefinite pronoun iets/zoiets'something'. Note that in (180a) the preposition van can be replaced by als'like' if the construction contains a verb of speaking or thinking; this seems less felicitous in cases such as (180b), in which the quotative van-phrase functions as a modifier/complement of a nominal phrase.

180

a.	Hij	dacht	(zo)iets	van/als ...	dat	vertik	ik!
	he	thought	something	van/like	that	refuse.flatly	I
	'He thought something like "Iʼll be damnʼd if I do that!".'

b.	Hij	had	een houding	van/?als ...	dat	vertik	ik!
	he	had	an attitude	van/like	that	refuse.flatly	I
	'His attitude was something like "Iʼll be damnʼd if I do that!".'

That we are dealing with sloppy quotes may find additional support in the fact, illustrated in (181), that quotative van can easily be replaced by phrasal prepositions like in de trant/geest van and op een manier van, which are all semantically close to English like.

181

a.	Hij	zei	iets	in de geest/trant van ...	wat	maakt	het	uit?
	he	said	something	in the spirit/manner of	what	makes	it	prt.
	'He said something like "What difference does it make?".'

b.	Hij keek	op een manier van ...	wat	willen	die mensen	van me?
	he looked	in a manner of	what	want	those people	from me
	'He looked like he was thinking "What do these people want from me?".'

In fact, the quote may even be invented by the speaker himself in order to give a subjective typification of some (aspect of) a person. This is what is the case in examples (179a) and (180b) above: the quote is used to provide a characterization of the presumed attitude of the person under discussion, and need not have anything to do with what that person actually said or thought. That we are nevertheless dealing with some sort of reported speech construction is clear from the fact that, just like in direct reported speech constructions without van, the part following van need not be well-formed Dutch, but can be virtually any sound; cf. Hoeksema (2006).

182

a.	De ober	zei	(iets)	van ...	Non monsieur!	Pas possible!
	the waiter	said	something	van	non monsieur	pas possible
	'The waiter said something like "Non monsieur! Pas possible!".'

b.	De trein	ging van ...	tjoeke, tjoeke, tjoek.
	the trein	went van	tjoeke, tjoeke, tjoek
	'The trein made a sound like "choo-choo-choo".'

Note in passing that in Foolen et al. (2006) the approximate/typificational reading of the quotative van-construction is related to the fact that the preposition van may also have an approximate/typificational function in non-quotative constructions. This is illustrated in (183) by means of the phrasal predicate iets (weg) hebben van'to look like/resemble'.

183

a.	Hij	heeft	iets	van Mick Jagger.
	he	has	something	van Mick Jagger
	'He reminds me of Mick Jagger in a way.'

b.	Hij	heeft	iets	weg	van een filmster.
	he	has	something	away	van a movie star
	'He looks a bit like a movie star.'

Related to the typificational reading of the quotative van-construction is that the quote is often some conventionalized expression providing a more or less generally recognizable characterization of some state of affairs. Some cases were provided earlier but in (184) we add two, slightly abbreviated, attested examples; the quote in (184b) is a fixed expression in Dutch. We refer to Foolen et al. (2006) for a more extensive discussion of the pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects related to the actual use of the quotative van-construction.

184

a.	een	wereldbeeld	van	je	bent	voor	of	tegen	ons
	a	world.view	van	you	are	for	or	against	us
	'a world view of the type: "Youʼre either for or against us"'

b.	een sfeer	van	doe	maar	gewoon,	dan	doe je	al	gek genoeg
	an atmosphere	van	do	prt.	normally	then	do you	already	crazy enough
	'an atmosphere of the type: "be normal, then youʼre being crazy enough as it is"'

That we are dealing with a subjective typification is clear from the fact that the quotative van-constructions are not compatible with factive predicates like betreuren in (185); cf. Van Craenenbroeck (2002). Since betreuren normally does not take a direct quote, we also give an example with an indirect quote.

185

a.		Jan zei/*betreurde	(iets)	van ...	Ik	ben	ziek.
		Jan said/regretted	something	van	I	am	ill

b.		Jan zei/*betreurde	(iets)	van ...	dat	hij	ziek	was.
		Jan said/regretted	something	van	that	he	ill	was

[+] 3. Syntactic behavior of the quotative van-phrase

The quotative preposition van and the quote can be separated by an (optional) hesitation marker and an intonation break. Otherwise, however, they are always adjacent: it is not possible to place, e.g., adverbial material between the preposition and the quote or to separate them by movement. We illustrate the latter in (186) by means of topicalization; the trace ti indicates the normal position of the quote.

