- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
-
Dutch
-
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
-
Frisian
- 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
-
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
-
Afrikaans
- 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
The equative degree of the adjective can be supplemented with an als-phrase that expresses the comparison set (the entities involved in the comparison). Similarly, the comparative degree of the adjective can be supplemented with a dan/als-phrase, and the superlative can be supplemented by means of a van-phrase. Some examples are given in (52). The use of parentheses expresses that the als/dan/van-phrase can be omitted if the comparison set can be determined on the basis of the linguistic or non-linguistic context.
a. | Marie is even intelligent | (als Jan). | |
Marie is as intelligent | as Jan |
b. | Marie is slimmer | (dan/als Jan). | |
Marie is brighter | than Jan |
c. | Marie is het slimst | (van de klas). | |
Marie is the brightest | of the group |
It is generally assumed that there are at least two types of
als/dan-phrases, which are known in the generative literature as comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion constructions. These phrases are characterized by the fact that
als/dan takes a clausal complement, which contains a certain type of interpretative gap.
We will see that in addition to these types of
als/dan-phrases, there is a third type in which
als/dan takes a non-clausal complement and which does not involve any interpretative gap.
We will start by briefly introducing these three types of
als/dan-phrase.
The comparative deletion construction, which is illustrated in (53), has the following properties: it contains an interpretative gap that (i) functions
as a constituent of the complement of
als/dan and (ii) corresponds to the constituent in the matrix clause that contains the comparative
morpheme. The comparative phrase in (53a), for example, has an interpretative gap
e that functions as the direct object of the verb
lezen'to read' and corresponds to the direct object
meer boeken'more books' of the matrix clause, which contains the comparative form
meer. We will see in Subsection I that the complement of
als/dan is always sentential in nature in this construction, which means that we are dealing
with reduced clauses in examples such as (53b), in which the finite verb
heeft is deleted under identity with the finite verb in the matrix clause.
a. | Jan heeft | meer boeken | dan | hij [e] | gelezen | heeft. | |
Jan has | more books | than | he | read | has |
b. | Jan heeft meer boeken dan Marie [e] | heeft |
The comparative subdeletion construction is illustrated in (54). It is generally assumed that phrases of this type contain an interpretative gap that in a sense corresponds to the comparative morpheme. One reason for this is that, just like the comparative form meer, the postulated empty element blocks the insertion of degree modifiers like veel'many'; cf. Jan heeft meer boeken dan Marie (*veel) CDs heeft and Jan heeft meer boeken dan (*veel) CDs.
a. | Jan heeft | [meer boeken] | dan | Marie [[e] | CDs] | heeft. | |
Jan has | more books | than | Marie | CDs | has |
b. | Jan heeft | [meer boeken] | dan [[e] | CDs]. | |
Jan has | more books | than | CDs |
The third type, in which als/dan takes a non-clausal complement and which does not involve any interpretative gap, is illustrated in (55).
a. | Jan heeft | meer boeken | gelezen | dan | alleen | Oorlog en vrede. | |
Jan has | more books | read | than | just | War and Peace | ||
'Jan has read books than just War and Peace.' |
This section will discuss the internal structure of the comparative als/dan/van-phrases more extensively, subsection I starts with a discussion of the comparative deletion construction, which is followed in Subsection II by a discussion of the comparative subdeletion construction, subsection III will discuss constructions of the type in (55). We will conclude the discussion in Subsections IV and V, with a number of comments on the categorial status of the elements als/dan and the placement of the comparative als/dan/van-phrases. We will not be able to do justice here to the ever growing body of literature on the internal structure of als/dan/van-phrases, but fortunately we can refer the reader to Corverʼs (2006) review of some of the major contributions to the discussion of this topic.
This subsection discusses the internal structure of comparative als/dan-phrases in comparative deletion constructions. The first subsection argues that van and als/dan differ in that the former is a regular preposition that takes a noun phrase as its complement, whereas the latter are special in that they take a clause as their complement. The second subsection shows that the clause can be reduced in the sense that any element can be omitted from it as long as it is identical to some element in the clause containing the equative/comparative phrase. However, the reduced clause contains one constituent that can never be spelled out overtly, namely the constituent that corresponds to the constituent in the matrix clause that contains the comparative morpheme. The third subsection briefly discusses the nature of this constituent.
