Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

12.2.Arguments, complementives and selected measure phrases

quickinfo

This section discusses extraposition of elements selected by main verbs, subsection I starts by discussing the restrictions on extraposition of arguments: as a general rule extraposition is impossible with nominal arguments, obligatory with clausal arguments and optional with prepositional arguments, subsection II will show that extraposition of complementives is excluded, although there seem to be a number of (apparent) exceptions to this general rule, subsection III discusses constructions with verbs like duren'to last' and shows that measure phrases selected by these verbs cannot be extraposed either.

I. Arguments
II. Complementives
III. Other cases
IV. Conclusion

[+] I. Arguments

The examples in (20a&b) show that nominal arguments differ from clausal arguments in that the former must precede the clause-final verbs, whereas the latter normally follow them. Prepositional complements (including prepositional indirect objects) differ from both nominal and clausal arguments in that they may either precede or follow the clause-final verbs.

a.	dat	Jan me	<het verhaal>	vertelde <*het verhaal>.	nominal complement
	that	Jan me	the story	told
	'that Jan told me the story.'

b.	dat	Jan me	<*dat zij komt>	vertelde <dat zij komt>.	clausal complement
	that	Jan me	that she comes	told
	'that Jan told me that sheʼll come.'

c.	dat	Jan me	<over haar komst>	vertelde <over haar komst>.	PP-compl.
	that	Jan me	about her arrival	told
	'that Jan told me about her arrival.'

[+] A. Nominal arguments

Nominal arguments precede the verb(s) in clause-final position. This holds for subjects and direct objects alike, regardless of whether they are indefinite or definite.

a.	dat	er	<iemand>	om hulp	riep <*iemand>.
	that	there	someone	for help	called
	'that there was someone calling for help.'

a'.	dat	<de jongen/Peter >	om hulp	riep <*de jongen/Peter>.
	that	the boy/Peter	for help	called
	'that the boy/Peter was calling for help.'

b.	dat	Peter graag	<iemand/zijn moeder>	bezoekt <*iemand/zijn moeder>.
	that	Peter gladly	someone/his mother	visits
	'that Peter likes to visit someone/his mother.'

This restriction is especially clear in the case of indirect objects: while prepositional indirect objects can easily be extraposed, their nominal counterparts cannot. In order to eliminate possible interference of the presence of a direct object, the examples in (22) illustrate this by means of a regular passive construction.

a.	Dat boek	is	(aan)	Marie	toegestuurd.
	that book	is	to	Marie	prt.-sent
	'That book has been sent to Marie.'

b.	Dat boek	is toegestuurd	*(aan)	Marie.
	that book	is prt.-sent	to	Marie
	'That book has been sent to Marie.'

One apparent exception to the general rule that nominal arguments cannot be extraposed has already been discussed in Section 12.1, sub IV: afterthoughts and backgrounded noun phrases can be placed postverbally. We have seen, however, that these should not be considered extraposed phrases but that they are right-dislocated, parenthetical constituents. VP-topicalization can be used to support this view. The examples in (23) first show that a direct object must be pied piped under VP-topicalization if it is in its base-position; under neutral intonation (that is, without contrastive accent) the direct object can only be stranded if it is scrambled leftwards across the adverb graag'gladly'.

a.	Ik	wil	<de directeur>	graag [VP <de directeur>	spreken].
	I	want	the manager	gladly	speak
	'Iʼd like to speak to the manager.'

b.		De directeur	spreken	wil	ik	graag.
		the manager	speak	want	I	gladly

b'.		Spreken	wil	ik	<de directeur>	graag <*de directeur>.
		speak	want	I	the manager	gladly

Example (24b) shows that right-dislocated noun phrases can easily be stranded in postverbal position, while the (c)-examples show that pied piping is only possible in the case of afterthoughts, in which case we have to use quite distinct intonation breaks—and even then some speakers tend to reject it.

a.	Ik	wil	graag [VP	dhr. Jansen spreken],	de directeur/directeur.
	I	want	gladly	Mr. Jansen speak	the manager
	'Iʼd like to speak Mr. Jansen, the manager.'