186

a.	*	[Ik	ben	ziek]i	zei	Jan	(iets)	van ti.
		I	am	ill	said	Jan	something	van

b.	*	[dat	hij	ziek	was]i	zei	Jan	(iets)	van ti.
		that	he	ill	was	said	Jan	something	van

Probably related to the adjacency requirement is that quotative van-constructions cannot be used as parenthetical clauses, as is shown by the contrast in (187); see also Van Craenenbroeck (2002).

187

a.	Jan is,	zei Marie,	al	vanaf gisteren	ziek.
	Jan is,	said Marie	already	since yesterday	ill
	'Jan has been ill since yesterday, said Marie.'

b.	*	Jan is,	zei	Marie iets	van,	al	vanaf gisteren	ziek.
		Jan is,	said	Marie something	van	already	since yesterday	ill

Example (188a&b) show that quotative van-phrases are normally placed in the position following the verb in clause-final position; note that the indefinite pronoun iets/zoiets (if present) must precede the clause-final verb. The (c)-examples show that topicalization is normally not possible either, regardless of whether or not the preposition van is stranded.

188

a.	Hij	zal	wel	(iets)	denken	van ...	die	is gek!
	he	will	prt	something	think	van	that.one	is crazy
	'Heʼll probably think something like: "That one is crazy!".'

b.	??	Hij	zal	wel	(iets)	van ...	die	is	gek!	denken.
		he	will	prt	something	van	that.one	is	crazy	think

c.	*	Van ...	die	is	gek!	zal	hij	wel	denken.
		van	that.one	is	crazy	will	he	prt	think

c'.	*	Die	is	gek!	zal	hij	wel	(iets)	denken	van.
		that.one	is	crazy	will	he	prt	something	think	van

Another thing to note is that quotative van-constructions differ from (in)direct reported speech constructions in that they never contain an anticipatory pronoun. This contrast is illustrated in (189).

189

a.	dat	Jan het	eindelijk	vroeg:	"Wil je	met me	trouwen!"
	that	Jan it	finally	asked	want you	with me	marry
	'that Jan finally asked it: "Will you marry me!".'

a'.		dat	Jan (*het)	eindelijk	vroeg van ...	wil	je	met me	trouwen.
		that	Jan it	finally	asked van	want	you	with me	marry

b.	dat	Jan het	eindelijk	vroeg	of	ze	met hem	wilde	trouwen.
	that	Jan it	finally	asked	whether	she	with him	wanted.to	marry
	'that Jan finally asked it if she would marry him.'

b'.		dat	Jan (*het)	eindelijk	vroeg van	of	ze	met hem wilde trouwen.
		that	Jan it	finally	asked van	whether	she	with him wanted.to marry

[+] B. Polar van-constructions

This subsection discusses polar van-constructions such as (190a). The name of this construction derives from the fact that the complement of van is typically one of the polar adverbs wel and niet, which function, respectively, as affirmative marker and negation. We will compare a polar van-construction such as (190a) to a polar van-construction such as (190b) which involves the polar elements ja'yes' and nee'no'; we will see that, although the two constructions look very similar at first sight, they exhibit a quite different behavior.

190

a.		Ik	dacht	van	wel/niet.	polar van wel/niet-construction
		I	thought	van	aff/not

b.		Ik	dacht	van ...	ja/nee.	polar van ja/nee-construction
		I	thought	van	yes/no

In order to make the comparison between the two polar van-constructions in (190) easier, Subsection 1 begins with a brief comparison of the syntactic behavior of polar wel/niet and polar ja/nee'yes/no'. This will show that the former normally functions as a constituent of a clause while the latter does not, subsection 2 then continues with an investigation of a number of differences in use of the van wel/niet- and the van ja/nee-phrases, subsection 3 goes on to discuss a number of syntactic properties of polar van wel/niet-phrases, and Subsection 4 concludes with a brief discussion of a suggestion in Hoeksema (2006) that the polar van wel/niet- and van ja/nee-constructions in (190) are special cases of, respectively, indirect and direct quotation.

[+] 1. The syntactic function of ja/nee'yes/no' and wel/niet

This subsection discusses several differences between ja/nee'yes/no' and wel/niet. A first difference is that ja and nee are used in answering yes/no-questions, whereas wel and niet are adverbs used as an affirmation and a negation marker, respectively. The (b)-examples in (191) show that ja/nee and wel/niet crucially differ: the former can be used as independent utterances in response to a question whereas the latter cannot.