Consider again the examples in (52), repeated here as (56). We will see later that the comparative van-phrase van de klas (56c) functions as a regular PP headed by van, which takes the noun phrase de klas as its complement. There are reasons, however, to assume that the als/dan-phrases in (56a&b) cannot be analyzed as regular PPs with noun phrase complements.
a. | Marie is even intelligent | (als Jan). | |
Marie is as intelligent | as Jan |
b. | Marie is slimmer | (dan/als Jan). | |
Marie is brighter | than Jan |
c. | Marie is het slimst | (van de klas). | |
Marie is the brightest | of the group |
If we assume that dan and als in (56a&b) are prepositions that take the noun phrase Jan as their complement, we would expect them to assign objective case to it. The examples in (57) show, however, that his expectation is not borne out and that the case of the noun phrase instead depends on the noun phrase to which it is compared; the noun phrase in the als/dan-phrase receives nominative case if it is compared to the nominative argument in the matrix clause, whereas it receives accusative case if it is compared to the accusative argument in the main clause.
a. | Zijnom | is even intelligent | als | hijnom. | |
she | is as intelligent | as | he |
a'. | Zijnom | is slimmer | dan/als | hijnom. | |
she | is brighter | than | he |
b. | Ik | vind | haaracc | even intelligent | als | hemacc. | |
I | consider | her | as intelligent | as | him |
b'. | Ik | vind | haaracc | slimmer | dan/als | hemacc. | |
I | consider | her | brighter | than | him |
The examples in (57) therefore show that Standard Dutch als and dan differ from their English counterparts as and than in that they normally do not assign objective case to the noun phrase following them. It should be noted, however, that there are certain varieties of Dutch that are like English in allowing object pronouns in the (a)-examples of (57), but these are normally stigmatized as substandard or abusive language use; cf. taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/355/, and the references given there. Note that substituting a subject pronoun for the object pronoun in the (b)-examples in (57) is never possible. This is illustrated by the examples in (58).
a. | % | Zijnom | is even intelligent | als | hemacc. |
she | is as intelligent | as | him |
a'. | % | Zijnom | is slimmer | dan/als | hemacc. |
she | is brighter | than | him |
b. | * | Ik | vind | haaracc | even intelligent | als | hijnom. |
I | consider | her | as intelligent | as | he |
b'. | * | Ik | vind | haaracc | slimmer | dan/als | hijnom. |
I | consider | her | brighter | than | he |
Given that nominative case is normally restricted to subjects of finite clauses, the fact that the pronouns in the (a)-examples of (57) have the nominative form strongly suggests that the complement of als and dan is clausal in nature. That the complement can be clausal in nature is also clear from the examples in (59), which feature a finite verb in the complement of als/dan. For completeness’ sake, note that the subject pronouns in the (a)-examples in (59) cannot be replaced by an object pronoun in any variety of Dutch.
a. | Zijnom | is even intelligent | als | hijnom | is. | |
she | is as intelligent | as | he | is |
a'. | Zijnom | is slimmer | dan/als | hijnom | is. | |
she | is brighter | than | he | is |
b. | Ik | vind | haaracc | even intelligent | als | ik | hemacc | vind. | |
I | consider | her | as intelligent | as | I | him | consider |
b'. | Ik | vind | haaracc | slimmer | dan/als | ik | hemacc | vind. | |
I | consider | her | brighter | than | I | him | consider |
The fact that the subject pronoun can also be used in the (a)-examples in (57) can now be accounted for by assuming that these examples are derived from the (a)-examples in (59) by deletion of the finite verb under identity with the finite verb of the main clause. Similarly, the (b)-examples in (57) can be derived from the (b)-examples in (59) by deletion of the finite verb and the subject under identity with the finite verb and the subject of the main clause. That identity is required for deletion is clear from the difference in acceptability between the (b)-examples in (58) and the examples in (60); the ungrammatical (b)-examples in (58) cannot be derived from the acceptable examples in (60) by deletion of the copular given that it is not identical to the finite verb of the main clause.
a. | Ik | vind | haaracc | even intelligent | als | hijnom | is. | |
I | consider | her | as intelligent | as | he | is |
b. | Ik | vind | haaracc | slimmer | dan/als | hijnom | is. | |
I | consider | her | brighter | than | he | is |
Note, finally, that although the examples in (59) are certainly acceptable, they are marked compared to those in (57). This suggests that deletion is preferred whenever that is an option.
