- 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
Generally, nominal objects can occupy various positions in the so-called middle field of the clause, that is, that part of the clause bounded to the left by the C(omplementizer)-position, which is filled by the complementizer in embedded clauses and by the finite verb in main clauses, and bounded to the right by the verbs in clause-final position (if present). This variation in word order especially relates to the position of the nominal object relative to adverbial phrases of various sorts: for instance, the noun phrase zijn auto'his car' in (24) can either follow or precede the modal adverb waarschijnlijk'probably'.
a. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | zijn auto | verkoopt. | |
that | Jan probably | his auto | sells | ||
'that Jan will probably sell his car.' |
a'. | dat Jan zijn auto waarschijnlijk verkoopt. |
b. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | zijn auto | verkocht. | |
Jan has | probably | his car | sold | ||
'Jan probably sold his car.' |
b'. | Jan heeft zijn auto waarschijnlijk verkocht. |
Since the direct object is generally assumed to be base-generated within the VP, it is expected to be adjacent to the main verb, as in the primeless examples in (24). In order to account for the word orders in the primed examples, it has been assumed that Dutch has a scrambling rule that may move the arguments of the verb from their VP-internal base-position into a position preceding the adverbs. The structures of the primed examples in (24) are therefore assumed to be as indicated in (25).
a. | [ ... C ... DPi ... ADV ... [VP ... ti V]]. |
b. | dat Jan zijn autoi waarschijnlijk [VPti verkoopt]. |
c. | Jan heeft zijn autoi waarschijnlijk [VPti verkocht]. |
Actually, it can be argued that there are various types of scrambling (cf., e.g., Neeleman 1994b); for example, there is a rule of Focus movement, which optionally places emphatically or contrastively focused phrases, and a rule of Neg-movement (Haegeman 1995), which obligatorily places negative phrases into a more leftward position in the middle field. We will not discuss these two movement types here, given that they are not restricted to nominal objects, but restrict our attention to the type of scrambling in (25a), which is limited to nominal objects and can be recognized by the fact that the moved phrase is never accented. We will see that word order variations like those in (24) are typically related to the information structure of the clause: scrambled noun phrases normally belong to the presupposition (“old” information) whereas noun phrases that are not scrambled are instead part of the focus (“new” information) of the clause. Other effects of scrambling may be that the moved noun phrase is assigned a special (e.g., generic or partitive) meaning.
This subsection discusses the distribution of nominal objects in clauses containing a clausal adverb such as modal adverbs or adverbs of frequency. It will be shown that the position of the noun phrase is intimately related to the information structure of the clause, especially the distinction between focus and presupposition, that is, “new” and “old” information. These notions will be explained in Subsection A. We start with a discussion of definite noun phrases and personal pronouns, which is followed by a discussion of indefinite and quantified noun phrases.
Definite nominal objects can occur both to the left and to the right of a clausal adverb. The placement of the noun phrase to the left or to the right of such an adverb is not free, however, but intimately related to the information structure of the clause. Consider the examples in (26). The direct object het boek in (26a) follows the modal adverb waarschijnlijk'probably' and is construed as part of the “new” information or focus of the clause; due to the prosodic structure of Dutch clauses, the sentence accent naturally falls on the direct object, which enhances a focus interpretation for this noun phrase. In (26b), on the other hand, the object has been scrambled to the left of the adverb, and as a result it no longer receives sentence accent; scrambled nominal objects cannot be interpreted as (part of the) focus, but are rather construed as topics of discussion, belonging to the “old” information or presupposition of the utterance (Verhagen 1986).
a. | Hij | heeft | waarschijnlijk | het boek | gelezen. | |
he | has | probably | the book | read |
b. | Hij | heeft | het boek | waarschijnlijk | gelezen. | |
he | has | the book | probably | read |
At this point a remark on the terminology is in order. The notions “new” and “old”
information may be confusing since the former suggests that the referent of the noun
phrase
het boek in (26) is not part of the domain of discourse (domain D), whereas the latter suggests that
it is. This is clearly not the case, since in both cases the hearer is assumed to
be able to uniquely identify this referent. The notions rather refer to the information
structure of the clause; the “old” information refers to the entities currently under
discussion, whereas the “new” information refers to entities that may be part of the
background of the discourse (that is, part of domain D) but were so far not a topic
of discussion. In order to avoid the misleading connotations of the notions of “new”
and “old” information, we will generally use the notions “focus” and “presupposition”
in this work (despite the fact that the former can be easily confused with the notion
of contrastive or emphaticfocus).