b.		Dhr. Jansen	spreken	wil	ik	graag,	de directeur/directeur.
		Mr. Jansen	speak	want	I	gladly	the manager

c.	%	Dhr. Jansen	spreken	—de directeur—	wil	ik	graag.
		Mr. Jansen	speak	the manager	want	I	gladly

c'.	*?	Dhr. Jansen	spreken,	de directeur,	wil	ik	graag.
		Mr. Jansen	speak	the manager	want	I	gladly

Enumerations, such as the one in example (25a), constitute another possible exception to the general rule that nominal arguments must precede the clause-final verbs; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1376). Such enumerations are preceded by an intonation break and cannot be pied piped under VP-topicalization, which again suggests that they are parenthetical in nature: such examples are therefore special in that the "true" direct object does not have to be pronounced.

a.	Ik	moet	(de volgende dingen)	kopen:	papier,	potloden	en	een liniaal.
	I	must	the following things	buy:	paper,	pencils	and	a ruler
	'I need to buy (the following things): paper, pencils and a ruler.'

Kopen moet ik: papier, potloden en een liniaal.

b'.

Kopen: papier, potloden en een liniaal moet ik.

Haeseryn et al. notice further that in more formal contexts nominal arguments can occasionally appear postverbally. This order, which is characterized as "expressive", is quite obsolete: it is specially used if the postverbal noun phrase constitutes newsworthy information: (26) could be used as "breaking news" in a newscast, but not in a biography as a neutral way of expressing where and when the singer André Hazes died. Cases like (26) are clearly part of the periphery of the language and can thus be ignored in a synchronic syntactic description of core grammar.

Te Woerden	is	op 53-jarige leeftijd	overleden	de zanger André Hazes.
in Woerden	is	at 53-years age	died	the singer André Hazes
'In Woerden the singer André Hazes has died at the age of 53.'

Finally we want to note that free relatives (that is, relative clauses without an overtly realized antecedent) can readily be found in postverbal position, just like relative clauses with an overt antecedent. If free relatives were noun phrases, this would be a counterexample to the claim that nominal arguments cannot be extraposed, but the examples in (27) show that the two cases can be unified if we assume that the antecedents of free relatives are syntactically present but lack phonetic content. We return to extraposition of relative clauses in Section 12.4.

a.	dat	Jan	de menseni	prijst	[diei	hij	bewondert].	overt antecedent
	that	Jan	the people	praises	who	he	admires
	'that Jan praises the people he admires'

b.	dat	Jan Øi	prijst	[wiei	hij	bewondert].	phonetically empty antecedent
	that	Jan	praises	who	he	admires
	'that Jan praises who(ever) he admires.'

[+] B. Clausal complements

Clausal complements occupy the postverbal position, as in (28a). It is normally not possible for complement clauses to precede the postverbal verb(s): example (28b) is only acceptable as a direct speech construction, that is, if Jan has literally pronounced the phrase "dat het hem spijt"; see Section 5.1.2.4, sub II, for a discussion of such cases.

a.	Hij	heeft	gezegd	[dat	het	hem	spijt].
	he	has	said	that	it	him	regrets
	'He has said that he regrets it.'

Hij

heeft [dat het hem spijt]

gezegd.

Factive clauses, like the bracketed phrase in (29), constitute another apparent exception to the general rule, but Section 5.1.2.3 has shown that it is plausible that the preverbal clause in (29b) is actually nominal in nature; we refer the reader to this section for detailed discussion.

a.	Jan heeft	nooit	betreurd	[dat	hij	taalkundige	is geworden].
	Jan has	never	regretted	that	he	linguist	is become
	'Jan has never regretted that he has become a linguist.'

Jan heeft [dat hij taalkundige is geworden] nooit betreurd.

