- Dutch1
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Word stress
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
- Morphology
- Word formation
- Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
- Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
- Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
- Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
- Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
- Word formation
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Phonology
-
- General
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
- Morphology
- Inflection
- Word formation
- Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
- Compositions
- Derivation
- Syntax
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
- Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
- Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
- Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
- Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
- Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
-
- General
- Morphology
- Morphology
- 1 Word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 1.1.1 Compounds and their heads
- 1.1.2 Special types of compounds
- 1.1.2.1 Affixoids
- 1.1.2.2 Coordinative compounds
- 1.1.2.3 Synthetic compounds and complex pseudo-participles
- 1.1.2.4 Reduplicative compounds
- 1.1.2.5 Phrase-based compounds
- 1.1.2.6 Elative compounds
- 1.1.2.7 Exocentric compounds
- 1.1.2.8 Linking elements
- 1.1.2.9 Separable Complex Verbs and Particle Verbs
- 1.1.2.10 Noun Incorporation Verbs
- 1.1.2.11 Gapping
- 1.2 Derivation
- 1.3 Minor patterns of word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 2 Inflection
- 1 Word formation
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
- 0 Introduction to the AP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of APs
- 2 Complementation of APs
- 3 Modification and degree quantification of APs
- 4 Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative
- 5 Attribution of APs
- 6 Predication of APs
- 7 The partitive adjective construction
- 8 Adverbial use of APs
- 9 Participles and infinitives as APs
- Nouns and Noun Phrases (NPs)
- 0 Introduction to the NP
- 1 Characteristics and Classification of NPs
- 2 Complementation of NPs
- 3 Modification of NPs
- 3.1 Modification of NP by Determiners and APs
- 3.2 Modification of NP by PP
- 3.3 Modification of NP by adverbial clauses
- 3.4 Modification of NP by possessors
- 3.5 Modification of NP by relative clauses
- 3.6 Modification of NP in a cleft construction
- 3.7 Free relative clauses and selected interrogative clauses
- 4 Partitive noun constructions and constructions related to them
- 4.1 The referential partitive construction
- 4.2 The partitive construction of abstract quantity
- 4.3 The numerical partitive construction
- 4.4 The partitive interrogative construction
- 4.5 Adjectival, nominal and nominalised partitive quantifiers
- 4.6 Kind partitives
- 4.7 Partitive predication with a preposition
- 4.8 Bare nominal attribution
- 5 Articles and names
- 6 Pronouns
- 7 Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- 8 Interrogative pronouns
- 9 R-pronouns and the indefinite expletive
- 10 Syntactic functions of Noun Phrases
- Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases (PPs)
- 0 Introduction to the PP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of PPs
- 2 Complementation of PPs
- 3 Modification of PPs
- 4 Bare (intransitive) adpositions
- 5 Predication of PPs
- 6 Form and distribution of adpositions with respect to staticity and construction type
- 7 Adpositional complements and adverbials
- Verbs and Verb Phrases (VPs)
- 0 Introduction to the VP in Saterland Frisian
- 1 Characteristics and classification of verbs
- 2 Unergative and unaccusative subjects and the auxiliary of the perfect
- 3 Evidentiality in relation to perception and epistemicity
- 4 Types of to-infinitival constituents
- 5 Predication
- 5.1 The auxiliary of being and its selection restrictions
- 5.2 The auxiliary of going and its selection restrictions
- 5.3 The auxiliary of continuation and its selection restrictions
- 5.4 The auxiliary of coming and its selection restrictions
- 5.5 Modal auxiliaries and their selection restrictions
- 5.6 Auxiliaries of body posture and aspect and their selection restrictions
- 5.7 Transitive verbs of predication
- 5.8 The auxiliary of doing used as a semantically empty finite auxiliary
- 5.9 Supplementive predication
- 6 The verbal paradigm, irregularity and suppletion
- 7 Verb Second and the word order in main and embedded clauses
- 8 Various aspects of clause structure
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
-
- General
- Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
- Segment inventory
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
- Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
- Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
- Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
- Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
- Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
- Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
This section discusses various types of clause adverbials, that is, adverbials that do not restrict the denotation of the verbal predicate but provide other, additional, information. The meaning contributions of these adverbials are quite varied: their main similarity is that they are located external to the lexical domain of the clause. The following subsections will discuss the subclasses in (57).
a. | Polarity: negation (niet'not' ); affirmation (wel) |
b. | Focus particles: alleen'only', ook'too', zelfs'even', etc. |
c. | Aspectual: habitual; iterative; frequentative; continuative; etc. |
d. | Clause-degree (bijna'nearly'; amper'hardly', etc.) |
e. | Propositional modal (waarschijnlijk'probably'; blijkbaar'apparently') |
f. | Subject-oriented (stom genoeg'stupidly', wijselijk'wisely', etc.) |
g. | Subjective: factive (helaas'unfortunately' ); non-factive |
h. | Point-of-view (volgens Els'according to Els' ) |
i. | Spatio-temporal: place; time |
j. | Contingency: cause; reason; condition; concession |
k. | Domain (juridisch gezien'legally', moreel gezien'morally', etc.) |
l. | Conjunctive (echter'however', derhalve'therefore', etc.) |
m. | Speech-act related (eerlijk gezegd'honestly', etc.) |
We will investigate to what extent these adverbial types satisfy the scope test proposed in Section 8.1, sub III, repeated here as (58a): the test is illustrated in (58b) by means of the prototypical clause adverbial waarschijnlijk'probably'.
a. | [clause... adverbial [VP ...]] ⇒ Het is adverbial zo [clause dat ... [VP ...]] |
b. | Jan lacht | waarschijnlijk. ⇒ | Het | is waarschijnlijk | zo | dat | Jan lacht. | |
Jan laughs | probably | it | is probably | the.case | that | Jan laughs |
- I. Polarity adverbials
- II. Focus particles
- III. Aspectual adverbials
- IV. Clause-degree adverbials
- V. Propositional modal adverbials
- VI. Subject-oriented adverbials
- VII. Subjective adverbials
- VIII. Point-of-view adverbials
- IX. Spatio-temporal adverbials
- X. Contingency adverbials
- XI. Domain adverbials
- XII. Conjunctive adverbials
- XIII. Speech-act related adverbials
This section discusses the negative adverb niet'not' and its affirmative counterpart wel in (59). Note in passing that the adverb niet can also be used as constituent negation (cf. Section 13.3.2, sub IC), and that both niet and wel can also be used as intensifiers of adjectives; Jan is niet onaardig/Jan is wel aardig'Jan is quite nice' (cf. Section A3.3). These uses will not be discussed here.
