Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

8.3.3.Clause adverbials

quickinfo

Section 8.3.2 has shown that most VP adverbials can surface in various forms: they can generally appear in an adjectival or prepositional form, and in some cases they can even be nominal or clausal. Since VP adverbials are typically phrasal, they can be formed productively. This also holds true for locational, temporal and contingency clause adverbials: they do not differ in essential ways from their counterparts functioning as VP adverbials. However, many clause adverbs are quite restricted when it comes to form, as is clear from the fact that in many cases they constitute a closed class of lexical elements, and it is therefore not surprising that precisely these elements are often considered to belong to a category of adverbs. Consider again the subclasses of clause adverbials in (170), taken from Section 8.2.2.

170

Polarity: negation (niet'not' ); affirmation (wel)

Focus particles: alleen'only', ook'too', zelfs'even', etc.

Aspectual: habitual; iterative; frequentative; continuative; etc.

Clause-degree (bijna'nearly'; amper'hardly', etc.)

Propositional modal (waarschijnlijk'probably'; blijkbaar'apparently')

Subject-oriented (stom genoeg'stupidly', wijselijk'wisely', etc.)

Subjective: factive (helaas'unfortunately' ); non-factive

Point-of-view (volgens Els'according to Els' )

Spatio-temporal: place; time

Contingency: cause; reason; condition; concession

Domain (juridisch gezien'legally', moreel gezien'morally', etc.)

Conjunctive (echter'however', derhalve'therefore', etc.)

Speech-act related (eerlijk gezegd'honestly', etc.)

Polarity adverbials clearly constitute a closed class; it only contains the negative element niet'not' and the affirmative element wel. These are normally considered adverbs, as it is not so easy to find decisive arguments to place them into one of the four major lexical categories. The same holds for the focus particles in (170b): they constitute a relatively small set, and again it is difficult, if not impossible, to show that they belong to one of the major lexical categories. The categorial status of some of the aspectual adverbs is not difficult to detect: habitual gewoonlijk'usually' and frequentative vaak'often' are clearly adjectival, while drie maal'three times' is clearly nominal. However, there are also many cases for which the category is less easy to determine; specific examples are continuative nog (steeds)'still', terminative niet meer'no longer', iterative weer'again', and al'already'.
Clause-degree adverbials again constitute a more or less closed class: bijna'nearly'; amper'hardly', haast'nearly'. Some of these elements can also be used as degree modifiers of adjectives but it is again difficult to determine whether they belong to one of the major lexical classes. This is easier for adverbials expressing propositional modality, which are recognizable as adjectives because of their morphological form in many cases: they are often derived by suffixes like (e)lijk and -baar, and can sometimes be preceded by the negative prefix on-.

171

Epistemic adverbials: gegarandeerd'certainly', misschien'maybe', mogelijk'possibly', natuurlijk'naturally/of course', noodzakelijk(erwijs)'necessarily', ongetwijfeld'undoubtedly', vermoedelijk'supposedly', waarschijnlijk'probably', zeker'certainly', etc.Epistemic adverbials: gegarandeerd'certainly', misschien'maybe', mogelijk'possibly', natuurlijk'naturally/of course', noodzakelijk(erwijs)'necessarily', ongetwijfeld'undoubtedly', vermoedelijk'supposedly', waarschijnlijk'probably', zeker'certainly', etc.

Evidential adverbials: blijkbaar'evidently', duidelijk'clearly', evident'evidently', kennelijk'obviously', klaarblijkelijk'apparently', ogenschijnlijk'apparently', onmiskenbaar'unmistakably', schijnbaar'seemingly', vermoedelijk'probably', zichtbaar'visibly/evidently', etc.Evidential adverbials: blijkbaar'evidently', duidelijk'clearly', evident'evidently', kennelijk'obviously', klaarblijkelijk'apparently', ogenschijnlijk'apparently', onmiskenbaar'unmistakably', schijnbaar'seemingly', vermoedelijk'probably', zichtbaar'visibly/evidently', etc.