Example (30b) shows that the clausal complement in (28a) can be pied piped under VP-topicalization; we added some material to the construction in order to make the resulting structure more balanced. The fact that pied piping is possible strongly suggests that the complement clause is part of the verbal projection. This conclusion may be supported by the fact that stranding of the complement clause is definitely marked compared to pied piping.

a.		Gezegd	[dat	het	hem	spijt]	heeft	hij	nog	niet.
		said	that	it	him	regrets	has	he	yet	not

b.	??	Gezegd	heeft	hij	nog	niet	[dat	het	hem spijt].
		said	has	he	yet	not	that	it	him regrets

The (b)-examples in (31) show that the results are quite different when the clause is introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it'. The fact that the clause must be stranded in this case suggests that it occupies a position different from argument clauses that are not introduced by het'it'; it is not extraposed but right-dislocated.

a.	Jan heeft	het	nog	niet	gezegd	[dat	het	hem	spijt].
	Jan has	it	yet	not	said	that	it	him	regrets
	'Jan hasnʼt said it yet that he regrets it.'

b.	*	Gezegd	[dat	het	hem spijt]	heeft	Jan het	nog	niet.
		said	that	it	him regrets	has	Jan it	yet	not

b'.		Gezegd	heeft	Jan het	nog	niet	[dat	het	hem	spijt].
		said	has	Jan it	yet	not	that	it	him	regrets

This conclusion is also supported by the fact that argument clauses that are not introduced by het show a different behavior with respect to wh-extraction than the corresponding clauses that are introduced by het; Section 11.3.1.1, sub III, has shown that wh-extraction is only allowed in the absence of this anticipatory pronoun only. If the anticipatory pronoun functions as the true direct object while its associate clause is simply an apposition, this follows from the claim that wh-extraction is possible from complement clauses only; see the discussion in Subsection A.

a.	Jan heeft	(het)	gezegd	[dat	hij	een mooi boek	ging	kopen].
	Jan has	it	said	that	he	a beautiful book	went	buy
	'Jan has said (it) that he was going to buy a beautiful book.'

b.	Welk boeki	heeft	Jan	gezegd	[dat	hij ti	ging	kopen]?
	which book	has	Jan	said	that	he	went	buy
	'Which book has Jan said that he was going to buy?'

b'.	*	Welk boeki	heeft	Jan	het	gezegd	[dat	hij ti	ging	kopen]?
		which book	has	Jan	it	said	that	he	went	buy

That the anticipatory pronoun functions as the true object is supported by the fact illustrated in (33) that its associate clause is optional: direct objects are normally obligatory, and it is clear that the pronoun must be present if the clause is omitted. Note in passing that the number sign indicates that the string without the pronoun is used in academic circles as a translation of Latin dixi'I have spoken' with the meaning "I have said all I have to say"; this is clearly not part of Dutch core grammar and can thus be ignored in our syntactic description.

Jan heeft	*(het)	gezegd.
Jan has	it	said
'Jan has said it.'

This subsection has shown that argument clauses are obligatorily extraposed. This was illustrated for finite clauses only, but the same holds for opaque and semi-transparent infinitival argument clauses, while transparent infinitival argument clauses undergo a process of cluster formation. Since discussing this would simply repeat much of the discussion in Section 5.2, we will not digress on this here.

[+] C. PP-complements

Extraposed arguments can be easily distinguished from afterthoughts and backgrounded phrases: because arguments are normally obligatory, afterthoughts and backgrounded phrases require some anchor in the "true" argument position. This can be readily shown by means of the verb houden'to like', which obligatorily selects a PP-complement introduced by van: examples (34b&c) shows that the presence of a pronominal PP such as daarvan'of that' is only possible (and then in fact obligatory) if the postverbal PP is preceded by an intonation break.

a.	dat	Els	erg	*(van lof)	houdt.
	that	Els	a.lot	of chicory	likes
	'that Els likes chicory a lot.'

b.	dat	Els erg	(*daarvan)	houdt	van lof.	extraposition
	that	Els a.lot	of.that	likes	of chicory
	'that Els likes chicory a lot.'

c.	dat	Els erg	*(daarvan)	houdt,	van lof/lof.	right dislocation
	that	Els a.lot	there.of	likes	of chicory
	'that Els likes it a lot, chicory.'