The distinction between presupposition and focus is especially clear in question-answer
contexts. A question like (27a) introduces the referent of
het boek as a topic of discussion, and therefore the answer preferably has the noun phrase
in front of the adverb, that is, presents the noun phrase as “old” information; in
actual speech, this is made even clearer by replacing the noun phrase
het boek by the personal pronoun
het, which typically refers to “old” information (see Subsection B below).
a. | Wat | heeft | Jan | met | het boek | gedaan? |
question
|
|
what | has | Jan | with | the book | done |
b. | ?? | Hij heeft waarschijnlijk het boek gelezen. |
answer = (26a)
|
b'. | Hij heeft het boek waarschijnlijk gelezen. |
answer = (26b)
|
A question like (28a), on the other hand, clearly does not presuppose the referent of the noun phrase het boek to be a topic of discourse, and now the preferred answer has the noun phrase following the adverb. The answer in (28b') with the nominal object preceding the adverb is only possible if the context provides more information, e.g., if the participants in the discourse know that Jan had the choice between reading a set of articles or reading a certain book; in that case the nominal object preceding the adverb is likely to have contrastive accent.
a. | Wat | heeft | Jan gelezen? |
question
|
|
what | has | Jan read |
b. | Hij heeft waarschijnlijk het boek gelezen. |
answer = (26a)
|
b'. | *? | Hij heeft het boek waarschijnlijk gelezen. |
answer = (26b)
|
That the noun phrase
het boek refers to “new” information is also clear from the fact that replacing the noun phrase
het boek by the personal pronoun
het gives rise to an infelicitous result: using the pronoun makes the answer uninformative
since it presupposes (contrary to fact) that the identity of the referent is already
known to the person asking the question.
Note that in (28) the activity of reading is still presupposed as a topic. This is not the case in
an example such as (29), but in this case also the utterance with the direct object following the adverb
is strongly preferred. The answer with the nominal object preceding the adverb is
only possible if the context provides more information, e.g., if the participants
in the discourse know that Jan had the choice between reading the book or following
a crash course in linguistics. Note that (29) shows that (26a) can be construed not only with the noun phrase
het boek, but also with the complete verb phrase
het boek gelezen, as “new” information.
a. | Wat | heeft | Jan gedaan? |
question
|
|
what | has | Jan done |
b. | Hij heeft waarschijnlijk het boek gelezen. |
answer = (26a)
|
b'. | *? | Hij heeft het boek waarschijnlijk gelezen. |
answer = (26b)
|
To conclude we want to note that according to some research the informational-structural effect described above are tendencies not absolute rules.
Referential personal pronouns are typically used to refer to active topics of discussion. Therefore, we correctly predict them to normally occur in a position preceding the clausal adverbs. This is clear from the fact that in an example such as (30a), the pronoun het must precede the adverb waarschijnlijk'probably'.
Jan heeft | <het> | waarschijnlijk <*het> | gelezen. | ||
Jan has | it | probably | read | ||
'Jan has probably read it.' |
The requirement that personal pronouns precede the clausal adverbs can, however, be overruled in contrastive contexts by assigning contrastive focus accent to the pronoun. Given the fact that weak pronouns cannot be assigned accent, this is only possible with strong pronouns. Some illustrative examples are given in (31); the primed examples show that in these cases placement of the contrastively focused pronoun in front of the adverb is also possible, and even seems to be preferred by some. Note that the ungrammatical variant of (30) cannot be saved by assigning contrastive accent to the pronoun het, due to the fact that het normally cannot be assigned accent; cf. Section 5.2.1.1, sub V.
a. | Jan kiest | waarschijnlijk | (?)mij/*me | als begeleider, | niet jou. | |
Jan chooses | probably | me/me | as supervisor, | not you |
a'. | Jan kiest mij waarschijnlijk als begeleider, niet jou. |
b. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | (?)hem/*’m | uitgenodigd, | niet haar. | |
Jan has | probably | him/him | prt.-invited | not her |
b'. | Jan heeft hem waarschijnlijk uitgenodigd, niet haar. |
If the negative adverb niet'not' is placed in the first conjunct, both orders are completely acceptable; this is illustrated in (32). The difference between the primeless and the primed examples is that in the former the negative adverb niet acts as constituent negation and in the latter as sentential negation; cf. Section 8.1.3, sub IV.