191

a.	Komt	Jan morgen?	speaker A
	comes	Jan tomorrow
	'Will Jan come tomorrow?'

b.		Ja/Nee.	speaker B
		yes/no

b'.	*	Wel/niet.
		aff/not

Another difference between ja/nee and wel/niet is that the former are never clausal constituents, whereas the latter must be. This is demonstrated by the (b)-and (c)-examples in (192) which show that ja/nee must precede the element in sentence-initial position, and must therefore be sentence-external. The polarity adverbs, on the other hand, always occupy a sentence-internal position, preferably in the middle field of some clause. The (b)- and (c)-examples in (192) are intended as answers to the question in (192a).

192

a.		Komt	Jan morgen?
		comes	Jan tomorrow

b.	Ja,	ik	denk	dat	hij komt.
	yes,	I	think	that	he comes
	'Yes, I think he will.'

b'.	Nee,	ik	denk	dat hij niet komt.
	No	I	think	that he not comes
	'No, I think he wonʼt.'

c.	Ik	denk	dat	hij	wel	komt.
	I	think	that	he	aff	comes
	'I think he will.'

c'.	Ik	denk	dat	hij	niet	komt.
	I	think	that	he	not	comes
	'I think he wonʼt.'

Note in passing that the examples in (193) show that the elements welles and nietes, which are used to bring about a truth transition by contradicting some immediate preceding assertion in discourse, behave in this respect like ja/nee and not like wel/niet. Contrary to what is claimed by Hoeksema (2006:fn.2), the forms welles and nietes also occur in polar van-constructions, as is clear from, e.g., the following, completely natural example: Jambers zegt van nietes, De Pauw zegt van welles waarop [...]'Jambers says it is the case, De Pauw says it is not, after which [...]' (Nieuwsblad.be, September 3, 2004). We will, however, not discuss nietes and welles here, but simply assume that at least for some speakers they behave like ja and nee in the relevant respects.

193

a.		Jan is niet hier.
		Jan is not here
		'Jan isnʼt here.'

a'.	Welles,	ik	zag	hem	net.
	he.is	I	saw	him	just.now
	'Yes, he is, I saw him just now.'

b.	Jan is er	al.
	Jan is here	already
	'Jan is already here.'

b'.	Nietes,	hij	belde	net	dat	hij	ziek	is.
	he.is.not	he	phoned	just	that	he	ill	is
	'No, he isnʼt, he just phoned to tell that heʼs ill.'

The fact that the ja/nee cannot be used as clausal constituents leaves us with no other option than to analyze examples such as (190b) as quotative van-constructions with a direct quote. That the polar adverbs wel/niet do not occur as independent utterances (apart from cases of ellipsis) makes such an analysis unlikely for example (190a). This conclusion is supported by examples (194b&c); whereas ja and nee are quite normal as direct quotes in reported speech constructions without van, the polar adverbs wel and niet are not. We added the primed examples to show that ja/nee and wel/niet are possible in the corresponding van-constructions.

194

a.		Marie vroeg:	"Komt	Jan morgen?"	speaker A
		Marie asked	comes	Jan tomorrow

b.		Ik	antwoordde	snel:	"Ja/nee".	speaker B
		I	answered	quickly	yes/no

b'.

Ik antwoordde snel van ja/nee.

c.	*	Ik	antwoordde	snel:	"wel/niet".	speaker B
		I	answered	quickly	aff/not

c'.

Ik antwoordde snel van wel/niet.

The claim that the polar van-constructions with ja/nee are quotative van-constructions with a direct quote receives further support from example (195a), which shows that the complement of van can be supplemented with all kinds of other material. Example (195b), on the other hand, does not allow such supplements, which again suggests that van-constructions with wel/niet do not involve a direct quote.

195

a.		Ik	dacht	van ...	ja/nee.
		I	thought	van	yes/no

a'.		Ik	dacht	van ...	ja/nee,	(maar)	dat	wil	ik	ook!
		I	thought	van	yes/no	but	that	want	I	also

b.		Ik	dacht	van	wel/niet.
		I	thought	van	aff/not

b'.	*	Ik	dacht	van	wel/niet,	(maar)	dat	wil	ik	ook!
		I	thought	van	aff/not	but	that	want	I	also

[+] 2. Differences in use between van ja/nee and van wel/niet phrases

The two polar van-constructions in (190), which are repeated below as (196), are subject to different conditions on their use as well. Whereas the van-construction with ja/nee in (196b) can be used in any situation in which it is relevant to report the speaker's thoughts, the van-construction with wel/niet in (196a) is used in specific circumstances only.