a. | Jan heeft | Marie niet | ontmoet. | sentence negation | |
Jan has | Marie not | met | |||
'Jan hasnʼt met Marie.' |
b. | Jan heeft | Marie wel | ontmoet. | affirmation | |
Jan has | Marie aff | met | |||
'Jan did meet Marie.' |
Polarity adverbials are clearly not VP adverbials, as is shown by the fact that the sentences in (59) do not satisfy the two VP-adverbial tests. The primeless examples in (60) first show that the pronoun doet dat + adverb paraphrase does not give rise to a felicitous result: the left-right arrow with a slash (⇎) indicates that it leads to a contradiction in the case of niet'not' and the left-right arrow without a slash (⇔) indicates that it leads to a tautology in the case of wel. The primed examples show that the entailment test also fails: the entailment holds in neither direction in the case of niet and in both directions in the case of wel (at least in as far as the meaning expressed by traditional predicate calculus is concerned).
a. | $ | Jan | heeft | Marie | ontmoet | en | hij | deed | dat | niet. | sentence negation |
Jan | has | Marie | met | and | he | did | that | not |
a'. | Jan heeft Marie niet ontmoet. ⇎ Jan heeft Marie ontmoet. |
b. | $ | Jan | heeft | Marie ontmoet | en | hij | deed | dat | wel. | affirmation |
Jan | has | Marie met | and | he | did | that | aff |
b'. | Jan heeft Marie wel ontmoet. ⇔ Jan heeft Marie ontmoet. |
Polarity adverbials take scope over the proposition expressed by the lexical domain of the clause. This is the standard assumption for negation in predicate calculus, which treats negation as an operator taking scope over a well-formed expression Ф: ¬Ф. It is also clear from the fact that both negative and affirmative clauses pass the scope test in (58a): the examples in (59) can easily be paraphrased by the examples in (61).
a. | Het | is niet | zo | dat | Jan Marie heeft | ontmoet. | sentence negation | |
it | is not | the.case | that | Jan Marie has | met | |||
'It is not the case that Jan has met Marie.' |
b. | Het | is wel | zo | dat | Jan Marie heeft | ontmoet. | affirmation | |
it | is aff | the.case | that | Jan Marie has | met | |||
'It is the case that Jan has met Marie.' |
The polarity adverbials are located very low in the functional domain of the clause: they must be preceded by all the clause adverbials that will be discussed in the following subsections. This shows immediately that these other adverbials are also part of the functional domain of the clause and thus cannot function as VP adverbials, cf. Section 8.1, sub II.
It should also be pointed out that the negative adverbial niet is probably not in an adjoined position, but located in the specifier of a functional projection (NegP): the reason for assuming this is that this position is not only accessible to niet but arguably also functions as a landing site for negative phrases. This is especially clear if the negative phrase is part of a PP-complement of a complementive adjective, as in (62): while there is good reason for assuming that the PP is base-generated in a position following the adjective, it must occur in a position preceding the adjective if the nominal part of the PP is a negative phrase such as niemand'nobody'. This would follow if we assume that a negative phrase must be moved into the specifier of NegP, as indicated in (62c), in order for negation to be assigned scope over the complete proposition. We will not digress on this here but refer the reader to Section 13.3.1 for detailed discussion.
a. | dat | Jan | erg dol | op Peter/*niemand | is. | |
that | Jan | very fond | of Peter/nobody | is | ||
'that Jan is very fond of Peter.' |
b. | dat | Jan op niemand | erg dol | is. | |
that | Jan of nobody | very fond | is | ||
'that Jan isnʼt very fond of anybody.' |
c. | dat | Jan [NegP [PP | op niemand]i Neg [vP ... [AP | erg dol ti] | is]]. | |
that | Jan | of nobody | very fond | is |
We want to conclude this section by noting that the semantic contributions of the two polarity adverbials differ considerably: from a logical point of view, the negative adverbial niet is needed to express negation (unless it is expressed in some other way) while the affirmative marker is superfluous. This is demonstrated in (63): omission of niet results in an affirmative expression whereas omission of wel results in a logically equivalent expression.
a. | Jan heeft | Marie | (#niet) | ontmoet. | sentence negation | |
Jan has | Marie | not | met | |||
'Jan hasnʼt met Marie.' |
b. | Jan heeft | Marie | (wel) | ontmoet. | affirmation | |
Jan has | Marie | aff | met | |||
'Jan did meet Marie.' |
It is therefore not surprising that the use of the affirmative marker wel is mainly pragmatically motivated: it is used to indicate contrast, to deny an assertion or a presupposition held by the hearer, to make a concession, etc. Illustrations are given in (64). The affirmative marker wel thus plays a prominent role in signaling that the background (the shared information of the discourse participants) needs to be updated, and its heavy informational load may be the reason why affirmative wel is always accented (contrary to the modifier wel discussed in Section A3.3, which never carries accent).
a. | Ik | kom | vandaag | niet, | maar | morgen | wel. | contrast | |
I | come | today | not | but | tomorrow | aff | |||
'I wonʼt come today but tomorrow I will.' |
b. | A. | Je | komt | morgen | toch | niet? B. | Ik | kom | wel. | denial | |
A. | you | come | tomorrow | prt | not | I | come | aff | |||
'You wonʼt come tomorrow, will you? I will come.' |
c. | Ik | kom | morgen, | maar | wel | wat | later. | concession | |
I | come | tomorrow | but | aff | somewhat | later | |||
'I will come tomorrow, but it will be a bit later.' |
Sentence negation can be preceded by focus particles such as alleen'just/only', ook'also', and zelfs'even'. A number of typical examples are given in the primeless examples in (65). That these particles function as clause adverbials is clear from the fact that they satisfy the scope test in (58a), as is shown in the primed examples.
a. | Jan is een goed geleerde; | hij | is alleen | niet | geschikt | als decaan. | |
Jan is a good scholar | he | is only | not | suitable | as dean | ||
'Jan is a good scholar; he is just not suitable as Dean.' |
a'. | Het | is alleen | zo | dat | hij | niet | geschikt | is als decaan. | |
it | is only | the.case | that | he | not | suitable | is as dean |
b. | Marie komt | morgen | niet | en | Jan komt | ook | niet. | |
Marie comes | tomorrow | not | and | Jan comes | also | not | ||
'Marie wonʼt come tomorrow and Jan won't come either.' |
b'. | Het | is ook | zo | dat | Jan niet | komt. | |
it | is also | the.case | that | Jan not | comes |
c. | Jan heeft | het | druk: | hij | gaat | zelfs | niet | op vakantie. | |
Jan has | it | busy | he | goes | even | not | on vacation | ||
'Jan is busy; he will not even take a vacation.' |
c'. | Het | is zelfs | zo | dat | hij | niet | op vakantie | gaat. | |
it | is even | the.case | that | he | not | on vacation | goes |
As in the case of negation, there are reasons for assuming that focus particles are not in an adjoined position but in the specifier position of a functional projection (FocusP). In order to show this, it should first be noted that focus particles are not only used as independent adverbials but can also be used as narrow focus markers, in which case they form a constituent with the focused phrase. This can be seen in the examples in (66); the fact that the particle and the focused phrase co-occur in clause-initial position shows that they must be a constituent (cf. constituency test).