It should be noted, however, that the adjectives in (171) often exhibit restricted behavior when they are used adverbially. For instance, the examples in (172) show that while it is easily possible to question waarschijnlijk if used as complementive, this is not possible when it is used adverbially. It does not seem to be the case that this restriction is syntactic in nature, however: modal adverbials are often considered speaker-oriented in the sense that they provide the speaker’s evaluation, and it is therefore not likely that the speaker will question such a modal.

172

a.		Dit	is zeer	waarschijnlijk.
		this	is very	likely

a'.		Hoe waarschijnlijk is dit?
		how likely is this

b.	Jan gaat	zeer waarschijnlijk	weg.
	Jan goes	very probably	away
	'Jan is quite probably leaving.'

b'.	*	Hoe waarschijnlijk	gaat	Jan weg?
		how probably	goes	Jan away

It is less easy to explain that the adverbially used adjectives exhibit restrictions on modification that are not found in their attributively/predicatively used counterparts. For instance, while the primeless examples in (172) show that waarschijnlijk can be modified by the intensifier zeer'very' regardless of its syntactic function, the intensifier erg'very' or the downtoner vrij'fairly' in the (a)-examples in (173) give rise to marked results when waarschijnlijk is adverbial. The (b)-examples show that similar observations can be made with respect to comparative formation. The (c)-examples show that the adverbially used adjective is also more restricted than its attributively/predicatively used counterpart in that it does not allow on- prefixation.

173

a.		Dit	is	erg/vrij	waarschijnlijk.
		this	is	very/fairly	probable

a'.		Jan gaat	??erg/?vrij	waarschijnlijk	weg.
		Jan goes	very/fairly	probably	away

b.		Dit	is waarschijnlijker	(dan dat).
		this	is more.probable	than that

b'.	*	Jan gaat	waarschijnlijker	weg	(dan Peter).
		Jan goes	more.probably	away	than Peter

c.		Dit	is	onwaarschijnlijk.
		this	is	improbable

c'.	*	Jan gaat	onwaarschijnlijk	weg.
		Jan goes	improbably	away

A special case worth mentioning in passing is soms, which is normally used as a frequency adverbial but also occurs as an epistemic modal in questions.

174

Bent	u	soms	ziek?
are	you	perhaps	ill
'Are you ill, perhaps?'

Subject-oriented adverbials are clearly adjectival, but are nevertheless severely restricted in form: they are normally followed by the modifying element genoeg'enough', formed by the unproductive deadjectival suffix -elijk, or involve other less productive formations like domweg'stupidly' and botweg'bluntly/rudely'; see Diepeveen (2012) for relevant discussion of these deadjectival forms (as well as some of the other complex adverbial forms mentioned later in this section).

175

a.	Jan ging	dom (*genoeg)	niet	naar het feest.
	Jan went	stupid enough	not	to the party
	'Jan stupidly didnʼt go to the party.'

b.	Jan ging	wijselijk/??wijs	niet	naar het feest.
	Jan went	wisely/wise	not	to the party
	'Jan wisely didnʼt go to the party.'

Subjective adverbials are probably also adjectival in nature, as is clear from the fact that gelukkig'fortunately' and vanzelfsprekend'obviously/self-evidently' are run-of-the-mill adjectives. This stance is further supported by the fact that these adverbials are sometimes modified by the element genoeg or formed by means of the deadjectival suffixes -erwijs and -lijk: cf. jammer genoeg'regrettably', begrijpelijkerwijs'understandably', and hopelijk'hopefully'. It is, however, difficult to demonstrate this for the form helaas'unfortunately'. Note that these adverbials are speaker-oriented in that they provided the speakers evaluation, and it is therefore understandable that these adverbials cannot be questioned.
Point-of-view adverbials are prototypically PPs headed by volgens'according to'; other cases are the PP naar mijn mening'in my opinion' and the formulaic case-marked form mijns inziens'in my view'. We can also be brief about the spatio-temporal clause adverbials as they exhibit the same freedom in form as their counterparts functioning as VP adverbials; we can therefore refer the reader to the discussion in Section 8.3.2, sub III. more or less the same holds for the contingency adverbials; we only have to add to the discussion in Section 8.3.2, sub IV, that conditional adverbials are typically expressed by a clause introduced by a subordinator such as indien'in the event of', mits'provided that', or tenzij'unless'. Note in passing that conditional clauses introduced by mits/tenzij can only be used in the right periphery of the clause. Occasionally, we also find (deictic) conditional PPs: cf. Onder deze voorwaarde mag hij komen'He may come on this condition'.

176

a.	Indien	hij wil komen,	moet	hij	me	opbellen.
	if	he wants come	must	he	me	prt.-call
	'If he wants to come, he should call me.'

b.	Hij	mag	komen	mits	hij	het	me	tijdig	zegt.
	he	may	come	provided	he	it	me	in.time	tells
	'He can come provided he tells me in time.'

The prototypical case of a conditional clause is probably a clause introduced by als'if'. It should be noted, however, that there is reason to believe that such conditional clauses are at least sometimes in extra-sentential position and should therefore not be analyzed as adverbials. This is quite clear from (177a), in which the first position of the main clause is filled by the resumptive proform dan'then'. Example (177b) further shows that such conditional clauses are special in that they alternate with V1-clauses; we will not digress on this point here but refer the reader to Section 10.3.2 for an extensive discussion of examples such as (177) as well as various related constructions.

177

a.	Als	het	morgen	regent,	dan	ga	ik	naar de bioscoop.
	if	it	tomorrow	rains	then	go	I	to the cinema
	'If it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'

b.	Regent	het	morgen,	dan	ga	ik	naar de bioscoop.
	rains	it	tomorrow	then	go	I	to the cinema
	'If it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'

Section 8.2.2, sub XI, has already shown that domain adverbials are normally adjectival, although it is also quite common to use phrases headed by a past/passive participle. This is illustrated again in (178).

178

a.	Theoretisch	(gezien)	is	dat	inderdaad	te verwachten.
	theoretically	seen	is	that	indeed	to expect
	'Theoretically (seen), that is indeed to be expected.'

b.	Juridisch	(gesproken)	heeft	hij	gelijk.
	legally	spoken	has	he	correct
	'Legally (speaking), heʼs right.'

Speech-act related adverbials such as eerlijk gezegd'honestly' are generally expressed by a phrase consisting of a participle verb modified by a manner adverb; omission of the past/passive participle will give rise to an unacceptable result.

179

Eerlijk	(*gezegd)	begrijp	ik	dat	niet.
honestly	said	understand	I	that	not
'Honestly speaking, I donʼt understand it.'

Finally, conjunctive adverbials like echter'however' and derhalve'therefore' again seem to make up a more or less closed set of elements; see Section 8.2.2, sub XII, for a representative sample of such adverbials.
This subsection has provided a brief review of the restrictions on the form of clause adverbials; we have shown that with the exception of the spatio-temporal and contingency adverbials, clause adverbials exhibit less variation in form than VP adverbials. Furthermore, clause adverbials seem to be subject to various idiosyncratic restrictions and tend to be part of lexically closed classes, which has motivated earlier claims in the literature that a separate category of adverbs should be recognized; see Section 8.3.1 for discussion.

References:

Diepeveen, Ariane2012Modifying words. Dutch adverbial morphology in contrast.FU BerlinThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AdverbialAspectualClauseConditional ClauseFocus ParticleLocational AdverbialModal AdverbialParticlePolarity AdverbialSubject-oriented AdverbialSubjective AdverbialTemporal Adverbialm

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