From the discussion in this subsection, we can conclude that the complement of
als/dan is normally clausal in nature in the comparative deletion construction. This does
not, however, hold for the complement of the comparative
van-phrase in superlative constructions; the complement of
van is always assigned objective case and never contains a finite verb. This shows that
the
van-PP is just a regular PP consisting of a preposition that takes a noun phrase as its
complement.
a. | Marie is het slimste | van | ons/*wij | allemaal | |
Marie is the smartest | of | us/we | all |
b. | Marie is het slimste | van de klas | (*is) | |
Marie is the smartest | of the group | is |
It seems that there are few restrictions on the reduction of the clausal complement of als/dan apart from the one we have already established in Subsection A, that the omitted content must be recoverable under identity with some element in the matrix clause containing the comparative. For example, in (57) everything but the logical subject of the AP is deleted from the complement clause. But the examples in (62) show that the remaining part may also perform other functions. In (62a) the comparative meer'more' functions as a clausal adverb of degree, and in the comparative dan-phrase everything except the noun phrase that corresponds to the direct object of the main clause is omitted. In (62b) meer functions as a direct object and in the comparative phrase everything except the noun phrase that corresponds to the indirect object is omitted. In (62c), everything is deleted apart from the PP-complement of the adjective; (62d), finally, shows that an entire object clause can be omitted.
a. | Ik | bewonder | Jan meer | dan Peter. | |
I | admire | Jan more | than Peter |
b. | Dit bedrijf | discrimineert | en | betaalt | mannen | meer dan vrouwen. | |
this company | discriminates | and | pays | men | more than women |
c. | Jan is meer gesteld | op rundvlees | dan/als | op varkensvlees. | |
Jan is more keen | on beef | than | on pork | ||
'Jan is keener on beef than on pork.' |
d. | De gang | is breder | dan | ik dacht | (dat hij was). | |
the hall | is wider | than | I thought | that he was |
Despite the fact that there are few restrictions on the reduction, it is clear that one element can never be overtly expressed in the als/dan-phrases discussed so far, namely the adjective that corresponds to the adjective in the equative/comparative form in the matrix clause. The examples in (63) show this for the counterparts of the examples in (57), in which the element in the comparison set corresponds to the subject of the AP, and those in (64) do so for the counterparts of the more miscellaneous cases in (62), subsection C will discuss the nature of this obligatorily suppressed element.
a. | Zijnom | is even intelligent | als | hijnom | (*intelligent) | is. | |
she | is as intelligent | as | he | intelligent | is |
a'. | Zijnom | is slimmer | dan/als | hijnom | (*slim) | is. | |
she | is brighter | than | he | bright | is |
b. | Ik | vind | haaracc | even intelligent | als | ik | hemacc (*intelligent) | vind. | |
I | consider | her | as intelligent | as | I | him | consider |
b'. | Ik | vind | haaracc | slimmer | dan/als | ik | hemacc | (*slim) | vind. | |
I | consider | her | brighter | than | I | him | bright | consider |
a. | Ik | bewonder | Jan meer | dan ik Peter | (*erg) | bewonder. | |
I | admire | Jan more | than Peter | much | admire |
b. | Dit bedrijf | betaalt | mannen | meer dan | het | vrouwen | (*veel) | betaalt. | |
this company | pays | men | more than | it | women | much | pays |
c. | Jan is meer gesteld | op rundvlees | dan/als | hij | op varkensvlees | (*gesteld) | is. | |
Jan is more keen | on beef | than | he | on pork | keen | is | ||
'Jan is keener on beef than on pork.' |
d. | De gang | is breder | dan ik dacht | dat | hij (*breed) | was. | |
the hall | is wider | than I thought | that | he | was |
The nature of interpretative gap has been the topic of a long-lasting and still on-going
debate; cf. Corver (2006) for an overview. Probably the most influential proposal is the one in Chomsky (1977), according to which the interpretative gap arises as result of
wh-movement, and subsequent deletion of the moved phrase under identity with the adjective
in the matrix clause (in the same way as relative pronouns in English relative constructions
such as the man (whoi) I met ti yesterday can be omitted).