a. | [Alleen als decaan] | is Jan niet | geschikt. | |
only as dean | is Jan not | suitable |
b. | [Ook Jan] | komt | morgen | niet. | |
also Jan | comes | tomorrow | not |
c. | [Zelfs op vakantie] | gaat | Jan | niet. | |
even on vacation | goes | Jan | not |
The reason for assuming that the focus particles are in the specifier of FocusP is that this position is not accessible to focus particles only; it also functions as a landing site for narrowly focused phrases. This is especially clear if the focused phrase is a PP-complement of a complementive adjective, as in (67). It is uncontroversial that the PP is base-generated in a position following the adjective; however, it must precede the adjective if it is narrowly focused. This would follow if we assume that narrowly focused phrases must be moved into the specifier of FocusP, as indicated in (67c), in order to be assigned scope over the backgrounded part of the clause. We do not digress on this here but refer the reader to Section 13.3.2, sub IC, which also discusses a number of other focus particles.
a. | dat | Jan | erg dol | (*zelfs) | op Peter | is. | |
that | Jan | very fond | even | of Peter | is | ||
'that Jan is very fond of Peter.' |
b. | dat | Jan | zelfs op Peter | erg dol | is. | |
that | Jan | even of Peter | very fond | is | ||
'that Jan is even very fond of Peter.' |
c. | dat | Jan [FocusP [PP | zelfs op Peter]i Focus ... [vP ... [AP | erg dol ti] | is]]. | |
that | Jan | even of Peter | very fond | is |
Sentence negation can also be preceded by aspectual adverbs such as habitual gewoonlijk'usually', continuative nog (steeds)'still', terminative niet meer'no longer', iterative weer'again', and frequentative vaak'often'. Other adverbials that may belong to this group are al'already' and spoedig'soon' but these do not easily co-occur with the sentence adverbial niet. Some instances are provided in the primeless examples in (68); the primed examples show that these adverbials satisfy the scope test in (58a).
a. | dat | Jan gewoonlijk | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
that | Jan usually | not | present | is | ||
'that Jan usually isnʼt present.' |
a'. | Het | is gewoonlijk | zo | dat | Jan | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
it | is usually | the.case | that | Jan | not | present | is |
b. | dat | Jan nog steeds | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
that | Jan still | not | present | is | ||
'that Jan still isnʼt present.' |
b'. | Het | is nog steeds | zo | dat | Jan | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
it | is still | the.case | that | Jan | not | present | is |
c. | dat | Jan vaak | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
that | Jan often | not | present | is | ||
'that Jan often isnʼt present.' |
c'. | Het | is vaak | zo | dat | Jan | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
it | is often | the.case | that | Jan | not | present | is |
It should be noted that the frequency adverb vaak'often' can also be used as a VP adverbial; cf. Section 8.2.1, sub IIIA. The examples in (69) illustrate this by showing that it may either precede or follow the negative adverb niet'not'. The two examples differ in the relative scope of the adverbials vaak and niet, which can be brought out by the paraphrases in the primed examples.
a. | dat | Jan niet | vaak | aanwezig | is. | VP adverbial: not > often | |
that | Jan not | often | present | is | |||
'that Jan isnʼt present often.' |
a'. | Het | is niet | zo | dat | Jan | vaak | aanwezig | is. | |
it | is not | the.case | that | Jan | often | present | is | ||
'It is not the case that Jan is present often.' |
b. | dat | Jan vaak | niet | aanwezig | is. | clause adverbial: often > not | |
that | Jan often | not | present | is | |||
'that Jan often isnʼt present.' |
b'. | Het | is | vaak | zo | dat | Jan | niet | aanwezig | is. | |
it | is | often | the.case | that | Jan | not | present | is | ||
'It is often the case that Jan isnʼt present.' |
The scope difference becomes even clearer with frequency adverbials such as drie keer'three times'. Suppose we are dealing with a sequence of four lectures; then example (70a) expresses that Jan attended less than three meetings while (70b) expresses that Jan attended only one lecture. Example (70c) shows that the two uses can co-occur in a single sentence: in case we are dealing with six sequences of four lectures, (70c) expresses that for two of these sequences Jan attended less than three lectures.
a. | dat | Jan niet | drie keer | aanwezig | is geweest. | VP adverbial | |
that | Jan not | three times | present | is been | |||
'that Jan hasnʼt been present three times.' |
b. | dat | Jan drie keer | niet | aanwezig | is geweest. | clause adverbial | |
that | Jan three times | not | present | is been | |||
'that three times Jan hasn't been present.' |
c. | dat | Jan twee keer | niet | drie keer | aanwezig | is geweest. | co-occurrence | |
that | Jan two times | not | three times | present | is been | |||
'that twice (in two sequences) Jan hasn't been present three times.' |
A more complicated class of adverbs that may be considered aspectual consists of the adverbs helemaal'completely' and gedeeltelijk'partly' in (71a), which indicate whether the eventuality was or was not completely finished. That these adverbs are not VP adverbials is clear from the fact that they do not restrict the denotation of the verbal predicate, as appears from the fact that the entailment test in (71b) fails in the case of gedeeltelijk. However, it is not immediately evident either that these adverbs function as clause adverbials, as is clear from the fact that the scope test in (71c) produces questionable results.
a. | Jan heeft | de appel | helemaal/gedeeltelijk | opgegeten. | |
Jan has | the apple | completely/partly | prt.-eaten | ||
'Jan has completely/partly eaten the apple.' |
b. | Jan heeft de appel gedeeltelijk opgegeten. ↛ Jan heeft de appel opgegeten. |
c. | ? | Het | is helemaal/gedeeltelijk | zo | dat | Jan de appel | heeft | opgegeten. |
it | is completely/partly | the.case | that | Jan the apple | has | eaten |
There are nevertheless good reasons for supposing that we are dealing with clause adverbials, given that the adverb gedeeltelijk'partly' can precede sentence negation; cf. (72). It should be noted that the order niet gedeeltelijk is also possible if the adverb is accented; this case can be put aside because we are probably dealing with constituent negation in that case. Note also that examples similar to (72) are difficult to construct for helemaal, due to the fact that this adverb can be construed as a modifier of negation in helemaal niet'absolutely not'.