Some verbs, like wachten'to wait' in (35a), optionally take a PP-complement. In such cases, the pattern that arises is different. The (b)-examples in (35) first show that postverbal PPs must be preceded by an intonation break if a pronominal PP such as daarop'for that' is present; in this respect, constructions with an optional PP-complement behave just like constructions with an obligatory PP-complement. Recognizing afterthoughts is not very difficult as the PP is preceded by an intonational break and assigned contrastive accent, but distinguishing extraposed and backgrounded PPs is harder, as this mainly rests on the intonation break, which need not be very prominent in actual speech. The main thing for our present purposes is, however, that the intonational break is optional in slow, careful speech; we can therefore conclude that extraposition and backgrounding right-dislocation are both available.

a.	dat	Jan	(op de uitslag)	wacht.
	that	Jan	for the result	waits
	'that Jan is waiting for the result.'

b.	*	dat	Jan daarop	wacht	op de uitslag.	extraposition
		that	Jan for.that	waits	for the result

b'.		dat	Jan daarop	wacht,	op de uitslag/uitslag.	right dislocation
		that	Jan for.that	waits	for the result

c.		dat	Jan wacht	op de uitslag.	extraposition
		that	Jan waits	for the result

c'.		dat	Jan wacht,	op de uitslag/uitslag.	right dislocation
		that	Jan waits	for the result

There are at least two reasons for assuming that extraposed PPs are part of the clause. The first reason is phonological in nature and concerns the placement of (non-contrastive) sentence accent. Sentence accent can easily be located on the extraposed PP; it is in fact the neutral placement of this accent. In the case of right dislocation, on the other hand, sentence accent must precede the right-dislocated PP. This is shown in (36), in which sentence accent is given in italics.

a.		dat	Jan wacht	op de uitslag.	extraposition
		that	Jan waits	for the result

b.		dat	Jan wacht,	op de uitslag/uitslag.	right dislocation
		that	Jan waits	for the result

The fact that sentence accent can occur on extraposed PPs conclusively shows that extraposed PPs are located clause-internally. A second reason for assuming this is that they can be pied piped under VP-topicalization, as is shown in (37a), although it should be noted that some speakers prefer the order in (37a'), in which the PP-complement is preverbal; this might be due to the fact that there is no information-structural reason for extraposition given that the clause-initial VP as a whole functions as a topic/focus. Example (37b) shows that stranding of the complement-PP gives rise to a degraded result.

a.	(?)	Houden	van lof	zal	ik	nooit.
		like	of chicory	will	I	never

a'.		Van lof houden	zal	ik	nooit.
		of chicory like	will	I	never

b.	??	Houden	zal	ik	nooit	van lof.
		like	will	I	never	of chicory

Because the contrast between the two primeless examples in (37) is not as sharp as one would like, we illustrate the same again in (38) by means of the verb rekenen, which requires a PP-complement headed by op'on' if used as the PO-verb meaning "to count/bank (on)".

a.	(?)	Rekenen	op een bonus	doet	hij	niet.
		count	on a bonus	does	he	not

a'.		Op een bonus	rekenen	doet	hij	niet.
		on a bonus	count	does	he	not

b.	*?	Rekenen	doet	hij	niet	op een bonus.
		count	does	he	not	on a bonus

Backgrounded PPs cannot easily be pied piped by VP-topicalization, as is clear from the fact illustrated by the (a)-examples in (39) that for at least some speakers they can only occur postverbally. Example (39b') shows that afterthoughts are marginally possible after topicalized VPs with an anticipatory pronominal PP, but only if preceded and followed by very distinct intonation breaks. Example (39b) shows that afterthoughts may also occur in postverbal position. We illustrate the same again in (40) by means of the verb rekenen (op)'to count/bank on'

a.		Daarvan	houden	zal	ik	nooit,	van lof.
		of.that	like	will	I	never	of chicory

a'.	*?	Daarvan	houden,	van lof,	zal	ik	nooit.
		of.that	like	of chicory	will	I	never

b.		Daarvan	houden	zal	ik	nooit,	van lof.
		of.that	like	will	I	never	of chicory

b'.		Daarvan	houden	—van lof—	zal	ik	nooit.
		of.that	like	of chicory	will	I	never

a.		Daarop	rekenen	doet	hij	niet,	op een bonus.
		on.that	count	does	he	not	on a bonus

a'.	??	Daarop	rekenen,	op een bonus,	doet	hij	niet.
		on.that	count	on a bonus	does	he	not

b.		Daarop	rekenen	doet	hij	niet,	op een bonus.
		on.that	count	does	he	not	on a bonus

b'.		Daarop	rekenen	—op een bonus—	doet	hij	niet.
		on.that	count	on a bonus	does	he	not