One reason for claiming this is that comparative deletion seems unbounded in the same
sense that
wh-movement is. We have already seen one instance of this in (64d), repeated here in a slightly different form as (65a), in which the interpretative gap is found in a more deeply embedded clause. For
completeness’ sake, (65b) provides the corresponding example with
wh-movement for comparison.
a. | De gang | is breder | dan | [ik | dacht | [dat | hij [e] | was]]. | |
the hall | is wider | than | I | thought | that | he | was |
b. | Hoe breedi | denk | je | dat | de gang ti | is? | |
how wide | think | you | that | the hall | is |
If comparative deletion does in fact involve wh-movement, we predict that examples such as (65a) are possible if the embedded clause is the complement of a so-called bridge verb like denken'to think', but not if it is the complement of a non-bridge verb like betwisten'to contest'. Example (66a) shows that this prediction is indeed correct; (66b) again provides the corresponding examples with wh-movement.
a. | * | De tafel | is breder | dan | [ik | betwistte | [dat | hij [e] | was]]. |
the table | is wider | than | I | disputed | that | he | was |
b. | * | Hoe breed | betwistte | je | dat | de gang ti | is? |
how wide | disputed | you | that | the hall | is |
A second reason for assuming that comparative deletion involves wh-movement is that it cannot occur in so-called islands for extraction. We illustrate this by means of the (b)-examples in (67), which show that comparative deletion cannot apply to the complement of a PP, just as wh-movement of the complement of a PP is excluded. Example (67a) just serves to show that examples of comparable complexity in which the interpretative gap serves as direct object are fully acceptable.
a. | Els heeft | meer boeken | gerecenseerd | dan | Jan [e] | gelezen | heeft. | |
Els has | more books | reviewed | than | Jan | read | has | ||
'Els has reviewed more books than Jan has read.' |
b. | * | Els heeft | over meer boeken geschreven | dan Jan [PP | naar [e]] | gekeken | heeft. |
Els has | about more books written | than Jan | at | looked | has |
b'. | * | Hoeveel boekeni | heeft | Jan [PP | naar ti ] | gekeken? |
how.many books | has | Jan | at | looked |
The fact that the wh-movement approach can account for the unacceptability of (65b) and (67b) by means of independently motivated constraints is generally seen as strong support for Chomskyʼs (1977) proposal. We refer the reader to Section V11.3.5 for more detailed discussion.
This subsection discusses the internal structure of the comparative als/dan-phrase in comparative subdeletion constructions such as (68).
a. | Jan heeft | [meer boeken] | dan | Marie [[e] | CDs] | heeft. | |
Jan has | more books | than | Marie | CDs | has |
a'. | Jan heeft | [meer boeken] | dan [[e] | CDs]. | |
Jan has | more books | than | CDs |
b. | Deze tafel | is even lang | als | die tafel [[e] | breed] | is. | |
this table | is as long | as | that table | wide | is |
b'. | Deze tafel | is even lang | als [[e] | breed]. | |
this table | is as long | as | wide |
It is generally assumed that constructions like these involve an interpretative gap that in a sense corresponds to the morpheme expressing the comparison in the matrix clause. One reason for assuming this is that, just like the comparative morpheme meer, the postulated empty element in the (a)-examples blocks the insertion of quantifiers like veel'many'. Similarly, the empty element in the (b)-examples blocks the insertion of measure phrases like anderhalve meter'one and a half meter', just like the equative morpheme even.