Jan heeft | de film | gedeeltelijk | niet | gezien. | ||
Jan has | the movie | partly | not | prt.-seen | ||
'Jan missed a part of the movie.' |
Adverbs like bijna'almost', echt'really', and haast'nearly' are referred to as clause-degree adverbs by Ernst (2002). These are clear cases of clause adverbials: they satisfy the scope test.
a. | Jan ging | bijna | kwaad | weg. | |
Jan went | almost | angry | away | ||
'Jan almost went away angry.' |
a'. | Het | was bijna | zo | dat | Jan kwaad | weg | ging. | |
it | was nearly | the.case | that | Jan angry | away | went |
b. | Jan werd | haast | overreden. | |
Jan was | nearly | run.over | ||
'Jan was nearly run over (by a car).' |
b'. | Het | was haast | zo | dat | Jan werd | overreden. | |
it | was nearly | the.case | that | Jan was | run-over |
It may be the case that (inherently negative) adverbs like amper'hardly' and nauwelijks'scarcely' in (74a) belong to the same class, although (74b) shows that they do not pass the scope paraphrase in a convincing way. We leave the problem with these adverbials for future research.
a. | Jan was amper/nauwelijks | thuis | toen Marie belde. | |
Jan was hardly/scarcely | home | when Marie called | ||
'Jan was hardly/scarcely home when Marie called.' |
b. | $ | Het | was | amper/nauwelijks | zo | dat | Jan thuis | was toen | Marie belde. |
it | was | hardly/scarcely | the.case | that | Jan home | was when | Marie called |
Propositional modality provides an evaluation of the factual status of propositions expressed by the lexical projection of the main verb. By uttering a sentence such as Marie is thuis'Marie is at home' the speaker normally commits himself to the truth of the proposition expressed by the lexical projection of the main verb. The speaker may, however, also comment on the factual status of the proposition. Palmer (2001) claims that these judgments may be of two different kinds: there are epistemic and evidential judgments. Epistemic judgments are concerned with the likelihood of the actual occurrence of a specific eventuality. Section 5.2.3.2, sub IIIA1, has shown that epistemic judgments can be expressed by means of modal verbs such as kunnen'may', moeten'must' and zullen'will'.
a. | Marie kan | nu | thuis | zijn. | speculative | |
Marie may | now | at.home | be |
b. | Marie moet | nu | thuis | zijn. | deductive | |
Marie must | now | at.home | be |
c. | Marie zal | nu | thuis | zijn. | assumptive | |
Marie will | now | at.home | be |
By uttering sentences such as (75a-c), the speaker provides three different epistemic judgments about (his commitment to the truth of) the proposition be at home(Marie). The modal verb kunnen'may' presents the proposition as a possible conclusion: the speaker is uncertain whether the proposition is true, but on the basis of the information available to him he is not able to exclude it. The modal verb moeten'must' presents the proposition as the only possible conclusion: on the basis of the information available the speaker infers that the proposition is true. The modal verb zullen'will' presents the proposition as a reasonable inference on the basis of the available evidence. A wider range of epistemic judgments can be expressed by means of the adverbial phrases in (76a).
a. | Epistemic adverbials: gegarandeerd'certainly', hoogstwaarschijnlijk'most likely', misschien'maybe', mogelijk'possibly', naar alle waarschijnlijkheid'in all probability', natuurlijk'naturally/of course', noodzakelijk(erwijs)'necessarily', ongetwijfeld'undoubtedly', vermoedelijk'supposedly', waarschijnlijk'probably', zeker'certainly', etc.Epistemic adverbials: gegarandeerd'certainly', hoogstwaarschijnlijk'most likely', misschien'maybe', mogelijk'possibly', naar alle waarschijnlijkheid'in all probability', natuurlijk'naturally/of course', noodzakelijk(erwijs)'necessarily', ongetwijfeld'undoubtedly', vermoedelijk'supposedly', waarschijnlijk'probably', zeker'certainly', etc. |
b. | Marie is misschien/zeker/natuurlijk/... | thuis. | |
Marie is maybe/certainly/naturally | at.home |
Evidential judgments are concerned with the source of information that the judgment is based on: cf. Section 5.2.3.2, sub IIIA2. Perception verbs such as zien'to see', for instance, are used in AcI-constructions such as Ik zag Peter vertrekken'I saw Peter leave' to express that the evidential judgment is based on direct sensory evidence: the speaker was an eye-witness of the eventuality. And modal verbs such as blijken'to turn out', lijken'to appear', and schijnen'to seem' indicate whether there is direct evidence in favor of the truth of the proposition, whether there are identifiable individuals that can be held responsible for the truth of the proposition, or whether we are dealing with hearsay/rumors; see Vliegen (2011).
a. | Uit deze feiten | blijkt | [dat | Jan de dader | is]. | direct evidence | |
from these facts | turns.out | that | Jan the perpetrator | is | |||
'These facts clearly show that Jan is the perpetrator.' |
b. | Het | lijkt | mij/haar | [dat | Jan de dader | is]. | identifiable source | |
it | appears | me/her | that | Jan the perpetrator | is | |||
'It appears to me/her that Jan is the perpetrator.' |
c. | Het | schijnt | [dat | Jan de dader | is]. | hearsay/rumors | |
it | seems | that | Jan the perpetrator | is | |||
'It seems that Jan is the perpetrator.' |
Again a wider range of evidential judgments can be expressed by means of the adverbial phrases in (78a):
a. | Evidential adverbials: blijkbaar'evidently', duidelijk'clearly', evident'evidently', kennelijk'obviously', klaarblijkelijk'apparently', ogenschijnlijk'apparently', onmiskenbaar'unmistakably', schijnbaar'seemingly', vermoedelijk'probably', zichtbaar'visibly/evidently', zo te zien'apparently/by the looks of it', etc.Evidential adverbials: blijkbaar'evidently', duidelijk'clearly', evident'evidently', kennelijk'obviously', klaarblijkelijk'apparently', ogenschijnlijk'apparently', onmiskenbaar'unmistakably', schijnbaar'seemingly', vermoedelijk'probably', zichtbaar'visibly/evidently', zo te zien'apparently/by the looks of it', etc. |
b. | Jan is blijkbaar/duidelijk/zo te zien/... | de dader. | |
Jan is evidently/clearly/by the looks of it/ ... | the perpetrator |
The propositional modal adverbials in (76a) and (78a) satisfy the scope-adverbial test in (58a), as is illustrated in (79) for the examples in (76b) and (78b). That epistemic modal adverbials allow the scope paraphrase is also in conformity with the fact that epistemic judgments are expressed in formal logic by means of the operators □ and ◊, which take scope over a well-formed expression Ф: □Ф and ◊Ф.
a. | Het | is misschien/zeker/natuurlijk | zo | dat | Marie thuis | is. | |
it | is maybe/certainly/naturally | the.case | that | Marie at.home | is | ||
'It is maybe/certainly/naturally the case that Marie is at home.' |
b. | Het | is blijkbaar/duidelijk/zo te zien | zo | dat | Jan de dader | is. | |
it | is evidently/clearly/apparently | the.case | that | Jan the perpetrator | is | ||
'Evidently/Clearly/By the looks of it, it is the case that Jan is the perpetrator.' |
Subject-oriented adverbials like slim genoeg'cleverly' and wijselijk'wisely' in (80) provide the speaker’s subjective evaluation of the subject of the clause in relation to the predicate expressed by the lexical projection of the verb. Example (80a) expresses that the speaker considers Jan clever for not attending the performance and (80b) that he considers Marie wise for not contradicting Peter.