196

a.		Ik	dacht	van	wel/niet.
		I	thought	van	aff/not

b.		Ik	dacht	van ...	ja/nee.
		I	thought	van	yes/no

In fact, the two constructions often seem to be in complementary distribution. A first illustration of this is provided by the question-answer pair in (197): example (197b) is infelicitous because it does not provide an answer to question (197a) but simply presents the speaker's thoughts; example (197c), on the other hand, is completely natural as an answer to (197a).

197

a.	Komt	Peter morgen?	question
	comes	Peter tomorrow
	'Will Peter come tomorrow?'

Ik denk van ja/nee.

answer

Ik denk van

wel/niet.

answer

It is interesting to compare the question-answer pair in (197) to the one in (198) since this shows that we find a similar contrast between direct and indirect reported speech constructions. It seems to confirm that van ja/nee phrases function as direct quotes, and it might suggest that polar van wel/niet phrases have a status similar to that of an indirect quote.

198

a.	Komt	Peter morgen?	question
	comes	Peter tomorrow
	'Will Peter come tomorrow?'

b.	$	Ik denk:	"ja/nee".	answer
		I think	yes/no

c.	Ik	denk	dat	hij	wel/niet	komt.	answer
	I	think	that	he	aff/not	comes
	'I think that he will/wonʼt.'

That the two polar van-constructions are in complementary distribution is also suggested by the discourse chunk in (199), which involves the denial of some presupposed truth. Again, the response in (199b) is not felicitous given that quotes are normally not the most suitable items to perform this function; the response in (199c), on the other hand, does have the intended effect of denying the presupposed truth of the proposition "Jan does not come tomorrow".

199

a.	Jan komt	morgen	niet.	speaker A
	Jan comes	tomorrow	not
	'Jan wonʼt come tomorrow.'

b.	$	Dat	is niet waar.	Hij	zei	daarnet	nog	van	ja.	speaker B
		that	is not true	he	said	just/now	still	van	yes

c.	Dat	is niet	waar.	Hij	zei	daarnet	nog van	wel.	speaker B
	that	is not	true	he	said	just/now	still van	aff
	'That isnʼt true. He just told me that he would.'

The examples in (200) show again that direct quotes in direct reported speech constructions without van pattern with van ja/nee-phrases, whereas indirect quotes pattern with polar van wel/niet-phrases.

200

a.	Jan komt	morgen	niet.	speaker A
	Jan comes	tomorrow	not
	'Jan wonʼt come tomorrow.'

b.	$	Dat	is niet	waar.	Hij	zei	daarnet	nog:	"Ja".	speaker B
		that	is not	true	he	said	just/now	still	yes

c.	Dat	is niet	waar.	Hij	zei	daarnet	nog dat	hij wel	komt.	speaker B
	that	is not	true	he	said	just/now	still that he	aff	comes
	'That isnʼt true. He just told me that he would.'

A final illustration of the complementary distribution of van ja/nee- and van wel/niet-phrases is given in (201), in which speaker B indicates that the information provided by speaker A clashes with the information available to him and, implicitly, that he will update his knowledge state.

201

a.	Jan komt	morgen	niet.	speaker A
	Jan comes	tomorrow	not
	'Jan wonʼt come tomorrow.'

b.	$	Bedankt,	ik	dacht	van	ja.	speaker B
		thank.you	I	thought	van	yes

c.	Bedankt,	ik	dacht	van wel.	speaker B
	thank.you	I	thought	van aff
	'Thanks for telling me, because I thought he would.'

Again, the examples in (202) are again added to show that van ja/nee-phrases behave like direct quotes in reported speech constructions without van, whereas van wel/niet-phrases behave like indirect quotes.

202

a.	Jan komt	morgen	niet.	speaker A
	Jan comes	tomorrow	not
	'Jan wonʼt come tomorrow.'

b.	$	Bedankt,	ik	dacht:	"Ja".	speaker B
		thank.you	I	thought	yes

c.	Bedankt,	ik	dacht	dat	hij wel kwam.	speaker B
	thank.you	I	thought	that	he aff came
	'Thanks for telling me, because I thought he would.'