a. | * | Jan heeft | [meer boeken] | dan | Marie | [veel CDs] | heeft. |
Jan has | more books | than | Marie | many CDs | has |
a'. | * | Jan heeft | [meer boeken] | dan | [veel | CDs]. |
Jan has | more books | than | many | CDs |
b. | * | Deze tafel | is [even lang] | als | die tafel | [anderhalve meter | breed] | is. |
this table | is as long | as | that table | one.and.a.half meter | wide | is |
b'. | * | Deze tafel | is [even lang] | als | [anderhalve meter | breed]. |
this table | is as long | as | one.and.a.half meter | wide |
Given that Section 4.3 will argue that comparison and degree modification have much in common, it does not really come as a surprise that the empty element has been identified as a degree phrase; cf. Bresnan (1973). Given that it will be easier for what follows to represent this phonetically empty degree phrase by means of the Greek capital Δ, we will assign the examples in (68) the structures in (70).
a. | Jan heeft [meer boeken] dan Marie [ΔCDs] heeft. |
a'. | Jan heeft [meer boeken] dan [Δ CDs]. |
b. | Deze tafel is [even lang] als die tafel [Δ breed] is. |
b'. | Deze tafel is [even lang] als [Δ breed]. |
Bresnanʼs proposal can be supported by appealing to the fact that quantitative er can be used in comparative subdeletion contexts. Quantitative er is normally used in contexts like (71), in which it licenses a phonetically empty nominal projection [ e]; in this case the content of the empty noun is determined by the nominal phrase (mooie) boeken in the first conjunct. Quantitative er requires that the empty nominal projection be preceded by a weak quantifier or a cardinal number; (71a) becomes completely unacceptable if the quantifier veel is dropped. This means that if the occurrence of er in (71b) is also quantitative, we have independent evidence in favor of the empty degree phrase Δ postulated; cf. Bennis (1977).
a. | Jan heeft | weinig (mooie) boeken | maar | Marie heeft | er | [veel [e]]. | |
Jan has | few beautiful books | but | Marie has | er | many |
b. | Ik | heb | meer boeken | dan | jij | er [Δ [e]] | hebt. | |
I | have | more books | than | you | er | have |
There is actually little doubt that we are dealing with quantitative er in (71b). Example (72a) shows that the empty nominal projection cannot be associated with a non-count noun. The fact that (72b) is also unacceptable therefore unambiguously shows that we are dealing with quantitative er.
a. | * | Jan heeft | veel geld | maar | Piet heeft | er | [weinig [e]]. |
Jan has | much money | but | Piet has | er | little |
b. | * | Ik | heb | meer geld | dan | jij | er [Δ [e]] | hebt. |
I | have | more money | than | you | er | have |
Furthermore, the primeless examples in (73) show that the empty nominal projection can be combined with postnominal modifiers but not with prenominal attributive adjectives; the contrast between the two primed examples again supports the claim that we are dealing with quantitative er.
a. | Jan heeft | veel boeken over muziek | en | ik | heb | er | [veel [e] | over wijn]. | |
Jan has | many books about music | and | I | have | er | many | about wine |
a'. | Jan heeft | meer boeken over muziek | dan ik er [Δ [e] | over wijn] | heb. | |
Jan has | more books about music | than I er | about wine | have |
b. | * | Jan heeft | veel blauwe knikkers | en | ik | heb | er | [veel groene [e]]. |
Jan has | many blue marbles | and | I | have | er | many green |
b'. | * | Jan heeft | meer blauwe knikkers | dan | ik | er [Δ | groene [e]] | heb. |
Jan has | more blue marbles | than | I | er | green | have |
Section 4.1.3, sub IC, has shown that there are reasons for assuming that the interpretative gap in the comparative deletion construction is the result of wh-movement and subsequent deletion of the moved phrase. If this is correct, we might expect that the comparative subdeletion construction would likewise involve wh-movement, but this subsection will show that this does not seem to be borne out, and that the distribution of the interpretative gap Δ differs considerably from that of wh-phrases. One way in which the distributions of the interpretative gap and wh-phrases differ is illustrated in (74) and (75). The (a)-examples in (74) show that wh-movement of interrogative quantifiers like hoeveel'how many' obligatorily pied-pipes the remainder of the modified noun phrase; extraction of the quantifier from the noun phrase leads to an ungrammatical result. The fact that the interpretative gap indicated by Δ in (74b) occupies the same position as the wh-trace in (74a') therefore suggests that wh-movement is not involved in this example.