a. | Jan vertrok | slim genoeg | voor de voorstelling. | |
Jan left | clever enough | before the performance | ||
'Jan cleverly left before the performance.' |
b. | Marie sprak | Peter wijselijk | niet | tegen. | |
Marie said | Peter wisely | not | against | ||
'Marie wisely didnʼt contradict Peter.' |
Example (80b) shows that subject-oriented adverbials may precede negation. The fact that the reverse order gives rise to a marginal result also suggests that they function as clause adverbials. Even more support is that they do not restrict the denotation of the predicate, as (81) clearly shows that the examples in (80) cannot be paraphrased by means of a conjoined pronoun doet dat + adverb clause. Note in passing that the paraphrase Jan vertrok en hij deed dat slim genoeg voor de voorstelling is acceptable but involves restricted scope of the subject-oriented adverb over the time adverbial. The acceptability of this paraphrase is consequently not relevant here; see Section 8.1, sub III, for discussion.
a. | * | Jan vertrok | voor de voorstelling | en | hij | deed | dat | slim genoeg. |
Jan left | before the performance | and | he | did | that | clever enough |
b. | * | Marie sprak | Peter niet | tegen | en | zij | deed | dat | wijselijk. |
Marie said | Peter not | against | and | she | did | that | wisely |
The examples in (82) show that scope paraphrases are not possible either. However, this is understandable in the light of the fact that the matrix clauses in these paraphrases do not contain a suitable subject that the adverbial could be applied to: the paraphrases are uninterpretable as a result.
a. | $ | Het | is slim genoeg | zo | dat Jan voor de voorstelling vertrok. |
it | is clever enough | the.case | that Jan before the performance left |
b. | $ | Het | is wijselijk | zo | dat | Marie Peter niet | tegensprak. |
it | is wisely | the.case | that | Marie Peter not | contradicted |
For completeness’ sake, it should be noted that the examples in (80) can be paraphrased as in (83). These paraphrases suggest that subject-oriented adverbials have scope over the proposition expressed by the lexical domain of the clause. We will not push this idea any further but provisionally assume that the infelicity of the scope paraphrases in (82) is indeed due to the fact that they do not contain a suitable subject that the adverbial could be applied to.
a. | Het | is slim van Jan | dat | hij | voor de voorstelling | vertrok. | |
it | is clever of Jan | that | he | before the performance | left |
b. | Het | is wijs van Marie | dat | zij | Peter | niet | tegensprak. | |
it | is wise of Marie | that | she | Peter | not | contradicted |
Subjective adverbials specify a specific mental attitude towards the state-of-affairs referred to by the clause. These adverbials are difficult to distinguish from the epistemic adverbials because they also comment on the factual status of the proposition in that they express that the proposition is or is not necessarily/yet true.
a. | Factive: begrijpelijkerwijs'understandably', helaas'unfortunately', gelukkig'fortunately', jammer genoeg 'regrettably', (on)gelukkigerwijs'(un)fortunately', vanzelfsprekend'obviously/self-evidently'Factive: begrijpelijkerwijs'understandably', helaas'unfortunately', gelukkig'fortunately', jammer genoeg 'regrettably', (on)gelukkigerwijs'(un)fortunately', vanzelfsprekend'obviously/self-evidently' |
b. | Non-factive: hopelijk'hopefully' |
However, the main informational load of these adverbials involves a subjective evaluation of the eventuality. By uttering (85a) the speaker expresses that the proposition expressed by the clause is true while the two adverbials gelukkig and helaas'Jan having arrived on time'. By uttering (85b) the speaker expresses that he does not know whether the proposition expressed by the clause is true, but that he would consider it a good thing if it were true.
a. | Jan is gelukkig/helaas | op tijd | gearriveerd. | |
Jan is fortunately/unfortunately | on time | arrived | ||
'Jan has fortunately/unfortunately arrived on time.' |
b. | Jan is hopelijk | op tijd | gearriveerd. | |
Jan is hopefully | on time | arrived | ||
'Jan has hopefully arrived on time.' |
Example (85b) is clearly not epistemic as the speaker does not provide an evaluation of the factual status of the proposition. This is different with adverbial phrases such as naar ik hoop/vrees in (86): these adverbials are subjective in that they provide an evaluation of the proposition, but they are also epistemic in that the speaker expresses that the proposition is a reasonable conclusion on the basis of the evidence available to him. Since the epistemic verb vermoeden'to suspect' can also be used in this phrase, it is not evident that the adverbial phrase naar ik +V should be considered intrinsically subjective in nature.
Jan is naar ik hoop/vrees/vermoed | op tijd | gearriveerd. | ||
Jan is as I hope/fear/suspect | on time | arrived | ||
'Jan has arrived on time, I hope/fear/suspect.' |
That subjective adverbials are clause adverbials is clear from the fact that they satisfy the scope test; this is illustrated in (87a&b) for the examples in (85). For completeness’ sake we have added the paraphrase in (87c) for the examples in (86).
a. | Het | is gelukkig/helaas | zo | dat | Jan op tijd | gearriveerd | is. | |
it | is fortunately/unfortunately | the.case | that | Jan on time | arrived | is |
b. | Het | is hopelijk | zo | dat | Jan op tijd | gearriveerd | is. | |
it | is hopefully | the.case | that | Jan on time | arrived | is |
c. | Het | is naar ik hoop/vrees/vermoed | zo | dat | Jan op tijd | gearriveerd | is. | |
it | is as I hope/fear/suspect | the.case | that | Jan on time | arrived | is |
Other examples of subjective adverbials are toch, maar, dan, and nou. These particle-like items often occur in combination and may express various, often subtle, meaning modulations of the sentence; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997;457/1349).
In the linguistic literature on English since Jackendoff (1972) epistemic adverbials have been classified as speaker-oriented adverbs. The epistemic judgments of the proposition are normally taken to be the speaker’s, that is, by uttering the sentence in (88) the speaker takes responsibility for the truth of the assertion that Jan will visit us.