The discussion above suggests that extraposed and right-dislocated PPs occupy different positions. Since extraposed PPs are like extraposed clauses in that they are obligatorily pied piped under VP-topicalization, the simplest theory would be that these occupy the same structural position in the clause. If true, we would expect that extraposed PPs also behave like extraposed clauses in that they allow wh-extraction. This expectation is not borne out, however, as extraposed PP-complements are islands for wh-extraction; example (41b) shows that wh-extraction is possible only if the stranded preposition immediately precedes the clause-final verb(s).

a.	Jan heeft	<op de brief>	gewacht <op de brief>.
	Jan has	for the letter	waited
	'Jan has waited for the letter.'

b.	Waari	heeft	Jan	<[op ti ]>	gewacht <*[op ti ]>?
	where	has	Jan	for	waited
	'What has Jan waited for?'

[+] D. Conclusion

The previous subsections have shown that nominal, clausal and prepositional arguments exhibit different extraposition behavior in the way indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Extraposition of arguments

type of argument	extraposition option	islandhood of extraposed phrase
nominal	impossible	n.a.
clausal	obligatory	extraction possible
prepositional	optional	extraction impossible

In early generative grammar, it is generally assumed that Dutch has an underlying OV-structure: objects are uniformly base-generated to the left of the verb(s) in clause-final position. This implies that constructions with extraposed objects are derived by rightward movement. De Haan (1979) pointed out the movement analysis of extraposed object clauses is problematic in view of the fact that these allow wh-extraction in bridge verb contexts; this is inconsistent with the movement analysis because movement creates syntactic islands (the so-called freezing effect). De Haan concluded from this that argument clauses are base-generated to the right of the clause-final verbs.
      If nominal and clausal direct objects do have the same underlying base position, there is only one option left: they are base-generated in the surface position of the clause and the nominal phrase undergoes an obligatory movement to the left into a position to the left of the clause-final verbs. Although it raises the question why extraction from nominal arguments is possible (as is clear from, e.g., the so-called wat voor split), this position seems to be currently taken by many (but not all) generative linguists; cf. Zwart (1997/2011:ch.9) and Broekhuis (2008:ch.2).
      The fact that extraposed PP-complements only allow for wh-extraction in preverbal position strongly suggests that they differ in a non-trivial way from extraposed argument clauses. More specifically, they differ from extraposed clauses in that they cannot be base-generated in postverbal position. In principle there are two ways of accounting for extraposed complement PPs: either the PP is moved rightward across the verb into the postverbal position, as was standardly assumed in early generative grammar, or some verbal projection is moved leftward into a position to the left of the PP; we refer the reader to Barbiers (1995) for a discussion of the latter option.
      What is especially relevant for our present discussion is that we can conclude from the discussion above that extraposition cannot be considered a uniform phenomenon that can be accounted for by means of a single (movement) rule. The ramifications of the pattern given in Table 1 are currently still under investigation; a review of a number of theoretical options is given in Section 9.4, sub I, to which we refer the reader for more discussion as well as suggestions for further reading.

[+] II. Complementives

This subsection will be short as the main issues were already discussed in Section 2.2.1, sub III and Section 2.2.1, sub IV, to which we refer the reader for a more detailed discussion. The examples in (42) show that complementives occupy a position to the left of the verb(s) in clause-final position, regardless of the type of construction.

a.	dat	Jan	<erg nerveus>	is <*erg nerveus>.	copular construction
	that	Jan	very nervous	is
	'that Jan is very nervous.'

b.	dat	Els Jan	<erg nerveus>	vindt <*erg nerveus>.	vinden-construction
	that	Els Jan	very nervous	considers
	'that Els considers Jan very nervous.'

c.	dat	Els Jan	<erg nerveus>	maakt <*erg nerveus>.	resultative construction
	that	Els Jan	very nervous	makes
	'that Els makes Jan very nervous.'

