Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

I. Conditional V1-clauses
II. Contrastive V1-clauses
III. Exclamative V1-clauses
IV. Concessive V2-clauses
V. Some potential problems
VI. Conclusion

[+] 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).

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.

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.

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).

128

[Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent], [main-clause dan ga ik naar de bioscoop].[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].[Cond-clauseRegent het morgen], [main-clause dan ga ik naar de bioscoop].

[main-clause [Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent] ga ik naar de bioscoop]].[main-clause [Cond-clauseAls het morgen regent] ga ik naar de bioscoop]].

b'.

*[main-clause [Cond-clauseRegent het morgen] ga ik naar de bioscoop]].[main-clause [Cond-clauseRegent het morgen] ga ik naar de bioscoop]].

[main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseals het morgen regent]].[main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseals het morgen regent]].

c'.

*[main-clause Ik ga naar de bioscoop [Cond-clauseregent het morgen]].[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.

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.

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!'

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.

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).

133

denk

dat

als

het

morgen

(tenminste)

regent

naar de bioscoop

ga.

think

that

tomorrow

at.least

rains

to the cinema

'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.

134

denk

dat

als

het

morgen

regent

dat

dan

naar de bioscoop

ga.

think

that

tomorrow

rains

that

then

to the cinema

'I think that if it rains tomorrow, Iʼll go to the cinema.'

denk

dat

regent

het

morgen

dat

dan

naar de bioscoop

ga.

think

that

rains

tomorrow

that

then

to the cinema

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.

135

Als

het

niet

weet

als

erover

twijfel,

dan

vraag

het.

not

know

about.it

doubt

then

ask

'If I donʼt know it or if I doubt it, I (will) ask it.'

Als

het

niet

weet

twijfel

erover,

dan

vraag

het.

not

know

doubt

about.it

then

ask

'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.

136

[[Als ik het niet weet] of [ik twijfel erover]], dan vraag ik het.[[Als ik het niet weet] of [ik twijfel erover]], dan vraag ik het.

Als ik het niet weet —of ik twijfel erover— dan vraag ik het.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.

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.

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.

139

conditional construction: p → q

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.

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).

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.

142

want to go out(p) & rather stay at home(j)want to go out(p) & rather stay at home(j)

∃t1 [poor(m) ∧ t1 < now] & ∃t2 [rich(m) ∧ t2 = now]∃t1 [poor(m) ∧ t1 < now] & ∃t2 [rich(m) ∧ t2 = now]

∃p1 [talks a lot(j) ∧ p1 = with Els] & ∃p2 [silent (j) ∧ p2 = with me]∃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.

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.'

good soprano(e) & able to sing well(m)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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 allow V-first/second. We have also seen evidence that such V1-clauses differ from conditional V1-clauses in that they are not left-dislocated and do not alternate with run-of-the-mill adverbial clauses introduced by some linker. From a syntactic point of view contrastive V1-clauses are less intimately related to the following main clause than conditional V1-clauses, due to the lack of resumption.

[+] III. Exclamative V1-clauses

The exclamative constructions in (149) are taken from Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:266) in a slightly adapted version. Examples like these are characterized by a typical exclamative intonation pattern; small caps indicate contrastive accent and the exclamation mark the exclamative intonation contour. Exclamative constructions are normally used to express an emotional attitude of the speaker towards the propositional content: amazement, vexation, indignation, etc.

149

a.	Zijn	we eindelijk	in Parijs,	regent	het	de hele dag!
	are	we finally	in Paris	rains	it	the whole day
	'Weʼve finally managed to get to Paris and itʼs been pouring all day!'

b.	Heeft	hij	eindelijk	een baan,	komt	hij	niet	opdagen!
	has	he	finally	a job,	comes	he	not	up-show
	'At last he has a job and what does he do? He doesnʼt show up!'