Jan komt | zeker | op visite. | ||
Jan comes | certainly | on visit | ||
'Jan will certainly visit us.' |
Although the speaker-oriented reading of epistemic adverbials is certainly their default interpretation, it is not semantically determined but it is the result of a pragmatic implicature. This is evident from the fact that the speaker’s responsibility for the truth of the assertion can be made explicit or be canceled by adding an adverbial phrase indicating the person responsible for the truth of the relevant information: some more or less fixed expressions for, respectively, emphasizing and canceling of the speaker’s responsibility are given in (89).
a. | Making explicit the speaker’s responsibility: bij/naar mijn/ons weten'as far as I/we know', mijns/ons inziens'in my/our view', naar mijn/onze mening'according to my/our opinion', naar mijn/onze overtuiging (lit.: “according to my/our conviction”), etc.Making explicit the speaker’s responsibility: bij/naar mijn/ons weten'as far as I/we know', mijns/ons inziens'in my/our view', naar mijn/onze mening'according to my/our opinion', naar mijn/onze overtuiging (lit.: “according to my/our conviction”), etc. |
b. | Canceling the speaker’s responsibility: blijkens dit rapport'according to this report', zijns inziens'in his view', naar verluidt'according to reports', etc.Canceling the speaker’s responsibility: blijkens dit rapport'according to this report', zijns inziens'in his view', naar verluidt'according to reports', etc. |
A common productive way of expressing a point-of-view is using a PP headed by the preposition volgens'according to': by using volgens mij'according to me' in (90a) the speaker makes his responsibility for the truth of assertion explicit, while he shifts this responsibility to Els by using volgens Els in (90b). Example (90c) shows that point-of-view adverbials pass the scope test.
a. | Jan komt | volgens mij | zeker | op visite. | speaker’s responsibility | |
Jan comes | according.to me | certainly | on visit | |||
'According to me, Jan will certainly come and visit us.' |
b. | Jan komt | volgens Els | zeker | op visite. | not speaker’s responsibility | |
Jan comes | according.to Els | certainly | on visit | |||
'According to Els, Jan will certainly come and visit us.' |
c. | Het | is volgens mij/Els | zo | dat | Jan zeker | op visite | komt. | |
it | is according me/Els | the.case | that | Jan certainly | on visit | comes | ||
'According to me/Els, it is the case that Jan will certainly come and visit us.' |
Subjective adverbials like gelukkig'fortunately' and helaas'unfortunately' are normally also considered to be speaker-oriented. This may seem justifiable in (91): the assessment of Jans dismissal as a fortunate event can be attributed to the speaker despite the presence of the point-of-view PP volgens Els'according to Els'. However, it also seems possible to attribute this assessment to Els, as is clear from the fact that the part in parentheses can be added without creating a contradiction. The speaker-oriented reading of evaluation adverbials may therefore still be a pragmatic effect; we leave this issue to future research.
Jan is volgens Els | gelukkig | ontslagen | (maar | ik | vind | het | naar). | ||
Jan is according.to Els | fortunately | fired | but | I | find | it | unpleasant | ||
'According to Els, itʼs a stroke of luck that Jan was fired (but I think its terrible).' |
Spatio-temporal adverbials are not only used as VP adverbials (cf. Section 8.2.1, sub III) but also as clause adverbials. That temporal adverbials may be ambiguous in this way is demonstrated in (92); the primeless examples show that these adverbials can either precede or follow a modal adverb such as waarschijnlijk'probably', and the primed examples show that they pass both the clause-adverbial and the VP-adverbial test.
a. | Jan komt | morgen | waarschijnlijk | op visite. | clause adverbial | |
Jan comes | tomorrow | probably | on visit | |||
'Jan will probably visit us tomorrow.' |
a'. | Het | is morgen | waarschijnlijk | zo | dat | Jan op visite | komt. | |
it | is tomorrow | probably | the.case | that | Jan on visit | comes |
b. | Jan komt | waarschijnlijk | om drie uur | op visite. | VP adverbial | |
Jan comes | probably | at 3 oʼclock | on visit | |||
'Jan will probably visit us at 3 oʼclock.' |
b'. | Jan komt | waarschijnlijk | op visite | en | hij doet | dat | om 3 uur. | |
Jan comes | probably | on visit | and | he does | that | at 3 oʼclock |
The examples in (93) show that the two time adverbials morgen andom drie uurin (92) may co-occur but that they obey certain ordering restrictions: the time interval referred to by the clause adverbial includes the time (interval) referred to by the VP adverbial. Since (93b) becomes fully acceptable if one of the two time adverbials is omitted, it is not likely that we are dealing with a syntactic restriction; Section 8.2.3 will argue that this restriction is semantic in nature, for which reason we have marked the deviating order in (93b) with a dollar sign.
a. | Jan komt | morgen | waarschijnlijk | om drie uur | op visite. | |
Jan comes | tomorrow | probably | at 3 oʼclock | on visit | ||
'Jan will probably visit us at 3 oʼclock tomorrow.' |
b. | $ | Jan komt | om drie uur | waarschijnlijk | morgen | op visite. |
Jan comes | at 3 oʼclock | probably | tomorrow | on visit |
For locational adverbials we can make more or less the same observations. The examples in (94) first illustrate that locational adverbials can either precede or follow a modal adverb and that they pass both the clause-adverbial test in (94a') and the VP-adverbial test in (94b').
a. | Jan geeft | in Amsterdam waarschijnlijk | een lezing. | clause adverbial | |
Jan gives | in Amsterdam probably | a talk | |||
'Jan will probably give a talk in Amsterdam.' |
a'. | Het | is in Amsterdam waarschijnlijk | zo | dat | Jan een lezing | geeft. | |
it | is in Amsterdam probably | the.case | that | Jan a talk | gives |
b. | Jan geeft | waarschijnlijk | een lezing | op de universiteit. | VP adverbial | |
Jan gives | probably | a talk | at the university | |||
'Jan will probably give a talk at the university.' |
b'. | Jan geeft | waarschijnlijk | een lezing | en | hij | doet | dat | op de universiteit. | |
Jan gives | probably | a talk | and | he | does | that | at the university |
The examples in (95) show that the two place adverbials in (94) may co-occur but that they obey certain ordering restrictions: the location referred to by the clause adverbial includes the location referred to by the VP adverbial. Since (95b) becomes fully acceptable if one of the two locational adverbials is omitted, it is again not likely that we are dealing with a syntactic restriction, for which reason we have marked the deviating order in (95b) with a dollar sign.
a. | Jan geeft | in Amsterdam waarschijnlijk | een lezing | op de universiteit. | |
Jan gives | in Amsterdam probably | a talk | at the university | ||
'In Amsterdam Jan will probably give a talk at the university.' |
b. | $ | Jan geeft | op de universiteit | waarschijnlijk | een lezing | in Amsterdam. |
Jan gives | at the university | probably | a talk | in Amsterdam |
Section 8.2.1, sub IV, has shown that adverbials indicating cause and reason can be used as VP adverbials. The fact illustrated in (96) that these adverbials may occur on either side of the modal waarschijnlijk'probably' suggests, however, that they can also be used as clause adverbials.