To summarize the findings above, we can say that the two van-constructions in (196) differ in that van wel/niet-phrases are normally used as a response to some question, as a denial of some presupposed truth, or to indicate a mismatch in information, whereas van ja/nee-phrases are simply used as direct quotes. A similar difference in use can be observed between indirect and direct reported speech without van, which may have led Hoeksema (2006) to the claim that, whereas van-constructions with ja/nee are instantiations of the direct quotative van-construction, polar van-constructions are instantiations of the indirect quotative van-construction. We return to this suggestion in Subsection 4 after having investigated some of the syntactic properties of van wel/niet-phrases.

[+] 3. Syntactic behavior of the van wel/niet-phrases

The previous subsection has established that direct quotes cannot be used to answer questions; see the discussion of (197) and (198). This means that we can use question-answer pairs to exclude unwanted intervention of direct quotative van-readings; this is what we will do in this subsection in order to investigate the syntactic behavior of polar van wel/niet-phrases in more detail. Paardekooper (1986: 149-50) has shown that the internal make-up of such phrases is quite rigid. First, the affirmative and negative adverbs wel and niet are part of a severely restricted paradigm. Although examples such as (203) with the epistemic modals zeker'certainly' and mogelijk'possibly' are sometimes taken to be acceptable, we were not able to find any clear cases on the internet; since we consider them degraded, we mark them with a number sign.

203

a.		Komt	Jan straks?	yes/no question
		comes	Jan later

b.	#	Ik	denk	van	zeker/natuurlijk/misschien/mogelijk.
		I	think	van	certainly/naturally/maybe/possibly

The examples in (204) show that other adverbial phrases are also straightforwardly excluded, which implies that polar van wel/niet-constructions are not usable as answers to wh-questions, but always pertain to the truth or falsehood of some proposition.

204

a.	Wie	komt	er	morgen?
	who	comes	there	tomorrow
	'Who is coming tomorrow?'

a'.	*	Ik	denk	van	Jan.	wh-question
		I	think	van	Jan

b.	Wanneer	komt	Jan?
	when	comes	Jan
	'When will Jan come?'

b'.	*	Ik denk	van	straks.	wh-question
		I think	van	later

The fact that polar van wel/niet-constructions must involve the truth or falsehood of some proposition immediately accounts for the fact, noticed both by Paardekooper (1986) and Hoeksema (2006), that polar van wel/niet-phrases require the verb to be non-factive; (205a) shows that polar van wel/niet with a factive verb like betreuren'to regret' gives rise to a severely degraded result. A potential counterexample is weten'to know' in (205b), which is normally factive but common in the van wel/niet-construction when combined with the adverb zeker; the reason for the contrast between the construction with and without zeker is that the collocation zeker weten can readily be interpreted non-factively as "to be convinced of"; see Hoeksema (2006: 142) for further discussion of more apparent exceptions.

205

a.	*	Ik betreur	van	wel/niet.
		I regret	van	aff/not

b.		Jan wist	*(zeker)	van	wel/niet.
		Jan knew	for.sure	van	aff/not

For completeness' sake, the examples in (206) show that the factivity restriction also holds for non-verbal predicates. Non-factive bang zijn'to fear' does allow a polar van wel/niet-phrase whereas factive gek zijn'to be strange' does not.

206

a.	Ik	ben	bang	dat	ze	Peter	ontslaan.	non-factive
	I	am	afraid	that	they	Peter	fire
	'Iʼm afraid that they will fire Peter.'

a'.		Ik	ben	bang	van	wel/niet.
		I	am	afraid	van	aff/not

b.	Het	is gek	dat	ze	Peter	ontslaan.	factive
	it	is strange	that	they	Peter	fire
	'It is strange that they will fire Peter.'

b'.	*	Het	is gek	van	wel/niet.
		it	is strange	van	aff/not

Hoeksema (2006) collected a sample of verbs that may occur with a polar van ja/nee- or van wel/niet-phrase on the basis of 1.000 occurrences from written sources published after 1600. Most of these verbs occur infrequently in this construction; we have selected those verbs that occur at least five times in the corpus, resulting in Table (207) where the numerals indicate the number of instances found by Hoeksema. Unfortunately, Hoeksema does not distinguish the two constructions, and we have therefore added our own intuitions on whether the verb in question is more normal with a van wel/niet or a van ja/nee phrase: w>j indicates that van wel/niet is the preferred form, j>w indicates that van ja/nee is the preferred form, and w indicates that the use of a van ja/nee-phrase is infelicitous or even excluded. These judgments were confirmed by a more or less impressionistic investigation of the results of a Google search on the strings [V van ja/nee] and [V van wel/niet]. Table (207) supports Hoeksema's (2006:150ff.) conclusion from his diachronic investigation of polar van-constructions that the constructions with van wel/niet-phrases are much more common in present-day Dutch than constructions with van ja/nee-phrases (contrary to what was the case in earlier stages of the language).