a. | Jan kiest | waarschijnlijk | niet | mij | als begeleider, | maar jou. | |
Jan chooses | probably | not | me | as supervisor, | but you |
a'. | Jan kiest | mij | waarschijnlijk | niet | als begeleider, | maar | wel | jou. | |
Jan chooses | me | probably | not | as supervisor, | but | aff. | you |
b. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | niet | hem | uitgenodigd, | maar | haar. | |
Jan has | probably | not | him | prt.-invited | but | her |
b'. | Jan heeft | hem | waarschijnlijk | niet | uitgenodigd, | maar | wel | haar. | |
Jan has | him | probably | not | prt.-invited | but | aff. | her |
Scrambling of indefinite nominal objects across a clausal adverb is possible in some but not all constructions. If it occurs, scrambling has important semantic repercussions: it may change the scope relation between the indefinite noun phrase and some other quantified expression, or force a generic reading on the moved noun phrase.
The examples in (33) show that (both nonspecific and specific) indefinite nominal objects cannot readily appear to the left of a modal adverb like waarschijnlijk.
a. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | een vriend | zal | bezoeken. | |
that | Jan probably | a friend | will | visit |
a'. | *? | dat Jan een vriend waarschijnlijk zal bezoeken. |
b. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk [NP ∅ | vrienden] | zal | bezoeken. | |
that | Jan probably | friends | will | visit |
b'. | *? | dat Jan [NP ∅ vrienden] waarschijnlijk zal bezoeken. |
However, scrambling of indefinite nominal objects is often possible if the clausal adverb expresses frequency, and coincides with a difference in scope. First, consider example (34a), in which the indefinite noun phrase follows the adverbial phrase elke dag'every day'. This example asserts that Jan has the habit of watching (at least) one program a day on TV, where the program may change from day to day. However, if the speaker has a specific television program in mind that Jan watches every day (e.g., the eight oʼclock news), he is not likely to use example (34a); he would probably use an example such as (34b) instead, where één is stressed so that we cannot determine whether we are dealing with the indefinite article een'a' or the numeral één'one'. The fact that a nonspecific indefinite bare plural like programmaʼs in the primed examples cannot be placed in front of the adverb, however, suggests the latter.
a. | dat | Jan elke dag | een programma | op tv | bekijkt. | |
that | Jan every day | a program | on TV | watches |
a'. | dat | Jan elke dag | programmaʼs op tv | bekijkt. | |
that | Jan every day | programs on TV | watches |
b. | dat | Jan één programma | op tv | elke dag | bekijkt. | |
that | Jan a/one program | on TV | every day | watches |
b'. | ?? | dat | Jan programmaʼs op tv | elke dag | bekijkt. |
that | Jan programs on TV | every day | watches |
This suggestion is also supported by the fact that a plural noun phrase preceded by a numeral show the same difference in reading as (34a&b): (35a) expresses that Jan watches two programs every day, where the programs may change from day to day, whereas (35b) expresses that Jan watches the same two programs every day.
a. | dat | Jan elke dag | twee programmaʼs op tv | bekijkt. | |
that | Jan every day | two programs on TV | watches |
b. | dat | Jan twee programmaʼs op tv | elke dag | bekijkt. | |
that | Jan two programs on TV | every day | watches |
From this we may conclude that the difference in scope between the indefinite noun phrase and the universally quantified adverbial phrase is reflected in the linear order of the two: in (35a) the universal operator expressed by the temporal adverbial phrase has scope over the existential operator implied by the indefinite noun phrase (∀t ∃x), and in (35b) the scope relation is inverted (∃x ∀t).
Another possible effect of scrambling is that the indefinite noun phrase receives a generic interpretation. Consider the examples in (36). Example (36a) expresses that Jan is reading something which is probably a bestseller (or, alternatively, that Jan is doing something, which is probably reading a bestseller). Example (36a'), on the other hand, expresses that bestsellers are likely to be read by Jan. The same pattern is even clearer in (36b&b'): (36b) expresses that Jan generally reads some bestseller, whereas (36b') expresses that most bestsellers are read by Jan. The (c)-examples provide similar examples with plural noun phrases: (36c) expresses that Jan generally reads bestsellers, whereas (36c') expresses that most bestsellers are read by Jan.
a. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | een bestseller | leest. | |
that | Jan probably | a bestseller | reads |
a'. | dat Jan een bestseller waarschijnlijk leest. |
b. | dat | Jan meestal | een bestseller | leest. | |
that | Jan generally | a bestseller | reads |
b'. | dat Jan een bestseller meestal leest. |
c. | dat | Jan meestal | bestsellers leest. | |
that | Jan generally | bestsellers reads |
c'. | dat Jan bestsellers meestal leest. |
Scrambling of indefinite nominal objects is also possible, and is perhaps even preferred, if the noun phrase contains an attributive adjective like volgende'next' or nieuwe'new' or an ordinal numeral, as in the examples in (37). The indefinite noun phrases in these examples seem comparable to English noun phrases containing free choice any: Jan will turn down any invitation that comes next; the Security Council will condemn any attack that comes next. Since we are not aware of any discussion of data like these in the literature, we will leave these for future research; see also example (64) for comparable examples with the negative adverb niet'not'.
a. | Jan zal | een volgende/nieuwe uitnodiging | waarschijnlijk | afslaan. | |
Jan will | a next/new invitation | probably | turn.down | ||
'Jan will probably turn down any invitation that comes next/new invitation.' |
a'. | ? | Jan zal waarschijnlijk een volgende/nieuwe uitnodiging afslaan. |
b. | De Veiligheidsraad | zal | een nieuwe/tweede aanval | waarschijnlijk | veroordelen. | |
the Security Council | will | a new/second attack | probably | condemn | ||
'The Security Council will probably condemn a subsequent/second attack.' |
b. | ? | De Veiligheidsraad zal waarschijnlijk een nieuwe/tweede aanval veroordelen. |
This subsection discusses scrambling of quantified nominal objects and quantifiers, and its semantic effects. Existentially, universally and negatively quantified noun phrases are discussed in separate subsections. Before we start we want to note that the felicitousness of a certain word order is often determined not only by the quantifier in question, but also by the meaning of the predicate; certain orders may be infelicitous because they give rise to an improbable reading with some predicates. In the following we will abstract away from these effects of the choice of the predicate but simply select predicates that give rise to felicitous results.
The placement of an existentially quantified nominal object with respect to a modal adverb like waarschijnlijk'probably' seems to depend on the nature of the quantifier. If the quantifier normally triggers a nonspecific reading of the noun phrase, as does enkele'some' in (38a&a'), the nominal object is preferably placed after the adverb. If the quantifier allows both a nonspecific and a specific reading, as does veel'many' in (38b&b'), the nominal object can readily occur on either side of the adverb. If the quantifier normally triggers a specific reading, as does sommige'some' in (38c'), the nominal object is preferably placed in front of the adverb. In all cases, a nominal object in front of the adverb is construed as specific, wheras one following the adverb is construed as nonspecific (unless it is assigned emphatic focus).
a. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | enkele boeken | weggooit. | |
that | Jan probably | some books | throws.away |
a'. | ? | dat Jan enkele boeken waarschijnlijk weggooit. |
b. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | veel boeken | weggooit. | |
that | Jan probably | many books | throws.away |
b'. | dat Jan veel boeken waarschijnlijk weggooit. |
c. | ? | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | sommige boeken | weggooit. |
that | Jan probably | some books | throws.away |
c'. | dat Jan sommige boeken waarschijnlijk weggooit. |
Note that we have avoided the use of the terms weak and strong
quantifier (cf. Section 6.2.1, sub II) in the description
of the data in (38): since we will see in the next subsection that the
(strong) universal quantifier
alle is preferably placed after the
clausal adverbs, we cannot
say that strong quantifiers are preferably scrambled, whereas weak
quantifiers are preferably left in their position to the right of
the clausal adverbs. Nevertheless, this seems to provide an apt
description of the behavior of the strong/weak
existential
quantifiers.
In (35), we have observed that scrambling
of indefinite nominal objects affects the scope relations in the
clause. If we are dealing with a noun phrase containing an
existential quantifier, the same effect can be observed. Consider
the examples in (39). In (39a) the frequency adverb has scope
over the quantified noun phrase
veel boeken'many books': as a result the sentence expresses that it is often the
case that Jan is reading many books. In (39b), on
the other had, it is the noun phrase that has scope over the adverb:
as a result the sentence expresses that there are many books that
Jan often reads.
a. | dat | Jan | vaak | veel boeken | leest. | |
that | Jan | often | many books | reads |
b. | dat Jan veel boeken vaak leest. |
This difference in interpretation can also be held responsible for the fact that an adverb like meestal'usually' cannot follow a quantified nominal object: whereas it makes perfect sense to claim that Jan usually reads many books, it seems weird to say that many books are usually read by Jan. Similarly, it may account for the fact that a strong noun phrase like sommige boeken'some books', which presupposes a certain set of books and is therefore specific, cannot readily be used in the position following the adverb.