At first sight examples such as (149) look very similar to the marked conditional constructions with a conditional V1-clause and without the resumptive element dan'then', the discussion of which we have postponed to Subsection V. This is a visual deception, however: in speech the intonation pattern would immediately distinguish the two. Furthermore, the two have quite different meanings. A nice illustration of this is given by Van der Horst & Van der Horst; they quote an advertisement slogan for Croma, a brand of frying fat:

150

a.	%	Hou	je	van vlees,	braad	je	in Croma.	conditional
		like	you	of meat	fry	you	in Croma
		'If you like meat, then you fry [it] in Croma.'

b.	Hou	je	van vlees,	braad	je	in Croma!	exclamative
	like	you	of meat	fry	you	in Croma
	'How can you be so stupid: You like meat and you fry [it] in Croma.'

The conditional use in (150a) was of course the one intended; if one gave this slogan an exclamative intonation pattern, it would give rise to a reading expressing utter disapproving amazement, which we tried to express by means of the translation in (150b). The translation also expresses that the exclamative construction has no conditional import: the speaker simply asserts that the propositions expressed by the two clauses are both true. There is a relation between the two propositions, though, in that it is the truth of the proposition expressed by the first clause that makes the truth of the proposition expressed by the second clause so surprising; see Beekhuizen (2008: Section 4) for more discussion. Note in passing that the second person pronoun je can readily be given a generic interpretation in examples such as (150a) leading to the interpretation "Anyone who likes meat fries in Croma" but that the second person pronoun must refer to the addressee in (150b); it may be interesting to note in this connection that Beekhuizen found a fairly large number of generic exclamative constructions in his newspaper corpus.
Exclamative examples such as (149) never involve a resumptive element, which may indicate that the first V1-clause is in the initial position of the second clause. However, this would run afoul of our earlier conclusion on the basis of conditional and contrastive constructions that V1-clauses are always clause-external. Let us then consider the alternative that the first clause is external to the second clause, although it is not easy to find convincing arguments for/against the two options. It would be an argument in favor of the first option if the V1-clause could also appear in some other clause-internal position, but the examples in (151) show that this is not the case.

151

a.	[Zijn	we eindelijk	in Parijs],	regent	het	de hele dag!	= (149a)
	are	we finally	in Paris	rains	it	the whole day
	'Weʼve finally managed to get to Paris and itʼs been pouring all day!'

*Het regent [zijn we eindelijk in Parijs] de hele dag!Het regent [zijn we eindelijk in Parijs] de hele dag!

*Het regent de hele dag [zijn we eindelijk in Parijs]!Het regent de hele dag [zijn we eindelijk in Parijs]!

The examples in (151) suggest instead that the first V1-clause is external to the second one. It would be an argument in favor of such an analysis if the contrastive V1-clause could also occur syntactically independent of the second one. The coordination constructions in (152), which are based on the examples in (149) and (150b), show that this is indeed possible.

152

a.		Zijn	we eens	in Parijs,	en	dan	regent	het	de hele dag!
		are	we prt	in Paris	and	then	rains	it	the whole day

b.		Heeft	hij	eindelijk	een baan, en	dan	komt	hij	niet	opdagen!
		has	he	finally	a job,	and	then comes	he	not	up-show

c.		Hou	je	van vlees	en	dan	braad	je	in Croma!
		like	you	of meat	and	then	fry	you	in Croma

In fact, the examples in (153), which again are modelled on example (152b), show that the first clause need not even be coordinated with a declarative clause, but can also be coordinated with an interrogative clause, or a demonstrative pronoun/referential noun phrase preceded by dan.

153

a.	Heeft	hij	eindelijk	een baan,	en	wat zegt hij?!
	has	he	finally	a job,	and	what says he
	'At last he has a job and what does he say?'

b.	Heeft	hij	eindelijk	een baan, en	dan	dit/zo'n reactie!
	has	he	finally	a job,	and	then this/such a reaction
	'At last he has a job and then this happens/we get such a reaction.'

It would be another argument for assuming that the first clause is external to the second one if the second clause could be used as an independent exclamative V1-clause in other contexts. The examples in (154) show that this is also possible.

154

a.	We zijn	eindelijk	in Parijs.	En	wat	denk	je:	Regent	het	de hele dag!
	we are	finally	in Paris.	and	what	think	you:	rains	it	the whole day
	'Finally, weʼre in Paris. And, guess what, it is raining all day!'