a. | [Hoeveel boeken]i | heb | jij ti? | |
how.many books | have | you | ||
Intended reading: 'How many books do you have?' |
a'. | * | Hoeveeli | heb | jij [ti | boeken]? |
how.many | have | you | books |
b. | Els heeft | meer CDs | dan | jij [Δ | boeken] | hebt. | |
Els has | more CDs | than | you | books | have | ||
'Els has more CDs than you have books.' |
The examples in (75) show something similar for intensifiers of APs. The (a)-examples show that wh-extraction of the interrogative intensifier hoe'how' from the AP is excluded: wh-movement must pied-pipe the full AP. The fact that the interpretative gap in (75b) occupies the same position as the wh-trace in (75a') again suggests that wh-movement is not involved in the comparative subdeletion construction. We refer the reader to 65b) and (67b) by means of independently motivated constraints is generally seen as strong support for Chomskyʼs (1977) proposal. We refer the reader to Section V11.3.5 for more detailed discussion.
a. | [Hoe breed]i | is die tafel ti ? | |
how wide | is that table |
a'. | * | Hoei | is die tafel [ti | breed]? |
how | is that table | wide |
b. | Deze tafel | is even lang | als | die kast | [Δ | breed] | is. | |
this table | is as long | as | that cupboard | [Δ | wide | is | ||
'This table is as long as that cupboard is wide.' |
More evidence for the conclusion that comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion differ with respect to the involvement of wh-movement can be found in (76) and (77). The examples in (76) show that PPs are absolute islands for wh-movement, which is clear from the fact that example (76b) is just as unacceptable as example (76c) with subextraction.
a. | Met | hoeveel meisjes | heb | je | gedanst? | |
with | how.many girls | have | you | danced | ||
'With how many girls did you dance?' |
b. | * | Hoeveel meisjesi heb je [PP met/mee ti] gedanst? |
c. | * | Hoeveeli heb je [PP met/mee [ti meisjes]] gedanst? |
Example (77a) shows that having an interpretative gap in the same position as the wh-trace in (76b) gives rise to an unacceptable result, which supports the earlier conclusion that comparative deletion involves wh-movement; cf. also the discussion of the (b)-examples in (67). Example (77b), on the other hand, shows that having an interpretative gap in the position of the wh-trace in (76c) is possible, and this again suggests that wh-movement is not involved in comparative subdeletion.
a. | * | Jan heeft | met meer meisjes | gekletst | dan | hij | [met/mee [e]] | gedanst | heeft. |
Jan has | with more girls | chattered | than | he | with | danced | has | ||
Intended reading: 'Jan spoke to more girls than he danced with.' |
b. | Jan heeft met meer jongens gekletst | dan | hij [met [Δ | meisjes]] | gedanst | heeft. | |
Jan has with more boys chattered | than | he with | girls | danced | has | ||
Intended reading: 'Jan spoke to more boys than he danced with girls.' |
Another difference between comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion constructions that points in the same direction is that the comparative deletion construction may contain at most one interpretative gap, whereas the comparative subdeletion construction may contain multiple interpretative gaps. Consider the examples in (78).
Jan verkocht | in één dag | meer vrouwen | meer stropdassen... | ||
Jan sold | in one week | more women | more neckties |
a. | ... dan | Marie [Δ | mannen] [Δ | lipsticks] | in een week | verkocht. | |
... than | Marie | men | lipsticks | in a week | sold | ||
'Jan sold more women more neckties in one day than Marie sold men lipsticks in a week.' |
b. | * | ... dan | Marie [e] [e] | in een week | verkocht. |
... than | Marie | in a week | sold |
It seems that example (78a) is fully
acceptable, despite the fact that the meaning expressed is rather
complicated in that there are two things claimed at the same time: (i)
the number of women that were sold neckties exceeds the number of men
that were sold lipsticks and (ii) the number of neckties sold to women
exceeds the number of lipsticks sold to men. Examples such as (78b), on the
other hand, have been claimed to be unacceptable, and it indeed seems
very hard to simultaneously assign an intelligible interpretation to the
two gaps in the structure. Given that it is not possible in Dutch to
place more than one
wh-phrase in clause-initial position, the indicated contrast
between (78a)
and (78b)
would follow from the proposal so far: comparative deletion involves
wh-movement and, consequently, there can be at most one
interpretative gap, whereas comparative subdeletion does not involve
wh-movement and consequently there can be multiple gaps; see
Corver (1990/2006) for more extensive discussion.