a. | dat | Jan | meestal | veel boeken | leest. | |
that | Jan | usually | many books | reads |
a'. | ?? | dat Jan veel boeken meestal leest. |
b. | *? | dat | Jan | vaak | sommige boeken | leest. |
that | Jan | often | some books | reads |
b'. | dat Jan sommige boeken vaak leest. |
The existential personal pronouns iemand'someone' and iets'something' also allow both a nonspecific and a specific interpretation. As in the quantified noun phrases discussed above, the availability of these readings depends on whether the noun phrase occurs to the right or to the left of the adverb. Note that the specific readings in the primed examples are not completely natural.
a. | dat | Jan | waarschijnlijk | iemand | uitnodigt. | |
that | Jan | probably | someone | prt.-invites |
a'. | ? | dat Jan iemand waarschijnlijk uitnodigt. |
b. | dat | Jan | waarschijnlijk | iets | aan Peter | wil | geven. | |
that | Jan | probably | something | to Peter | wants | give |
b'. | ? | dat Jan iets waarschijnlijk aan Peter wil geven. |
Again, the position of the nominal object affects the scope readings: whereas the frequency adverb has scope over the existential pronouns in the primeless examples of (42), the pronouns have scope over the adverb in the primed examples. As a result, (42a) asserts that it has often been the case that Jan insulted some person or other, whereas (42a') expresses that there is a certain person who has often been insulted by Jan. Similarly, (42b) asserts that it has often been the case that Jan dropped something, whereas (42b') expresses that there is a certain thing that has often been dropped by Jan. Observe that, in contrast to the primed examples in (41), the primed examples in (42) are impeccable.
a. | dat | Jan vaak iemand | heeft | uitgescholden. | |
that | Jan often someone | has | prt.-insulted |
a'. | dat Jan iemand vaak heeft | uitgescholden. |
b. | dat Jan | vaak | iets | laat vallen. | |
that Jan | often | something | drops |
b'. | dat Jan iets vaak laat vallen. |
The examples in (43) suggest that universally quantified phrases have some preference for the position following the modal adverb waarschijnlijk'probably', but both orders seem to be grammatical. The difference between the two examples seems to be related to the information structure in the clause. In (43b), it is only the action of inviting that is part of the focus of the clause. Example (43a) is compatible with various information structures: the focus of the clause can be formed by the full VP alle studenten uitnodigen, the noun phrase alle studenten, or the quantifier alle — in the first two cases sentence stress falls on the noun studenten, and in the third case on the quantifier alle.
a. | Marie | zal | waarschijnlijk | alle studenten | uitnodigen. | |
Marie | will | probably | all students | prt.-invite | ||
'Marie will probably invite all students.' |
b. | (?) | Marie zal alle studenten waarschijnlijk uitnodigen. |
The two examples also seem to differ in interpretation. Example (43a) can be interpreted either as referring to a single event of inviting all the students or as referring to several separate events of inviting a student or subgroup of students, whereas (43b) strongly favors the latter interpretation. This meaning difference is probably related to the scope of the modal adverb waarschijnlijk'probably'. In (43b) the universally quantified phrase is outside the scope of the modal adverb, and, as a result, it is claimed for each individual student that he will probably be invited. In (43a), on the other hand, the universally quantified phrase is within the scope of the modal adverb, and, as a result, it is claimed that it is probably the case that all students will be invited, where it is immaterial whether they are invited individually or as a group. The universal quantifiers iedereen'everyone' and alles'everything' also seem to prefer the position to the right of the modal adverb, but again both orders seem to be acceptable.
a. | dat | Jan | waarschijnlijk | iedereen/alles | meeneemt. | |
that | Jan | probably | everyone/everything | prt.-takes | ||
'that Jan probably takes everyone/everything with him.' |
b. | ? | dat Jan iedereen/alles waarschijnlijk meeneemt. |
Universally quantified nominal objects can readily occur on both sides of the adverbs of frequency. This gives rise to a difference in interpretation, which can again be expressed in terms of scope: in (45a'), the universally quantified noun phrase is outside the scope of the adverb, and as a result it is claimed for each individual book in the relevant domain of discourse that John often takes it with him; in (45a), on the other hand, the universally quantified noun phrase is within the scope of the frequency adverb, and as a result it is claimed that it is often the case that John takes all books with him. Examples (45b&b') show that the same thing holds for universal quantifiers such as alles'everything'.