Hij heeft

eindelijk

een baan.

wat

denk

je:

komt

hij

niet

opdagen!

he has

finally

a job

and

what

think

you

comes

not

up-show

'He finally has a job. And, guess what, he doesnʼt turn up!'

c.	Hij	houdt	van vlees.	En	wat	denk	je:	braadt	hij in Croma!
	he	likes	of meat.	and	what	think	you	fries	he in Croma
	'He likes meat. And, guess what, he fries in Croma!'

Examples (152) and (154) strongly suggest that the exclamative constructions in (149) and (150b) involve juxtaposed clauses, which in fact ties in nicely with the observation that exclamative constructions of this sort are typical of speech because exclamative V1-constructions of the type in (152) and (154) are also relatively rare in written language. If the juxtaposition analysis is indeed correct, exclamative V1-clauses are well-behaved with respect to our hypothesis that V1-clauses cannot occur clause-internally.

[+] IV. Concessive V2-clauses

In the introduction to this section, we have seen that concessive clauses come in at least two varieties, repeated here in a slightly different form as (155a&b). The concessive clause in (155a) is an ordinary adverbial clause: the impossibility of including the particle toch in the initial position of the main clause shows that it must occur clause-internally and, in keeping with our hypothesis that V1-clauses cannot occur clause-internally, it is introduced by the complementizer-like element hoewel'although' and has the finite verb in clause-final position. The concessive clause in (155b), on the other hand, must be external to the main clause, as is clear from the fact that the particle toch in the first position of the main clause cannot be omitted. Concessive main clauses such as (155b) differ from the conditional clauses discussed in the subsection I in that they do not have an alternant with the finite verb in clause-final position; examples such as (155b') are unacceptable.

155

a.	Hoewel	Els	ziek	is,	(*toch)	gaat	ze	vandaag	werken.
	although	Els	ill	is,	still	goes	she	today	work
	'Although Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'

b.	Ook al	is Els ziek,	*(toch)	gaat	ze	vandaag	werken.
	even though	is Els ill	still	goes	she	today	work
	'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'

b'.	*	Ook al	Els ziek	is,	toch	gaat	ze	vandaag	werken.
		even though	Els ill	is	still	goes	she	today	work

The reason for the ungrammaticality of (155b') might be that examples such as (155b) cannot be analyzed as left-dislocation constructions; see the discussion of contrastive construction in Subsection II. If (155b) were a case of left dislocation, we would expect the particle toch to be analyzed as a resumptive element linked to the concessive clause, but this is rather unlikely, given that example (156a) shows that this particle can also be used in examples with a clause-internal concessive clause: if toch were a resumptive element, example (156a) would have two constituents performing an identical syntactic function. Furthermore, example (156b) shows that toch differs from conditional dan in that it need not be clause-initial in declarative clauses; it can in fact even be left out entirely, although Haeseryn et al. (1997:1391) claim that this is a feature especially found in written texts.

156

a.	Hoewel	Els	ziek	is	gaat	ze	vandaag	toch	werken.
	although	Els	ill	is	goes	she	today	still	work
	'Although Els is ill, sheʼs still going to work today.'

b.	Ook al	is Els ziek,	ze	gaat	vandaag	(toch)	werken.
	even though	is Els ill	she	goes	today	still	work
	'Even though Els is ill, sheʼs (still) going to work today.'

The ungrammaticality of (155b') is also related to the status of the element (ook) al'even though'. We have seen that we can account for the complementary distribution of als and the finite verb in initial position of left-dislocated conditional clauses by assuming that als is a complementizer occupying the C-position, that is, the target position of verb-first/second. The fact that (ook) al does not block verb-second shows that it is a regular phrase in clause-initial position and not a complementizer-like element. This is also consistent with the fact, illustrated in (157a&b), that some other constituent will normally be moved into this position if (ook) al is omitted. The conclusion that (ook) al is a phrase occupying the clause-initial position of the concessive clause correctly predicts that it cannot license the clause-final placement of the finite verb in (155b').

157

a.	Ook al	was de reclame	groot,	toch	bleef	het succes	maar	klein.
	even though	was the publicity	big	still	stayed	the success	prt	small
	'Even though there was a lot of publicity, the success was small.'

b.	De reclame	was groot,	toch	bleef	het succes	maar	klein.
	the publicity	was big	still	stayed	the success	prt	small
	'There was a lot of publicity, still the success was small.'