The discussion above strongly suggests that the process
involved in comparative subdeletion is less restricted than that in
comparative deletion. This does not mean, however, that comparative
subdeletion is completely free. For example, whereas comparative
subdeletion is acceptable with the predicatively used APs in (75b) or (79a), it is
excluded with the attributively used APs in (79b).
a. | Jans tafel | is even lang | als | Peters kast | [Δ | breed] | is. | |
Janʼs table | is as long | as | Peterʼs cupboard | [Δ | wide | is | ||
'Janʼs table is as long as Peterʼs cupboard is wide.' |
b. | * | Jan heeft | een even lange tafel | als | Peter [een [Δ | brede] | kast]] | heeft. |
Jan has | an as long table | as | Peter a | wide | cupboard | has |
The previous subsection has shown that there are reasons for assuming that comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion cannot be given the same analysis: whereas the former arguably involves wh-movement, the latter most likely does not. This in turn may have consequences for the analysis of the complement of the als/dan-phrase. If comparative deletion indeed involves wh-movement, it follows automatically that (as argued in Section 4.1.3, sub IA) the complement of als/dan is clausal, given that the target of wh-movement is the clause-initial position. If comparative subdeletion does not involve wh-movement, the complement of the als/dan-phrase may but need not be clausal. The fact that the complement can be clausal in the comparative subdeletion construction needs little argumentation, given that we have seen several unambiguous instances of this in the earlier discussion. This suggests that just as in the case of comparative deletion, the primeless examples in (80) can readily be derived from the primed examples by means of deletion of those parts that are recoverable from the matrix clause.
a. | Jan heeft | meer CDs dan boeken. | |
Jan has | more CDs than books |
a'. | Jan heeft | meer CDs | dan | hij | [Δ | boeken] | heeft. | |
Jan has | more CDs | than | he | [Δ | books | has |
b. | De tafel | is even lang als | breed. | |
the table | is as long as | wide |
b'. | De tafel | is even lang als | hij [Δ | breed] | is. | |
the table | is as long as | he | wide | is |
It is less clear whether the complement of als/dan can be non-clausal, but it seems that we have to keep this possibility open, as subsection III will show that the complement of the als/dan-phrase need not be clausal.
The third construction, illustrated in (81a&b), differs from comparative (sub)deletion in that the comparative als/dan-phrase does not contain an interpretative gap, that is, there is no implicit degree phrase Δ. That the complement is not clausal in this case is strongly suggested by the unacceptability of the primed examples, from which the primeless examples should then have been derived. The unacceptability of the doubly-primed examples also points in that direction.
a. | Jan heeft | meer (boeken) | gelezen | dan | Eline Vere. | |
Jan has | more books | read | than | Eline Vere |
a'. | * | Jan heeft | meer (boeken) | gelezen | dan | hij | Eline Vere | gelezen | heeft. |
Jan has | more books | read | than | he | Eline Vere | read | has |
a''. | * | Jan heeft | meer (boeken) | gelezen | dan Marie | Eline Vere | (gelezen | heeft). |
Jan has | more books | read | than Marie | Eline Vere | read | has |
b. | Jan verdient | meer | (?geld) | dan 100 Euro. | |
Jan earns | more | money | than 100 euro |
b'. | * | Jan verdient | meer | dan | hij | 100 euro | verdient. |
Jan earns | more | than | he | 100 euro | earns |
b''. | * | Jan verdient | meer | dan | Marie | 100 euro | (verdient). |
Jan earns | more | than | Marie | 100 euro | earns |
Constructions of the type in (81a&b) can so