a. | dat | Jan vaak | alle boeken | meeneemt. | |
that | Jan often | all books | prt.-takes | ||
'that Jan often takes all books with him.' |
a'. | dat Jan alle boeken vaak meeneemt. |
b. | dat | Jan vaak | alles | meeneemt. | |
that | Jan often | everything | prt.-takes | ||
'that Jan often takes everything with him.' |
b'. | ? | dat Jan alles vaak meeneemt. |
Given that the negative quantifiers niemand'nobody' and niets'nothing' do not allow a specific interpretation, it does not come as a surprise that such noun phrases must follow the modal adverbs, as is illustrated by (46a&b). Another factor that may play a role here is that, in general, negative phrases tend to follow the modal adverbs. This even holds for subjects, as is shown in (46c).
a. | dat | Jan | <*niemand> | waarschijnlijk <niemand> | uitnodigt. | |
that | Jan | nobody | probably | invites |
b. | dat | Jan | <*niets> | waarschijnlijk <niets> | aan Peter | wil | geven. | |
that | Jan | nothing | probably | to Peter | wants | give |
c. | dat | <??niemand> | waarschijnlijk <niemand> | dat boek | gelezen | heeft. | |
that | nobody | probably | that book | read | has |
However, unlike modal adverbs, the negative quantifiers can precede the frequency adverbs. The two examples in (47), which are the negative counterparts of the primed examples in (42), respectively express that there is not a certain person who has often been insulted by Jan and that there is not a certain thing that has often been dropped by Jan.
a. | dat | Jan niemand | vaak | heeft | uitgescholden. | |
that | Jan nobody | often | has | prt.-insulted |
b. | dat | Jan niets | vaak | laat vallen. | |
that | Jan nothing | often | drops |
The examples in (48) show that the negative quantifiers can also follow the adverbs of frequency. In these examples the quantifier is in the scope of the adverb: (48a) expresses that it is often the case that Jan does not want to see anyone and (48b) that it is often the case that Jan does not want to eat anything.
a. | dat | Jan vaak | niemand | wil | zien. | |
that | Jan often | nobody | wants | see | ||
'that Jan often doesnʼt want to see anyone.' |
b. | dat | Jan vaak | niets | wil | eten. | |
that | Jan often | nothing | wants | eat | ||
'that Jan often doesnʼt want to eat anything.' |
In the previous subsections, we have seen that scrambling is related to several meaning
aspects of the clause: scrambling affects the information structure of the clause,
it affects the scope relations between quantifiers, and it may trigger a partitive
or generic reading of the moved nominal object. This subsection will show that there
are also syntactic constraints on this movement.
So far, we have mainly considered scrambling of the direct object in the clause, but
indirect objects behave in more or less the same way. This implies that in double
object constructions such as (49), there are various word order possibilities. In (49a), neither of the objects is scrambled, which leads to an interpretation according
to which both the indirect and the direct object are part of the focus of the clause.
In (49b), the indirect object is scrambled, but the direct object is not, which leads to
an interpretation according to which the indirect object is part of the presupposition,
and the direct object is part of the focus of the clause. In (49c), both objects are scrambled, which leads to a reading according to which they are
both part of the presupposition. Given this, one would expect that it is also possible
to scramble just the direct object, that is, to move the direct object across the
indirect object. As is shown in (49d), however, this is not possible, from which we conclude that the indirect object
blocks movement of the direct object. In order to express that it is only the indirect
object that belongs to the focus of the clause, one has to use (49a) with sentence accent on the noun
moeder (and not on the direct object, as would normally be the case), or a construction
with a periphrastic indirect object: dat Jan het boek waarschijnlijk aan zijn moeder heeft gegeven'that Jan probably has given the book to his mother'.
a. | dat | Jan waarschijnlijk | zijn moeder | het boek | heeft | gegeven. | |
that | Jan probably | his mother | the book | has | given | ||
'that Jan probably has given his mother the book.' |
b. | dat Jan zijn moeder waarschijnlijk het boek heeft gegeven. |
c. | dat Jan zijn moeder het boek waarschijnlijk heeft gegeven. |
d. | * | dat Jan het boek waarschijnlijk zijn moeder heeft gegeven. |
If the two objects are personal pronouns, they are considered to be part of the presupposition of the clause (unless they are assigned emphatic or contrastive focus), as a result of which they must precede the adverb. Remarkably, this results in a change of order of the two objects: the ungrammaticality of (50c) shows that the direct object may no longer follow the indirect object, but must precede it, as in (50d).