207

aannemen'to assume'	16	w	schijnen'to seem'	7	w
antwoorden'to reply'	39	j>w	schudden'to shake'	52	j>w
beweren'to claim'	15	w	vermoeden'to suspect'	16	w
denken'to think'	208	w>j	verzekeren'to assure'	5	w
dunken'to think'	13	w>j	volhouden'to maintain'	5	w
geloven'to believe'	87	w>j	vinden'to consider/think'	69	w
hopen'to hope'	51	w	vrezen'to fear'	35	w
knikken'to nod'	34	j>w	wedden'to bet'	6	w
menen'to suppose'	57	w	zeggen'to say'	104	w>j

Many of the verbs in Table (207) can also be used as bridge verbs licensing extraction of a wh-phrase from their complement clause; see Table (331) in Section 5.1.5, sub I. Of course we expect this because such bridge verbs must also be non-factive, just like verbs taking a van wel/niet-phrase. It is interesting to note, though, that three out of the seven verbs that do not occur in the list of bridge verbs prefer a van ja/nee-phrase; we return to these verbs in Subsection 4.
Polar van wel/niet-phrases are also quite rigid when it comes to modification. Modal adverbs are occasionally judged as acceptable and also occur with a very low frequency on the internet, as was shown by a Google search (2/29/2012), on the string [denk[±past] van adverb wel/niet] for the adverbs zeker'certainly', misschien'maybe', natuurlijk'naturally', mogelijk'possibly' and helaas'unfortunately'. We found that zeker is used to modify both wel and niet, misschien is used to modify wel, and helaas is used to modify niet. We did not find any cases in which the adverbs natuurlijk or mogelijk were used as modifiers. Other adverbs seem categorically excluded.

208

a.		Ik	denk van	zeker/natuurlijk	wel.	attested cases
		I	think van	certainly/naturally	aff

b.		Ik	denk van	zeker/helaas	niet.	attested cases
		I	think van	certainly/unfortunately	not

c.	*	Ik	denk van	morgen/hier	wel/niet.
		I	think van	tomorrow/here	aff/not

Paardekooper also observed that polar van wel/niet-phrases must follow the verbs in clause-final position. The contrast between the (b)-examples in (209) shows that they cannot occur in the middle field of the clause.

209

a.	Komt	er	een reorganisatie?	question
	comes	there	a reorganization
	'Will there be a reorganization?'

b.	Jan liet	duidelijk	blijken	dat	hij	dacht	van	wel.	answer
	Jan let	clearly	show	that	he	thought	van	aff
	'Jan made it perfectly clear that he though that there would be.'

b'.	??	Jan liet	duidelijk	blijken	dat	hij	van	wel	dacht.
		Jan let	clearly	show	that	he	van	aff	thought

Moreover, the examples in (210) show that topicalization of polar van wel/niet-phrases also leads to a degraded result, regardless of whether the preposition van is stranded or not. See Hoeksema (2008) for the same observations.

210

a.		Ik	denk	van wel/niet.
		I	think	van aff/not

Van wel/niet denk ik.

b'.

Wel/Niet denk ik van.

Paardekooper concluded from the immobility of polar van wel/niet-phrases that we are not dealing with regular quotes as these normally do allow topicalization, subsection A has shown, however, that quotes from quotative van-constructions must also follow the verbs in clause-final position, and this still leaves open the possibility that polar van-constructions are indirect quotative van-constructions, as was indeed suggested in Hoeksema (2006).

[+] 4. Are polar van-constructions quotative van-constructions?

The previous subsections have shown that polar van ja/nee-constructions must be analyzed as direct quotative van-constructions constructions, leading to the prediction that this type of van-construction can only occur with verbs that may take direct quotes in reported speech without van. Hoeksema (2006) is probably correct in claiming that this expectation is borne out; the primed examples in (211) with beweren'to claim' and geloven'to believe' feel uncomfortable, and, although they do occur on the internet, they have a much lower frequency than the corresponding examples with zeggen'to say' and denken'to think'. We indicate this by using the percentage mark.