a. | De pot | is waarschijnlijk | door de vorst | gebarsten. | VP/cause | |
the pot | is probably | by the frost | cracked | |||
'The pot has probably cracked because of frost.' |
a'. | De pot | is door de vorst | waarschijnlijk | gebarsten. | clause/cause | |
the pot | is by the frost | probably | cracked | |||
'Because of frost the pot has probably cracked.' |
b. | De winkel | is waarschijnlijk | vanwege Pasen | gesloten. | VP/reason | |
the shop | is probably | because.of Easter | closed | |||
'The shop is probably closed because of Easter.' |
b'. | De winkel | is vanwege Pasen | waarschijnlijk | gesloten. | clause/reason | |
the shop | is because.of Easter | probably | closed | |||
'Because of Easter, the shop is probably closed.' |
That the adverbials indicating cause or reason are clause adverbials in the primed examples in (96) is given greater credence by the fact that these examples can easily be paraphrased by means of the scope paraphrases in (97).
a. | Het | is door de vorst | waarschijnlijk | zo | dat | de pot | gebarsten | is. | |
it | is by the frost | probably | the.case | that | the pot | cracked | is |
b. | Het | is vanwege Pasen | waarschijnlijk | zo | dat | de winkel | gesloten | is. | |
it | is because of Easter | probably | the.case | that | the shop | closed | is |
The semantic difference between the primeless and primed examples in (96) is genuinely a matter of relative scope: in the primeless examples the adverbials indicating cause and reason are in the scope of the modal adverb waarschijnlijk, while they are not in the scope of the adverb in the primed examples. This induces the following meaning differences: example (96a) expresses that the pot has probably cracked as a result of frost, while (96a') expresses that the frost is a good reason for assuming that the pot has cracked; example (96b) expresses that the shop is probably closed because of Easter, while (96b') expresses that Easter is a good reason for assuming that the shop is closed.
The concessive counterparts of the cause/reason adverbials may likewise be used as clause adverbials; the examples in (98) illustrate this by showing that these adverbials can easily occur in front of the modal waarschijnlijk'probably'.
a. | De pot | is ondanks de vorst | waarschijnlijk | heel | gebleven. | concession | |
the pot | is despite the frost | probably | intact | remained | |||
'The pot has probably remained undamaged despite the frost.' |
b. | Els is ondanks de regen | waarschijnlijk | vertrokken. | concession | |
Els is despite the rain | probably | left | |||
'Els has probably left despite the rain.' |
Conditionals differ from adverbials indicating cause and reason in that they always function as clause adverbials. Although conditionals are normally expressed by means of adverbial clauses, there are also a number of more or less idiomatic prepositional phrases headed by in'in' and bij'with'; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1209). Two typical cases are given in the primeless examples in (99). These conditional adverbials do not restrict the denotation of the verbal predicate, as is clear from the fact illustrated in the singly-primed examples that they do not satisfy the entailment test. Furthermore, the scope paraphrase in the doubly-primed examples seems perfectly adequate. This leads to the conclusion that conditional adverbials differ from adverbials indicating cause and reason in that they function as clause adverbials only.
a. | Wij | helpen | u | in noodgevallen | direct. | |
we | help | you | in emergencies | immediately | ||
'We will help you immediately in case of an emergency.' |
a'. | Wij helpen u in noodgevallen direct. ↛ Wij helpen u direct. |
a''. | Het | is in noodgevallen | zo | dat | wij | u | direct | helpen. | |
it | is in emergencies | the.case | that | we | you | promptly | help |
b. | Bij diefstal | bellen | wij | altijd de politie. | |
in.case.of theft | phone | we | always the police | ||
'In case of theft, we always call the police.' |
b'. | Bij diefstal bellen wij altijd de politie ↛Wij bellen altijd de politie. |
b''. | Het | is | bij diefstal | zo | dat wij de politie helpen. | |
it | is | in.case.of theft | the.case | that we the police phone |
That conditional phrases cannot be used as VP adverbials is due to the fact that they function as the antecedent P of a material implication P → Q and not as a restrictor of Q: we can only conclude that proposition Q is true if proposition P is true as well. For the same reason we can conclude that the conditional clause in (100a) must function as a clause adverbial. Although this cannot be proved on the basis of the entailment test, we should probably conclude the same for its concessive counterpart in (100b). That these conditional and concessive clauses can be used as clause adverbials is evident from the fact illustrated in the primed examples that they pass the scope test.
a. | Als het mooi weer is, | gaan | we | naar de dierentuin. | |
if it nice weather is | go | we | to the zoo | ||
'If the weather is nice we will go to the zoo.' |
a'. | Als | het | mooi weer | is, | is het | zo | dat | we | naar de dierentuin | gaan. | |
if | it | nice weather | is | is it | the.case | that | we | to the zoo | go |
b. | Hoewel | het | regent, | gaan | we | naar de dierentuin. | |
although | it | rains | go | we | to the zoo | ||
'Although it is raining we will go to the zoo.' |
b'. | Hoewel | het | regent, | is het | zo | dat | we | naar de dierentuin | gaan. | |
although | it | rains | is it | the.case | that | we | to the zoo | go |
Section 8.2.1, sub I, has shown that domain adverbials such as juridisch'legally' in (101a) can be used as VP adverbials. The fact illustrated in (101b) that such adverbials sometimes precede the modal adverb waarschijnlijk'probably' suggests that they can also be used as clause adverbials. The primed examples show that this is supported by the application of the entailment and scope tests.
a. | Jan vecht | zijn ontslag | (waarschijnlijk) | juridisch | aan. | VP adverbial | |
Jan fights | his dismissal | probably | legally | prt | |||
'Jan (probably) contests his dismissal on legal grounds.' |
a'. | Jan vecht | zijn ontslag | aan | en | hij | doet | dat | juridisch. | |
Jan fights | his dismissal | prt. | and | he | does | that | legally |
a''. | Jan vecht zijn ontslag juridisch aan. → Jan vecht zijn ontslag aan. |
b. | Jan heeft | juridisch | (waarschijnlijk) | gelijk. | clause adverbial | |
Jan has | legally | probably | right | |||
'Legally, Jan is (probably) right.' |
b'. | Het | is | juridisch | zo | dat | Jan gelijk | heeft. | |
it | is | legally | the.case | that | Jan right | has |
b''. | Jan heeft | juridisch gelijk. ↛ Jan heeft gelijk. |
The two uses of domain adverbials involve a different scope. VP adverbials restrict the denotation of the verbal projection; consequently, the particular choice of one of the domain adverbials in (102) will have far-reaching consequences for the goal, means and method used in performing the action of investigating adverbs.