The placement of the complementive is not affected by its categorial status either: the copular examples in (43) show that nominal, adjectival and adpositional complementives must all precede the verbs in clause-final position.

a.	dat	Jan	<een vervelende knul>	is <*een vervelende knul>.	NP
	that	Jan	an annoying guy	is
	'that Jan is an annoying guy.'

b.	dat	Jan	<erg vervelend>	is <*erg vervelend >.	AP
	that	Jan	very annoying	is
	'that Jan is very annoying.'

c.	dat	Jan	<in zijn werkkamer>	is <*?in zijn werkkamer>.	PP
	that	Jan	in his study	is
	'that Jan is in his study.'

The examples in (44) show the same for the vinden-construction; note that locational PPs cannot be used in the vinden-construction due to the fact that the complementive must be subjective in nature. For this reason we have used an idiomatic PP with adjectival meaning in the sense that it denotes a property.

a.	dat	Els Jan	<een vervelende knul>	vindt <*een vervelende knul>.	NP
	that	Els Jan	an annoying guy	considers
	'that Els considers Jan an annoying guy.'

b.	dat	Els Jan	<erg vervelend>	vindt <*erg aardig>.	AP
	that	Els Jan	very annoying	considers
	'that Els considers Jan very annoying.'

c.	dat	Els Jan	<erg in de contramine>	vindt <*erg in de contramine>.	PP
	that	Els Jan	very in the contramine	considers
	'that Els considers Jan very uncooperative.'

The examples in (45a&b) show the same for resultative constructions with an adjectival and a prepositional complementive; we added an instance with the verbal particle neer, which can likewise be considered a complementive; see Section 2.2.1, sub II. Resultative constructions do not take nominal complementives.

a.	dat	Jan het hek	<blauw>	verfde <*blauw>.	AP
	that	Jan the gate	blue	painted
	'that Jan painted the gate blue.'

b.	dat	Jan het boek	<op de tafel>	legde <*op de tafel>.	PP
	that	Jan the book	on the table	put
	'that Jan put the book on the table.'

c.	dat	Jan het boek	<neer>	legde <*neer>.	particle
	that	Jan the book	down	put
	'that Jan put the book down.'

In light of the examples in (45b&c), example (46a) constitutes a potential problem for the claim that complements cannot follow the verb(s) in clause-final position, as the PP op de tafel can easily be extraposed. It seems plausible, however, that this PP in fact does not function as complementive, given that clauses cannot contain more than one complementive; the fact illustrated in (46b) that the particle neer cannot be extraposed suggests that this is the true complementive and that the PP performs some other function. We refer the reader to Section 2.2.1, sub IV, for a more detailed discussion and for further suggestions.

a.	dat	Jan het boek	<op de tafel>	neer	legde <op de tafel>.
	that	Jan the book	on the table	down	put
	'that Jan put the book down on the table.'

b.	dat	Jan het boek	op de tafel	<neer>	legde <*neer>.
	that	Jan the book	on the table	down	put
	'that Jan put the book down on the table.'

The examples in (47) show that we can find a similar phenomenon in resultative constructions headed by verbs prefixed with be-. Example (47a) shows that complementive tot-phrases typically precede the verb in clause-final position. However, if the tot-phrase is selected by a verb prefixed with be-, it can either precede or follow the verb.

a.	dat	de koning	Jan <tot ridder>	heeft	geslagen <*tot ridder>.
	that	the king	Jan to knight	has	hit
	'that the king made Jan a knight.'

b.	dat	de koning	Jan <tot adviseur>	heeft	benoemd <tot adviseur>.
	that	the king	Jan to advisor	has	appointed
	'that the king has appointed Jan as counselor.'