211

a.		Jan zei/??beweerde:	"Peter is ziek".
		Jan said/claimed	Peter is ill

a'.		Jan zei/%beweerde	van ja/nee.
		Jan said/claimed	van yes/no

b.		Jan dacht/*geloofde:	"Els is aardig".
		Jan thought/believed	Els is nice

b'.		Jan dacht/%geloofde	van ja/nee.
		Jan thought/believed	van yes/no

Hoeksema also suggests that polar van wel/niet-constructions are indirect quotative van-constructions, which is in keeping with the findings of Subsection 2 that indirect quotes behave like polar van wel/niet phrases in that they can be used as a response to some question, as a denial of some presupposed truth, or to indicate a mismatch in information. Furthermore, it correctly predicts that polar van wel/niet phrases can be used as the complement of verbs taking indirect quotes.

212

a.		Jan zei/beweerde	dat	Peter ziek	was.
		Jan said/claimed	that	Peter ill	was

a'.		Jan zei/beweerde	van wel/niet.
		Jan said/claimed	van aff/not

b.		Jan dacht/geloofde	dat	Els aardig	is.
		Jan thought/believed	that	Els nice	is

b'.		Jan dacht/geloofde	van wel/niet.
		Jan thought/believed	van aff/not

The suggested analyses of the two polar van-constructions correctly account for the placement of the van wel/niet-phrases: examples (209)-(210) in Subsection 3 have shown that they behave like van-phrases in indirect quotative van-constructions since they obligatorily follow the verbs in clause-final position. A potential problem is that van-phrases in direct quotative van-constructions have the same property, and we would therefore predict that polar van ja/nee-phrases also need to follow the verbs in clause-final position. However, Hoeksema (2008:74ff.) found that this expectation is not borne out: in about 5% of the cases the van ja/nee-phrase may occur in the middle field of the clause. Hoeksema relates this to the fact that (short) direct quotes may occasionally also occur in the middle field of the clause; see Subsection IIA, for a discussion of such cases.

213

a.		dat	Jan	<van ja>	zei <van ja>.
		that	Jan	van yes	said

b.		dat	Jan	<"ja">	zei <"ja">.
		that	Jan	yes	said

It seems that this suggestion can be supported by the examples in (214). The primeless examples show that the verbs knikken'to nod' and schudden'to shake (one's head)' can only be combined with a direct quote if the latter precedes the verb in clause-final position, and our judgment of the primed examples show that the corresponding van ja/nee-phrase likewise prefers to precede the verbs in clause-final position. Our intuitions are confirmed by a Google search (3/2/2012) on the strings [<van ja> geknikt <van ja>] and [<van nee> geschud <van nee>], which showed that preverbal placement is more frequent than postverbal placement of the van ja/nee-phrase; the absolute numbers are given in square brackets.

214

a.		Jan	heeft	<"ja">	geknikt <*"ja">.
		Jan	has	yes	nodded

a'.		Jan heeft	<van ja>	geknikt < ?van ja>.	37/12
		Jan has	van yes	nodded

b.		Jan heeft	<"nee">	geschud <*"nee">.
		Jan has	no	shaken

b'.		Jan heeft	<van nee>	geschud < ?van nee>.	24/4
		Jan has	van no	shaken

The discussion above has shown that there may indeed be reasons to think that the polar van ja/nee- and polar van wel/niet-constructions are special instantiations of, respectively, direct and indirect quotative van-constructions. However, the evidence so far is still a little scanty; a more detailed investigation may therefore be needed to provide a solid foundation for this idea.

References:

