- 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
This subsection discusses a number of potential cases of embedded clauses with verb-first/second. The starting point of our discussion is the observation that verb-first/second is categorically rejected in finite argument clauses: object clauses, for instance, always have the form in (121a&b), with the obligatorily complementizer dat'that' or of'if/whether' and the finite verb in clause-final position; the primed examples show that finite argument clauses without a complementizer and with verb-second are excluded; see Section 5.1.1, sub II. Note that we marked the primed examples with a number sign because they are acceptable as cases of (semi-)direct reported speech, but this is, of course, not the reading intended here.
a. | Jan zei | [dat/*Ø | Els ziek | was]. | |
Jan said | that/Ø | Els ill | was | ||
'Jan said that Els was ill.' |
a'. | # | Jan zei | [Els | was ziek]. |
Jan said | Els | was ill |
b. | Jan vroeg | [of/*Ø | Els ziek | was]. | |
Jan asked | whether/*Ø | Els ill | was | ||
'Jan asked whether Els was ill.' |
b'. | # | Jan vroeg | [was | Els ziek]. |
Jan asked | was | Els ill |
The generalization that verb-first/second cannot apply in finite embedded clauses does not only hold for argument clauses but is also quite robust for adverbial clauses. This is to be expected as such clauses are normally introduced by an obligatory complementizer-like linker that specifies the intended semantic relation with the main clause, such as causative doordat'because' or concessive hoewel'although' in (122). If we assume that such linkers occupy the same structural position as the complementizer dat in (121a), we immediately account for the fact that the finite verb must be in clause-final position as such linkers would then occupy the target position of verb-first/second; cf. Section 10.1.
a. | Doordat | Els | ziek · | is, | kan | ze | vandaag | niet | werken. | |
because | Els | ill | is | can | she | today | not | work | ||
'Because Els is ill, she cannot work today.' |
b. | Hoewel | Els | ziek · | is, | gaat | ze | vandaag | werken. | |
although | Els | ill | is | goes | she | today | work | ||
'Although Els is ill, sheʼs going to work today.' |
Nevertheless, it often appears as if verb-first/second applies in various types of adverbial clauses; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1254ff), subsections I to III discuss three types of such adverbial verb-first (V1) clauses: the prototypical and most frequent type is represented by the conditional construction in (123a); (123b&c) illustrate two less frequent types, subsection IV continues with a discussion of concessive verb-second (V2) clauses such as (123d) introduced by (ook /zelfs ) al'(even) though', in which the adverbial clause has the verb in second position. We will show, however, that all italicized clauses in (123) are external to the main clause and conclude from this that run-of-the-mill, clause-internal adverbial clauses are always verb-final, subsection V concludes with a number of potential counterexamples to this generalization, but shows that also for these cases it is plausible that the V1-clauses in question are not clause-internal.
a. | Is | Els morgen | ziek, | dan | gaat | ze | niet | werken. |
conditional
V1
|
|
is | Els tomorrow | ill | then | goes | she | not | work | |||
'If Els is ill tomorrow, she wonʼt go to work.' |
b. | Was | Jan | erg tevreden, | Peter was dat | zeker | niet. |
contrastive
V1
|
|
was | Jan | very satisfied | Peter was that | certainly | not | |||
'Even if Jan was quite satisfied, Peter certainly wasnʼt.' |
c. | Helpt | Marie iemand, | wordt | ze | door hem | beroofd! |
exclamative
V1
|
|
helps | Marie someone | is | she | by him | robbed | |||
'Imagine: Marie is helping someone and she gets mugged by him!' |
d. | Ook al | is | Els ziek, | toch | gaat | ze | vandaag | werken. |
concessive
V2
|
|
even though | is | Els ill | still | goes | she | today | work | |||
'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.' |
Before starting the discussion, we want to point out that besides the instances in (123) there are other cases that are used especially in the formal register. We take the constructions in (123) to be representative of everyday usage and refer the reader for the more formal/obsolete cases such as the comparison construction in (124b) to Haeseryn et al. (1997:1391ff).
a. | Alsof | hij beter | was | dan anderen, | zo | gedroeg | hij | zich. | |
as.if | he better | was | than others | so | behaved | he | refl | ||
'He behaved as if he was better than others.' |
b. | $ | Als | was | hij beter | dan anderen, | zo | gedroeg | hij | zich. |
as | was | he better | than others | so | behaved | he | refl |
The italicized conditional clauses in (125) show that verb-second is optional: if the conditional clause is introduced by the linker element als'if', the finite verb occurs in clause-final position but if als is not present, the finite verb must be clause-initial. There are grounds for assuming that the latter is possible in one specific context only, namely when the conditional clause is part of a left-dislocation construction; cf. Den Besten (1983:fn.3), Haeseryn et al. (1997:section 21.8), Den Dikken (2003), and Beekhuizen (2008).
a. | Als | het | morgen | regent, | dan | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. | |
if | it | tomorrow | rains | then | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
b. | Regent | het | morgen, | dan | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. | |
rains | it | tomorrow | then | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
That verb-first cannot apply in run-of-the mill adverbial clauses can be shown in at least two ways. First, the examples in (126) show that verb-first is marked if the resumptive element dan is not present. Example (126b) is marked with a percentage sign to indicate that this structure cannot easily be used to express the intended conditional reading; for the moment we will ignore that some speakers seem to allow this form but we will return to this in Subsection V.
a. | Als | het | morgen | regent, | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. | |
if | it | tomorrow | rains | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
b. | % | Regent | het | morgen, | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. |
rains | it | tomorrow | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains, then Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
Second, the examples in (127) show that verb-first is also excluded if the adverbial clause is in clause-final position.
a. | Ik | ga | naar de bioscoop | als | het | morgen | regent. | |
I | go | to the cinema | if | it | tomorrow | rains | ||
'Iʼll go to the cinema if it rains tomorrow.' |
b. | * | Ik | ga | naar de bioscoop | regent | het | morgen. |
I | go | to the cinema | rains | it | tomorrow |
A generalization that more or less presents itself on the basis of the examples in (125)-(127) is that conditional adverbial clauses allow verb-first only if they are clause-external. This is the case in left-dislocation constructions such as (125), in which the clause-initial position of the main clause is occupied by the resumptive element dan'then', but not in examples such as (126), where the conditional clause occupies the clause-initial position itself or examples such as (127), where it occurs in clause-final position. The structures we would like to propose are given in (128).
a. | [Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent], [main-clause dan ga ik naar de bioscoop]. |
a'. | [Cond-clauseRegent het morgen], [main-clause dan ga ik naar de bioscoop]. |
b. | [main-clause [Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent] ga ik naar de bioscoop]]. |
b'. | * | [main-clause [Cond-clauseRegent het morgen] ga ik naar de bioscoop]]. |
c. | [main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseals het morgen regent]]. |
c'. | * | [main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseregent het morgen]]. |
Observe that verb-first is also excluded in parenthetic conditional clauses, as shown by the examples in (129). Since it can be argued that parenthetical clauses are not structurally embedded in the main clause, this shows that being external to the main clause cannot be considered a sufficient condition for allowing verb-first.
a. | Ik ga morgen, | als | het | (tenminste) regent, | naar de bioscoop. | |
I go tomorrow if | it | at.least | rains | to the cinema | ||
'Iʼll go to the cinema tomorrow, at least if it rains.' |
b. | * | Ik | ga | morgen, | regent | het | (tenminste), | naar de bioscoop. |
I | go | tomorrow | rains | it | at.least | to the cinema |
Note in
passing that we can identify parenthetical clauses
by means of the phrase
tenminste'at least'; addition of this phrase to the
examples in (125) and (126a) gives rise to
severely marked results but it is easily possible
in (129a). It is possible in
(127a), but this requires
the adverbial clause to be preceded by an
intonation break.
That
left-dislocated phrases are indeed clause-external
is also shown by examples like (130) and (131). In (130), the main clause is
an imperative, and since imperative clauses always
have the finite verb in first position, the
als-clause cannot be clause-internal. The
same holds for the examples in (131), in which the main
clause is a
yes/no-question.
a. | Als | je | morgen | daar | bent, | help hem | *?(dan) | een beetje! | |
if | you | tomorrow | there | are | help him | then | a bit | ||
'If youʼre there tomorrow, do help him a bit!' |
b. | Ben | je | morgen | daar, | help hem | *?(dan) | een beetje! | |
are | you | tomorrow | there | help him | then | a bit | ||
'If youʼre there tomorrow, do help him a bit!' |
a. | Als | je | morgen | daar | bent, | help je | hem | *?(dan) | een beetje? | |
if | you | tomorrow | there | are | help you | him | then | a bit | ||
'If youʼre there tomorrow, will you help him a bit then?' |
b. | Ben | je | morgen | daar, | help je | hem | *?(dan) | een beetje? | |
are | you | tomorrow | there | help you | him | than | a bit | ||
'If youʼre there tomorrow, will you help him a bit then?' |
Observe that the V1-requirement of the main clauses in (130) and (131) makes it necessary to place the resumptive element dan in the middle field of the clause. The examples in (132) show that this option is not available in declarative main clauses: the resumptive element must be placed in clause-initial position as in the acceptable examples in (125) above.
a. | * | Als | het | morgen | regent, | ik | ga | dan | naar de bioscoop. |
if | it | tomorrow | rains | I | go | then | to the cinema |
b. | * | Regent | het | morgen, | ik | ga | dan | naar de bioscoop. |
rains | it | tomorrow | I | go | then | to the cinema |
The hypothesis that verb-first is possible only if the conditional adverbial clause is left-dislocated predicts that embedding the two examples in (125) will not give rise to an acceptable result, given that left dislocation is a property of root clauses. The unacceptability of (133b) shows that this is indeed what we find for (125b). The case for (125a) is less straightforward in the light of the acceptability of (133a), but the fact that addition of the resumptive element dan is impossible (regardless of its position in the matrix clause) shows that a left-dislocation analysis is not appropriate. That addition of tenminste'at least' to the conditional clause is possible in fact suggests that we are dealing with a parenthetical clause; see the discussion of (129).
a. | Ik | denk | dat | als | het | morgen | (tenminste) | regent | ik | naar de bioscoop | ga. | |
I | think | that | if | it | tomorrow | at.least | rains | I | to the cinema | go | ||
'I think that if it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
b. | * | Ik | denk | dat | regent | het | morgen | ik | naar de bioscoop | ga. |
I | think | that | rains | it | tomorrow | I | to the cinema | go |
That the
addition of the resumptive linking element
dan'then' to example (133a) leads to
unacceptability suggests that the presence of this
element is a reliable clue for assuming left
dislocation. If so, this supports the hypothesis
based on the acceptability contrast between the
examples in (125) and in (126)/(127) that verb-first is
restricted to left-dislocated
clauses.
Before concluding this
subsection, we will briefly address two issues
that may complicate the investigation of
conditional V1-clauses but which have received
hardly any attention in the syntactic literature
so far. First, the argument built on embedding is
complicated by the fact that besides examples such
as (133a) it is often
possible to have constructions such as (134a), with two
complementizers
dat and the resumptive element
dan. It is not a priori clear whether such
an example should be seen as the embedded
counterpart of (125a) or whether we are
dealing here with a performance phenomenon:
processing of the embedded clause in (133a) may be hampered by
the lengthy interruption of the parenthetic
conditional clause, and resumption of the part
preceding the parenthetical clause may therefore
be seen as a repair strategy. The fact that
example (125b) does not have such
a "counterpart" is unexpected under the first
approach and thus favors the second approach.
a. | Ik | denk | dat | als | het | morgen | regent | dat | ik | dan | naar de bioscoop | ga. | |
I | think | that | if | it | tomorrow | rains | that | I | then | to the cinema | go | ||
'I think that if it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
b. | * | Ik | denk | dat | regent | het | morgen | dat | ik | dan | naar de bioscoop | ga. |
I | think | that | rains | it | tomorrow | that | I | then | to the cinema | go |
Note in
passing that, although examples such as (134a) seem quite
outlandish at first sight, they are actually quite
frequent; a Google search (2/12/2014) on the
string [
dat als je * dat je dan] resulted in 264 hits, the vast
majority of which instantiate the intended
construction. We refer the reader to Section 14.2 for a discussion of a wider
range of utterances of this type.
A second complicating issue is
that in coordinate structures such as (135) verb-second may
apply in the second conjunct if the linker
als is not realized; cf. Haeseryn et al.
(1997:1252). At first sight,
this seems to confirm the earlier established fact
that the position of the finite verb in
left-dislocated conditional clauses depends on the
presence of
als, but closer scrutiny reveals that the
second conjunct in (135b) differs
conspicuously from the cases discussed earlier in
that its clause-initial position is filled by the
subject; example (135c) shows that this is
normally excluded in conditional clauses.
a. | Als | ik | het | niet | weet | of | als | ik | erover | twijfel, | dan | vraag | ik | het. | |
if | I | it | not | know | or | if | I | about.it | doubt | then | ask | I | it | ||
'If I donʼt know it or if I doubt it, I (will) ask it.' |
b. | Als | ik | het | niet | weet | of | ik | twijfel | erover, | dan | vraag | ik | het. | |
if | I | it | not | know | or | I | doubt | about.it | then | ask | I | it | ||
'If I donʼt know it or if I doubt it, I (will) ask it.' |
c. | * | Ik | twijfel | erover, | dan | vraag | ik | het. |
I | doubt | about.it | then | ask | I | it |
This raises the following question: are we really dealing with coordination in (135b) or should the presumed second conjunct be analyzed as a parenthetical clause? That is: should (135b) be analyzed along the line in (136a) or the one in (136b)? We will leave this issue to future research.
a. | [[Als ik het niet weet] of [ik twijfel erover]], dan vraag ik het. |
b. | Als ik het niet weet —of ik twijfel erover— dan vraag ik het. |
If we put these two complicating issues aside for the moment, we may conclude that the generalization that verb-first/second is excluded in embedded clauses can be maintained. The research question we still need to answer, however, is not "how is it that certain types of embedded clauses sometimes exhibit verb-first/second" but instead "how is it that left-dislocated clauses can sometimes take the form of either a main or a non-main clause"?
The conditional construction in (137a) and the contrastive construction in (137b) are similar in that the V1-clauses are not part of the main clause. This is clear from the fact that the initial position of the main clause is filled by some other constituent: the resumptive element dan in (137a) and the subject Jan in (137b). The primed examples show that the V1-clauses cannot occupy the initial position themselves; recall that we have postponed discussion of the fact that some speakers do seem to allow (137b') to Subsection V.
a. | Regent | het | morgen, | dan | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. | |
rains | it | tomorrow | then | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
a'. | % | Regent | het | morgen, | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. |
rains | it | tomorrow | go | I | to the cinema |
b. | Gaat | Peter | graag | uit, | Jan zit | liever | thuis. | |
goes | Peter | gladly | out | Jan sits | rather | at.home | ||
'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.' |
b'. | * | Gaat | Peter | graag | uit, | zit | Jan liever | thuis. |
goes | Peter | gladly | out | sits | Jan rather | at.home |
At first sight, the primeless examples in (138) seem to show that the two V1-clauses in (137) both alternate with across-the-board adverbial clauses introduced by a complementizer and with the finite verb in clause-final position. Closer scrutiny shows, however, that this is not the case. The optionality of dan in (138a) reveals that the als-clause could be either left-dislocated or clause-internal, that is, located in the initial position of the main clause. It is of course only the left-dislocated clause that can be considered an alternant of the similarly left-dislocated V1-clause in (137a). The fact that the terwijl-clause in (138b) triggers subject-verb inversion in the main clause shows that it occupies the clause-initial position and can consequently not be seen as an alternant of the left-dislocated V1-clause in (137b). We could conclude that contrastive V1-clauses alternate with terwijl-clauses if it is possible to have terwijl-clauses without subject-verb inversion, but (138b') shows that this is not the case.
a. | Als | het | morgen | regent, | (dan) | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. | |
if | it | tomorrow | rains | then | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains tomorrow, (then) Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
b. | Terwijl | Peter graag | uitgaat, | zit | Jan liever | thuis. | |
while | Peter gladly | out-goes | sits | Jan rather | at.home | ||
'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.' |
b'. | * | Terwijl | Peter graag | uitgaat, | Jan zit | liever | thuis. |
while | Peter gladly | out-goes | Jan sits | rather | at.home | ||
'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.' |
The examples
in (138) thus show that the
alternation occurs with the conditional
construction only. This should be related to
another conspicuous difference between the two
constructions; while Subsection I has shown that the
resumptive element
dan is obligatory in the conditional
construction, resumption does not seem possible in
the contrastive construction. This suggests that
while the conditional V1-clause (indirectly) plays
a semantic role in the main clause, this does
not
hold for the contrastive V1-clause because it is
not connected to the main clause by formal means
(like resumption).
The fact that
the syntactic tie between the two clauses is
tighter in the conditional than in the contrastive
construction is reflected by the semantics of the
two constructions. In the conditional
construction, there is an intimate relationship
between the truth of the propositions expressed by
the V1-clause and the main clause, which is
normally expressed in propositional calculus by
the
material implication
in (139a). In the contrastive
construction, on the other hand, the V1-clause and
the main clause are used to independently assert a
proposition, as expressed by the conjunction in
(139b). The crucial
difference between the two formulas is that
conjunctions but not material implications are
expressed by means of independent clauses.
a. | conditional construction: p → q |
b. | contrastive construction: p ∧ q |
Subsection I has shown that the resumptive element dan in conditional constructions must occupy the clause-initial position of a declarative main clause; see the contrast between the examples in (125b) and (132b), repeated here for convenience as (140). This would imply that the initial position plays a special role in the connection of the clauses.
a. | Regent | het | morgen, | dan | ga | ik | naar de bioscoop. | |
rains | it | tomorrow | then | go | I | to the cinema | ||
'If it rains tomorrow, then Iʼll go to the cinema.' |
b. | * | Regent | het | morgen, | ik | ga | dan | naar de bioscoop. |
rains | it | tomorrow | I | go | then | to the cinema |
Although there is no resumptive element in the contrastive construction, it seems that there are also restrictions here on the element in the first position of the declarative main clause. In order to clarify this we first have to digress on the meaning of the construction. As the name of the construction already suggests, the key issue is the notion of contrast. What is contained in this notion can be clarified by considering the larger sample of examples in (141); the notion of contrast applies to the italicized elements, and the underlined phrases occupy the initial positions of the main clauses; cf. Beekhuizen (2008).
a. | Gaat Peter | graag | uit, | Jan | zit | meestal | liever | thuis. |
entity
|
|
goes Peter | gladly | out | Jan | sits | generally | rather | at.home | |||
'While Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.' |
b. | Was | Marie vroeger | arm, | nu | is ze | erg rijk. |
time
|
|
was | Marie in.the.past | poor, | now | is she | very wealthy | |||
'While Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.' |
c. | Praat | Jan | bij Els | heel veel, | bij mij | is | hij | heel stil. |
location
|
|
talks | Jan | with Els | very much | with me | is | he | very quite | |||
'While Jan is talkative with Els, with me heʼs quite silent.' |
The italicized elements are topical and contrastive in the sense that the non-italicized parts of the clauses provide mutually incompatible comments on these elements: the comments in (141b), for instance, can be translated as the lambda expressions λx poor(x) and λx rich(x), which are mutually incompatible in the sense that lambda conversion cannot involve a single entity e as is clear from the fact that the formula poor(e) & rich(e) is contradictory. The semantic function of the topical elements is to add information that resolves the contradiction, as is clear from the fact that the informal predicate logic translations of the examples in (141) given in (142) are fully coherent.
a. | want to go out(p) & rather stay at home(j) |
b. | ∃t1 [poor(m) ∧ t1 < now] & ∃t2 [rich(m) ∧ t2 = now] |
c. | ∃p1 [talks a lot(j) ∧ p1 = with Els] & ∃p2 [silent (j) ∧ p2 = with me] |
Beekhuizen (2008) observes that in some cases the relevant notion is not contrast but unexpectedness or, perhaps even better, concessiveness. The comments in example (143a), for example, are not contradictory but instead tautologous in nature. For example, the formula good soprano(e) & able to sing well(e) is tautologous in the sense that the denotation of good soprano is included in the denotation of able to sing well. Again the topical elements resolve the tautology, as is shown in the informal predicate logic translation in (143b). Observe that concessive examples can often be recognized by the fact that the topical element in the main clause can be preceded by the focus particle ook'too'; adding this particle to the contrastive examples in (141) leads to a semantically incoherent result.
a. | Is Els een goede sopraan, | ook Marie | kan | goed | zingen. | |
is Els a good soprano | also Marie | can | well | sing | ||
'Although Els is a good soprano, Marie also sings well.' |
b. | good soprano(e) & able to sing well(m) |
In his newspaper corpus Beekhuizen found that the topical elements normally refer to entities (including individuals) and aspects of the spatio-temporal settings of the propositions expressed by the two clauses. Given the semantic discussion above, this does not come as a surprise as these settings are especially suitable in resolving the contradictory/tautologous nature of the comments. Beekhuizen also found that in more than 90% of the attested cases, the initial position of the declarative main clause is occupied by the topical element. That this position is a designated position for such elements is also clear from the fact illustrated in (144) that changing the word orders of the main clauses gives rise to less felicitous results. Note that we used the diacritic "$" to express this because the main clauses are fully acceptable without the contrastive V1-clauses and there is consequently no a priori reason for assuming that the examples in (144) are syntactically ill-formed; italics and underlining are used in the same way as in (141).
a. | $ | Gaat | Peter | graag | uit, | meestal | zit | Jan | liever | thuis. |
entity
|
goes | Peter | gladly | out | generally | sits | Jan | rather | at.home | |||
'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan generally prefers to stay at home.' |
b. | $ | Was | Marie vroeger | arm, | ze | is nu | erg rijk. |
time
|
was | Marie in.the.past | poor, | she | is now | very wealthy | |||
'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.' |
c. | $ | Praat | Jan | bij Els | heel veel, | hij | is bij mij | heel stil. |
location
|
talks | Jan | with Els | very much | he | is with me | very quite | |||
'Whereas Jan is talkative with Els, with me heʼs quite silent.' |
The fact that the topical constituent must occupy the initial position of the declarative main clause is again not surprising, given that contrastive topic/focus elements are generally found in this position; cf. Section 11.3.2. It is perhaps remarkable, however, that it does not seem possible to use contrastive accent to improve the examples in (144) while this is possible in contrastive coordination constructions such as (145), in which small caps indicate focus accent.
a. | Marie was | vroeger | arm, | maar | nu | is | ze | erg rijk. | |
Marie was | in.the.past | poor | but | now | is | she | very wealthy | ||
'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.' |
b. | Marie was | vroeger | arm, | maar | ze | is nu | erg rijk. | |
Marie was | in.the.past | poor | but | she | is now | very wealthy | ||
'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.' |
This contrast between the two construction types may be related to the fact that the declarative clauses in examples such as (141) are probably not contrastive focus constructions but contrastive topic constructions, that is, have contrastive accent on the topical element, with an additional accent in the comment of the clause: it is difficult to get this accent pattern if the topical element occupies a position in the middle field of the clause: ??Ze is nu erg rijk.
a. | Gaat | Peter | graag | uit, | Jan zit | meestal | liever | thuis. | |
goes | Peter | gladly | out | Jan sits | generally | rather | at.home | ||
'Whereas Peter likes to go out, Jan prefers to stay at home.' |
b. | Was | Marie vroeger | arm, | nu | is ze | erg rijk. | |
was | Marie in.the.past | poor | now | is she | very wealthy | ||
'Whereas Marie used to be poor, sheʼs now very wealthy.' |
c. | Praat | Jan bij Els | heel veel, | bij mij | is | hij | heel stil. | |
talks | Jan with Els | very much | with me | is | he | very quite | ||
'Whereas Jan is talkative with Els, with me heʼs quite silent.' |
Beekhuizen further found that the associate of the topical element in the contrastive V1-clause often precedes the subject. The examples in (147) show that this is not always possible but that it depends on the information-structural properties of the subject: while definite subjects may follow the adverbial phrase in 2013 if they are part of the discourse-new information, this is impossible for presuppositional subject pronouns like hij'he'. This seems to fit in with the word order generalizations discussed in Section 13.2.
a. | Was | in 2013 | mijn buurman | werkeloos, | nu | kan hij | overal | werken. | |
was | in 2013 | my neighbor | jobless | now | can he | anywhere | work | ||
'Although my neighbor was jobless in 2013, he can work anywhere now.' |
b. | Was | <hij> | in 2013 <*hij> | werkeloos, | nu | kan | hij | overal | werken. | |
was | he | in 2013 | jobless | now | can | he | anywhere | work | ||
'Although he was jobless in 2013, he can work anywhere now.' |
In the examples above the topical constituent has the same syntactic function as its associate in the contrastive V1-clause. The examples in (148) show, however that this need not be the case: (148) shows that a subject may be contrasted with an agentive door-phrase, which shows that it is sufficient if the topical elements have a similar semantic function.
Beweert | Jan dat | Els ziek | is, | door Marie wordt dit ontkend. | ||
claims | Jan that | Els ill | is | by Marie is this denied | ||
'Whereas Jan claims that Els is ill, this is denied by Marie.' |
This section has shown that contrastive/concessive V1-clauses are external to the main clause and therefore do not constitute counterexamples to the generalization that dependent clauses do not allo