The contrast with respect to the placement of the tot-PP between the two examples in (47) would follow under the hypothesis discussed in Section 3.3.2, sub IIB, that the prefixes be-, ver- and ont- syntactically function as incorporated complementives; on the hypothesis that clauses cannot contain more than one complementive, we must conclude that the tot-PP in (47b) performs some function other than complementive, as is also clear from the fact that it can be omitted: dat de koning Jan heeft benoemd'that the king has appointed Jan'.
This section has shown that complementives cannot be extraposed whatever their categorial status: NPs, APs and PPs behave alike in this respect. Given that postpositional and circumpositional phrases always function as complementives if used as clausal constituents, we expect that they do not occur in extraposed position. This expectation seems indeed borne out; postpositional and circumpositional phrases only occur in extraposed position if they function as postnominal modifiers (see Section 12.4 for examples).

a.	dat	Jan	<het dak	op>	klom <*het dak op>.
	that	Jan	the roof	onto	climbed
	'that Jan climbed onto the roof.'

b.	dat Jan <over het hek heen>	sprong <*over het hek heen>.
	that Jan over the fence heen	jumped
	'that Jan jumped over the fence.'

What may be more surprising is that the circumpositional phrases cannot be split by extraposition but that this is possible under wh-movement. An illustration of this contrast is given in (49) for the circumpositional phrase achter de optocht aan. We refer the reader to Section P1.2.5 for detailed discussion.

a.	dat	de kinderen	achter de optocht	aan	renden.
	that	the children	after the parade	AAN	ran
	'that the children ran after the parade.'

b.	Achter welke optocht	renden	de kinderen	aan?
	after which parade	ran	the children	aan
	'After which parade did the children run?'

c.	*	dat	de kinderen	aan	renden	achter de optocht.
		that	the children	AAN	ran	after the parade

[+] III. Other cases

Measure phrases selected by verbs like duren'to last', wegen'to weigh' and kosten'to cost' probably do not function as complementives but nevertheless seem selected by the verb, as omitting the measure phrase would lead to a degraded result (unless the verb is contrastively stressed). The examples in (50) show that these phrases cannot be extraposed, whatever their categorial status.

a.	dat	de workshop	<erg lang>	duurt <*erg lang>.
	that	the workshop	very long	lasts
	'that the workshop takes a very long time.'

b.	dat	de workshop	<een hele week>	duurt <*een hele week>.
	that	the workshop	a whole week	lasts
	'that the workshop takes a whole week.'

c.	dat	de workshop	<tot tien uur>	duurt <??tot tien uur>
	that	the workshop	until ten hour	lasts
	'The workshop continues until 10 oʼclock.'

The examples in (51) show that the same holds for APs and PPs that accompany verbs like wonen'to live' and verblijven'to lodge/live'.

a.	dat	Jan	<in Utrecht>	woont <*in Utrecht>.
	that	Jan	in Utrecht	lives
	'that Jan lives in Utrecht.'

b.	dat	Jan	<erg comfortabel>	woont <*erg comfortabel>.
	that	Jan	very comfortably	lives
	'that Jan lives quite comfortably.'

[+] IV. Conclusion

The previous subsections have discussed the extraposition options of clausal constituents selected by the verb (arguments, complementive and measure phrases). The discussion has shown that extraposition of arguments depends on their categorial status: extraposition is impossible with nominal arguments, obligatory with clausal arguments and optional with prepositional arguments. Extraposition of complementives is impossible, irrespective of their category. The same holds for measure phrases selected by verbs such as duren'to last'. One thing that we did not discuss but should be mentioned is that extraposition of clausal arguments does not seem to affect the proposition expressed by the clause (although we have seen that extraposition of PP-complements may have an effect on the information structure of the clause). This will become relevant in our discussion of postverbal clausal constituents that function as modifiers in Section 12.3.

References:

Barbiers, Sjef1995The syntax of interpretationThe Hague, Holland Academic GraphicsUniversity of Leiden/HILThesis
Broekhuis, Hans2008Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languagesStudies in Generative GrammarBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
Haan, Ger de1979Conditions on rulesDordrechtForis Publications
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Zwart, Jan-Wouter1997Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of DutchDordrechtKluwer Academic Publishers
Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AccentArgumentClauseComplementiveEnumerationExtrapositionMeasure VerbMeasure PhraseSentence AccentVerb

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