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.)2002The Cambridge grammar of the English languageCambridgeCambridge University Press
Barbiers, Sjef2000The right periphery in SOV languages: English and DutchSvenonius, Peter (ed.)The derivation of VO and OVAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins45-67
Branigan, Phil & Collins, Chris1993Verb movement and the quotative construction in EnglishBobaljik, Jonathan & Phillips, Colin (eds.)MIT Working papers in Linguistics 18Cambridge, MAMIT1-13
Collins, Chris & Branigan, Phil1997Quotative inversionNatural Language & Linguistic Theory151-41
Collins, Chris & Branigan, Phil1997Quotative inversionNatural Language & Linguistic Theory151-41
Corver, Norbert1994Parenthetical clauses. Their nature and distribution
Corver, Norbert1994Parenthetical clauses. Their nature and distribution
Corver, Norbert1994Parenthetical clauses. Their nature and distribution
Corver, Norbert & Thiersch, Craig2003Remarks on parentheticalsKoster, Jan & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)Germania et alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten
Corver, Norbert & Thiersch, Craig2003Remarks on parentheticalsKoster, Jan & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)Germania et alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten
Corver, Norbert & Thiersch, Craig2003Remarks on parentheticalsKoster, Jan & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)Germania et alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van2002Van as a marker of dissociation. Microvariation in DutchZwart, Jan-Wouter & Abraham, Werner (eds.)Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic SyntaxAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins41-67
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van2002Van as a marker of dissociation. Microvariation in DutchZwart, Jan-Wouter & Abraham, Werner (eds.)Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic SyntaxAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins41-67
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van2002Van as a marker of dissociation. Microvariation in DutchZwart, Jan-Wouter & Abraham, Werner (eds.)Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic SyntaxAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins41-67
Foolen, Ad, Alphen, Ingrid van, Hoekstra, Eric, Lammers, Henk, Mazeland, Harrie & Pascual, Esther2006Het quotatieve vanToegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen76137-149
Foolen, Ad, Alphen, Ingrid van, Hoekstra, Eric, Lammers, Henk, Mazeland, Harrie & Pascual, Esther2006Het quotatieve vanToegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen76137-149
Foolen, Ad, Alphen, Ingrid van, Hoekstra, Eric, Lammers, Henk, Mazeland, Harrie & Pascual, Esther2006Het quotatieve vanToegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen76137-149
Foolen, Ad, Alphen, Ingrid van, Hoekstra, Eric, Lammers, Henk, Mazeland, Harrie & Pascual, Esther2006Het quotatieve vanToegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen76137-149
Foolen, Ad, Alphen, Ingrid van, Hoekstra, Eric, Lammers, Henk, Mazeland, Harrie & Pascual, Esther2006Het quotatieve vanToegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen76137-149
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door vanTabu35135-158
Hoeksema, Jack2008Van + bijwoord van polariteit: een geval van verplichte extrapositie?Tabu3769-78
Lodewick, H.J.M.F1975Literaire kunstDen BoschMalmberg
Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
Reinhart, Tanya1983Point of view in language. The use of parentheticalsRauh, Gisa (ed.)Essays on Deixis169-194TübingenGunter Narr Verlag169-194
Reinhart, Tanya1983Point of view in language. The use of parentheticalsRauh, Gisa (ed.)Essays on Deixis169-194TübingenGunter Narr Verlag169-194
Romein, Kirsten1999Ik schrijf van niet, maar ik zeg van welTabu29173-178
Romein, Kirsten1999Ik schrijf van niet, maar ik zeg van welTabu29173-178
Romein, Kirsten1999Ik schrijf van niet, maar ik zeg van welTabu29173-178
Verkuyl, Henk1977Het performatieve vanSpektator6481-3
Verkuyl, Henk1977Het performatieve vanSpektator6481-3
Verkuyl, Henk1977Het performatieve vanSpektator6481-3
Vries, Mark de2006Reported direct speech in DutchWeyer, Jeroen van de & Los, Bettelou (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006Amsterdam/Philadelphia212-223
Vries, Mark de2006Reported direct speech in DutchWeyer, Jeroen van de & Los, Bettelou (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006Amsterdam/Philadelphia212-223
Vries, Mark de2006Reported direct speech in DutchWeyer, Jeroen van de & Los, Bettelou (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006Amsterdam/Philadelphia212-223
Vries, Mark de2006Reported direct speech in DutchWeyer, Jeroen van de & Los, Bettelou (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006Amsterdam/Philadelphia212-223
Vries, Mark de2006Reported direct speech in DutchWeyer, Jeroen van de & Los, Bettelou (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006Amsterdam/Philadelphia212-223
Vries, Mark de2006Reported direct speech in DutchWeyer, Jeroen van de & Los, Bettelou (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006Amsterdam/Philadelphia212-223

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Affirmative MarkerAnticipatory PronounBindingComplementizerConjunctionFinite ClauseInterrogative ClauseLeft DislocationModificationQuotative ConstructionReferential TenseReported SpeechResumptive PronounWh-extractionsecondirect — Erlebte Rede See Semi-direct reported speechja 'yes'ja 'yes'polar van-constructionWh-extractionnee 'no'nee 'no'Polar van-Constructionniet 'not'welzelf 'himself' (emphatic modifier)zo 'thus'

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles