• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
    10.3.2.Verb-first/second in embedded clauses?
    quickinfo

    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.

    Example 121
    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.

    Example 122
    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.

    Example 123
    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).

    Example 124
    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
    readmore
    [+]  I.  Conditional V1-clauses

    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).

    Example 125
    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.

    Example 126
    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.

    Example 127
    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).

    Example 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.

    Example 129
    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.

    Example 130
    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!'
    Example 131
    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.

    Example 132
    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).

    Example 133
    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.

    Example 134
    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.

    Example 135
    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.

    Example 136
    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"?

    [+]  II.  Contrastive V1-clauses

    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.

    Example 137
    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.

    Example 138
    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.

    Example 139
    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.

    Example 140
    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).

    Example 141
    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.

    Example 142
    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.

    Example 143
    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).

    Example 144
    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.

    Example 145
    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.

    Example 146
    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.

    Example 147
    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.

    Example 148
    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