Jan onderzoekt | adverbia | syntactisch/morfologisch/semantisch. | ||
Jan investigates | adverbs | syntactically/morphologically/semantically | ||
'Jan is investigating adverbs syntactically/morphologically/semantically.' |
The clause adverbials, on the other hand, have scope over the complete proposition expressed by lexical domain of the clause and may affect the truth value of the clause: as is indicated by the invalidity of the entailment in (101b''), the fact that Jan is right from a legal point of view does not entail that he is right, since he might be wrong from, e.g., a moral point of view. Related to this difference is the fact that the clause (but not the VP) adverbials prototypically surface in the form of a phrase headed by the participle gezien'seen', which embeds a domain adverbial functioning as a modifier of the participle; this is illustrated in (103).
a. | Jan vecht | zijn ontslag | waarschijnlijk | juridisch | (*gezien) | aan. | |
Jan fights | his dismissal | probably | legally | seen | prt | ||
'Jan contests his dismissal on legal grounds.' |
b. | Jan heeft | juridisch | (gezien) | waarschijnlijk | gelijk. | |
Jan has | legally | seen | probably | right | ||
'Legally speaking, Jan is probably right.' |
Conjunctives are adverbial phrases relating the clause they modify to some state-of-affairs mentioned earlier in the discourse. Although conjunctives differ syntactically from conjunctions in that they are clausal constituents, Haeseryn et al. (1997: section 8.5) note that they perform a similar semantic function in that both of them specify various relations between utterances. Conjunctives may simply function as linkers, indicate contrast and various contingency relations between utterances, as indicated in (104): we omitted from these lists various obsolete forms provided by Haeseryn et al., as well as particles such as ook'also', zelfs'even', which were discussed in Subsection II as focus particles.
a. | Linking: bovendien/daarenboven'moreover', eveneens'also', evenmin'neither', tevens'also' |
b. | Contrast: daarentegen'on the other hand', desalniettemin/desondanks'nevertheless', echter/evenwel'however', integendeel'on the contrary', niettemin'nevertheless', nochtans'still', toch (with accent) 'just the same'Contrast: daarentegen'on the other hand', desalniettemin/desondanks'nevertheless', echter/evenwel'however', integendeel'on the contrary', niettemin'nevertheless', nochtans'still', toch (with accent) 'just the same' |
c. | Contingency: althans'at least', bijgevolg'as a consequence', derhalve'therefore', dus'thus', dientengevolge'consequently', immers'after all', overigens, 'anyway', trouwens'for that matter', toch (without accent)Contingency: althans'at least', bijgevolg'as a consequence', derhalve'therefore', dus'thus', dientengevolge'consequently', immers'after all', overigens, 'anyway', trouwens'for that matter', toch (without accent) |
That the adverbials in (104) are clause adverbials is clear from the fact that they satisfy the scope test in (58b), as is illustrated in (105).
a. | Jan is een goed taalkundige. | Hij | is bovendien | een goed schrijver. | |
Jan is a good linguist. | he | is moreover | a good writer | ||
'Jan is a good linguist. Moreover, he is a good writer.' |
a'. | Het | is bovendien | zo | dat | hij | een goed schrijver | is. | |
it | is moreover | the.case | that | he | a good writer | is |
b. | Els heeft weinig tijd. | Ze | komt | desondanks | toch | naar je lezing. | |
Els has little time | she | comes | nevertheless | prt | to your talk | ||
'Els is very busy. Nevertheless, she will attend your talk.' |
b'. | Het | is desondanks | zo | dat | ze | naar | je lezing | komt. | |
it | is nevertheless | the.case | that | she | to | your talk | comes |
c. | Marie is er | niet. | Ze | is | immers | ziek. | |
Marie is there | not | she | is | after.all | ill | ||
'Marie is not present. Shes ill, as you know.' |
c'. | Het | is immers | zo | dat | ze | ziek | is. | |
it | is after.all | the.case | that | she | ill | is |
Note in passing that some of the conjunctives in (104) also easily occur clause-externally; daarentegen in (106a') is clearly used parenthetically, as is clear from the fact that it is preceded and followed by an intonation break; trouwens in (106b') is clearly clause-external, as it precedes the clause-initial position.
a. | Marie is erg open. | Jan is daarentegen | terughoudend. | adverbial | |
Marie is very candid. | Jan is on.the.other.hand | reserved |
a'. | Marie is open. | Jan, daarentegen, | is terughoudend. | clause-external | |
Marie is candid. | Jan on.the.other.hand | is reserved | |||
'Marie is candid. Jan, on the other hand, is reserved.' |
b. | Ik | wil | niet | dansen. | Ik | heb | trouwens | geen tijd. | adverbial | |
I | want | not | dancing | I | have | anyway | no time |
b'. | Ik | wil | niet | dansen. | Trouwens, | ik | heb | geen tijd. | clause-external | |
I | want | not | dancing | anyway, | I | have | no time | |||
'I do not want to dance. I don't have time, for that matter.' |
Speech-act adverbials such as eerlijk gezegd'honestly speaking' are normally phrasal and consist of a participle preceded by a manner adverb. They are always speaker-oriented and provide information about the performance of the speech act; by using the adverbial eerlijk gezegd in (107a), for instance, the speaker expresses that he gives his opinion straightforwardly despite the fact that he is aware of the fact that the addressee may feel uneasy about it. That speech-act adverbials are clause adverbials is clear from the fact that they easily pass the scope test, as is shown for eerlijk gezegd in (107b).
a. | Eerlijk gezegd | heb | ik | geen zin | in dansen. | |
honestly said | have | I | no liking | in dance | ||
'Honestly speaking, I donʼt feel like dancing.' |
b. | Het is eerlijk | gezegd | zo | dat | ik | geen zin | in dansen | heb. | |
it is honestly | said | the.case | that | I | no liking | in dancing | have |
Speech-act adverbials are placed high in the functional domain of clause; they are often the first adverbial in the clause. Furthermore, they also occur and, in fact, often feel more comfortable in clause-external position.
a. | Eerlijk gezegd: | ik | heb | geen zin | in dansen. | |
honestly said | I | have | no liking | in dance | ||
'Honestly speaking, I donʼt feel like dancing.' |
b. | Kort/ruwweg | gezegd/samengevat: | Jan is ontslagen. | |
briefly/roughly | said/summarized | Jan is fired | ||
'In short, Jan is fired.' |
c. | Vertrouwelijk gezegd: | hij | wordt | ontslagen. | |
confidentially said | he | is | fired | ||
'Confidentially, he will be fired.' |
- 2002The syntax of adjunctsCambridge (UK)/New YorkCambridge University Press
- 1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
- 1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
- 1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
- 1972Semantic interpretation in Generative GrammarCurrent studies in linguistics seriesMIT Press
- 2001Mood and ModalityCambridge University Press
- 2011Evidentiality. Dutch <i>seem </i>and <i>appear </i>verbs: <i>blijken</i>, <i>lijken</i>, <i>schijnen</i>Nouwen, Rick & Elenbaas, Marion (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2011Amsterdam/Philadelphia125-137