a. | * | dat Jan waarschijnlijk haar het heeft gegeven. |
b. | * | dat Jan haar waarschijnlijk het heeft gegeven. |
c. | * | dat Jan haar het waarschijnlijk heeft gegeven. |
d. | dat | Jan het | haar | waarschijnlijk | heeft | gegeven. | |
that | Jan it | her | probably | has | given | ||
'that Jan probably has given it to her.' |
If only the indirect object is a pronoun, we correctly predict that it must precede the adverb (unless it is assigned emphatic focus). The direct object may either follow or precede the adverb, depending on whether it is seen as part of the focus or the presupposition of the clause.
a. | * | dat Jan waarschijnlijk haar het boek heeft gegeven. |
b. | dat | Jan haar | waarschijnlijk | het boek | heeft | gegeven. | |
that | Jan her | probably | the book | has | given | ||
'that Jan probably has given her the book.' |
c. | dat Jan haar het boek waarschijnlijk heeft gegeven. |
If only the direct object is a pronoun, it must be scrambled. In that case, the indirect object cannot remain in its position after the adverb (unless, perhaps, when it is emphatically stressed), which is probably due to the fact that it would block scrambling of the direct object in this position; cf. example (49d). Note that, as is shown in (52c&d), the pronoun can either precede or follow the indirect object. The question mark within parentheses in (52d) is used to indicate that this example seems fully acceptable but marked compared to the periphrastic construction dat Jan het waarschijnlijk aan zijn moeder heeft gegeven'that Jan has probably given it to his mother'.
a. | * | dat Jan waarschijnlijk zijn moeder het heeft gegeven. |
b. | * | dat Jan het waarschijnlijk zijn moeder heeft gegeven. |
c. | ? | dat | Jan zijn moeder | het | waarschijnlijk | heeft | gegeven. |
that | Jan his mother | it | probably | has | given | ||
'that Jan probably has given it to his mother.' |
d. | (?) | dat Jan het zijn moeder waarschijnlijk heeft gegeven. |
The examples in this subsection suggest that scrambling of the direct object is not possible across the indirect object if the latter occurs in the position following the clausal adverb, that is, if the latter is not scrambled. Here it should be noted that this constraint applies not only to scrambling but also to wh-movement and topicalization (Haegeman 1991 and Den Dikken 1995). The examples in (53) show that wh-movement of the direct object gives rise to a marginal result if the indirect object follows the clausal adverb waarschijnlijk but is perfectly acceptable if the indirect object is scrambled. This shows that the relevant constraint is not based on some “preference rule” that wants to keep the order of the indirect and direct object fixed in order to facilitate parsing, because this would leave the contrast between the primeless and primed examples in (53) unexplained. Therefore, some deeper principle must be at work here; see Broekhuis (2000/2008) for a proposal.
a. | *? | Wat heeft hij vaak zijn moeder aangeboden? |
a'. | Wat | heeft | hij | zijn moeder | vaak | aangeboden? | |
what | has | he | his mother | often | prt.-offered | ||
'What did he often offer to his mother?' |
b. | *? | Dat boek heeft hij vaak zijn moeder aangeboden. |
b'. | Dat boek | heeft | hij | zijn moeder | vaak | aangeboden. | |
that book | has | he | his mother | often | prt.-offered | ||
'That book he has often offered to his mother.' |
Subsection I has shown that nonspecific nominal objects cannot readily be scrambled across a clausal adverb. We may not, however, conclude from this that nonspecific nominal objects categorically resist scrambling. Consider the examples in (54), which show that nonspecific indefinite nominal objects may either precede or follow VP adverbs of time and place. The sentences differ in the assignment of the sentence accent. In the primeless examples, sentence accent is preferably assigned to the nominal head of the indefinite object, whereas in the primed examples it is preferably assigned to the nominal head of the complement of the adverbial PP. This corresponds to the prominence within the focus field of the clause, that is, within the part of the clause expressing “new” information, which can roughly be defined as that part of the middle field of the clause following the clausal adverbs. In the primeless examples the object is the most prominent element in the focus field, whereas in the primed examples it is the adverbial phrase that is most prominent; cf. Broekhuis (2007/2008).
a. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de tuin | een boek | gelezen. | |
Jan has | probably | in the garden | a book | read | ||
'Jan probably read a book in the garden.' |
a'. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk een boek in de tuin gelezen. |
b. | Jan heeft | mogelijk | al | in de pauze | een kop koffie | gedronken. | |
Jan has | possibly | already | during the break | a cup of coffee | drunk | ||
'Jan has possibly already drunk a cup of coffee during the break.' |
b'. | Jan heeft mogelijk al een kop koffie in de pauze gedronken. |
The hypothesis that the orders in (54) are related to prominence within the focus field predicts that the orders in the primed examples are only possible if the VP adverb can be interpreted as part of the focus of the clause. Since indefinite nominal objects are more likely to be part of the focus of the clause than, e.g., adverbial pro-forms such as daar'there' and toen'then', it does not really come as a surprise that the primed examples in (55) are unacceptable.
a. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | daar | een boek | gelezen. | |
Jan has | probably | there | a book | read | ||
'Jan probably read a book there.' |
a'. | * | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk een boek daar gelezen. |
b. | Jan had | mogelijk | toen | een kop koffie | gedronken. | |
Jan had | possibly | then | a cup of coffee | drunk | ||
'Jan had possibly drunk a cup of coffee then.' |
b'. | * | Jan had mogelijk een kop koffie toen gedronken. |
In (56), we show that similar facts can be found with nonspecific indefinite nominal objects containing a quantifier or a numeral. Substituting a pro-form for the adverbial phrase in the primed examples in (56) leads to unacceptability.
a. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de tuin | enkele/twee boeken | gelezen. | |
Jan has | probably | in the garden | some/two books | read |
a'. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk enkele/twee boeken in de tuin gelezen. |
b. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de pauze | enkele/twee koppen koffie | gedronken. | |
Jan has | probably | during the break | some/two cups of coffee | drunk |
b'. | Jan heeft waarschijnlijk enkele/twee koppen koffie in de pauze gedronken. |
Definite nominal objects, on the other hand, do not readily follow the VP adverbs. The primeless examples in (57) seem grammatical but are certainly marked compared to the primed ones. The primeless examples also show that they are preferably pronounced with an emphatic or contrastive focus accent on the noun, indicated by small caps. In the primed examples the adverbial PP can be replaced by the pro-forms daar'there' and toen'then'; this is most likely when these pro-forms are assigned emphatic or contrastive focus.
a. | ? | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de tuin | het boek | gelezen. |
Jan has | probably | in the garden | the book | read |
a'. | Jan heeft waarschijnlijk het boek in de tuin gelezen. |
b. | ? | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de pauze | zijn koffie | genuttigd. |
Jan has | probably | during the break | his coffee | drunk |
b'. | Jan heeft waarschijnlijk zijn koffie in de pauze genuttigd. |
It should be noted however, that examples like (57a&b) are fully acceptable if we are dealing with more or less fixed collocations like het gras maaien'to mow the grass/lawn' in (58) .
a. | Jan heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de tuin | het gras | gemaaid. | |
Jan has | probably | in the garden | the grass | mown | ||
'Jan has probably mown the lawn in the garden.' |
b. | Jan | heeft | waarschijnlijk | in de pauze | het gras | gemaaid. | |
Jan | has | probably | during the break | the grass | mown | ||
'Jan has probably mown the lawn during the break.' |
The examples in this subsection have shown that we cannot claim that scrambling of nonspecific indefinite nominal objects is categorically blocked, since scrambling of such noun phrases is possible across VP adverbs. The effect of this kind of scrambling seems to be related to prominence in the focus field (the field expressing the new information of the clause). This fact has received little attention in the literature so far, and we believe that more research is needed in order to obtain a better understanding of the factors that affect the order of the constituents in the focus field of the clause. Furthermore, we want to refer the reader to Slioussar (2007) for relevant discussion pertaining to scrambling in Russian, which can perhaps partly be carried over to Dutch.
Whereas VP-adverbs must occur to the right of clausal adverbs, there are also adverbial phrases that may occur to the left of typical clausal adverbs like the modal verb waarschijnlijk'probably'. This holds, for example, for the time and place adverbs in (59). Example (59a) shows that such time adverbs may co-occur with time adverbs that function as VP-adverbs; the former are used to restrict the relevant time interval during which the event may in principle take place (time interval j in the tense representations given in Section V1.5), whereas the latter pinpoint the time at which the event denoted by the main verb actually takes place (time interval k). In (59b), the two adverbial phrases of place exhibit similar behavior: the first restricts the location at which the event can in principle take place, whereas the second pinpoints the actual place where it takes place.
a. | Jan zal |