Note in passing that Haeseryn et al. (1997:1392) claim that the omission of (ook) al does not require some other constituent to be moved into clause-initial position: they consider Was de reclame groot, toch bleef het succes maar klein possible in the formal register. According to us, this example is artificial and obsolete; see Van der Horst (2008) for a similar example from Old Dutch (p.337) and the claim that the construction with al is already common in Middle Dutch (p.773-4).
That concessive clauses introduced by (ook) al have the hallmarks of regular main clauses seems to fit in nicely with our earlier conclusion that a left-dislocation analysis is not possible; they must therefore be analyzed as independent main clauses. This is also suggested by yet another difference from conditional clauses. The (a)-examples in (158), repeated from Subsection I, show that conditional clauses in extraposed position must be introduced by als and therefore do not allow movement of the finite verb. Example (158b), on the other hand, shows that placing the concessive clause last does not affect its form; this shows again that it cannot function as a regular adverbial clause.

158

a.		Ik	ga	naar de bioscoop	als	het	morgen	regent.
		I	go	to the cinema	if	it	tomorrow	rains

a'.	*	Ik	ga	naar de bioscoop	regent	het	morgen.
		I	go	to the cinema	rains	it	tomorrow

b.	Het succes	bleef	maar	klein,	ook al	was de reclame	groot.
	the success	stayed	prt	small	even though	was the publicity	big
	'The success was small even though there was a lot of publicity.'

The discussion above leaves us with the question as to what kind of structure is plausible for the concessive constructions under discussion. The first thing that comes to mind is that we are dealing with two juxtaposed main clauses and this may in fact be a plausible analysis for examples such as (157b), given that (159a) shows that we may also coordinate the two clauses by means of the conjunction maar'but' and that the first clause can readily be used independently. This does not hold for examples such as (157a): the use of maar'but' in (159b) gives rise to a degraded result and the independent use of the first clause in (159b') has some sense of incompleteness (indicated by the diacritic "$" and a series of dots).

159

a.	De reclame	was groot	(maar	toch	bleef	het succes	maar	klein).
	the publicity	was big	but	still	stayed	the success	only	small
	'There was a lot of publicity, still the success was small.'

b.	*	Ook al	was de reclame groot	(maar	toch bleef het succes	maar klein).
		even though	was the publicity big	but	still stayed the success	only small

b'.

Ook al was de reclame groot, ...

It follows that the examples in (159) suggest that a simple juxtaposition analysis might not be the right answer. Since we do not have any further insights to offer at this point, we leave the question unresolved as to the internal structure of the concessive construction under discussion, while concluding that this does not jeopardize the generalization that verb-first/second is excluded in dependent clauses.

[+] V. Some potential problems

The previous subsections have shown for a number of adverbial-like V1/2-clauses that they are clause-external, and thus support the hypothesis that verb-first/second is impossible in the case of average (clause-internal) adverbial clauses. This subsection considers some potential counterexamples to this hypothesis. The first case was already mentioned in our earlier discussion but put aside. Consider again the examples in (160). Example (160b) is normally considered infelicitous but we marked it with a percentage sign, as Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:256ff) provide a large number of attested conditional V1-clauses without resumptive dan from various written sources such as newspapers, belles-lettres, advertisements, etc.

160

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.	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.'

Van der Horst & Van der Horst claim that examples of this type are a recent innovation that became especially popular in the 1980's although they also found some cases from the 14th century onwards; the examples in (161) show that there are even a number of proverbs of this form.

161

a.	Komt	tijd,	komt raad.
	comes	time	comes council
	Approximately: 'Time brings counsel.'

b.	Baadt	het	niet,	(dan)	schaadt	het	niet.
	helps	it	not	then	harms	it	not
	'It canʼt do any harm and it may do some good.'

Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:256ff) provide an analysis according to which conditional V1-clauses are clause-internal if dan is not present, and claim that this has become possible in analogy to constructions with als-clauses. They further suggest that the rise of clause-internal conditional V1-clauses is to be expected as this eliminates an irregularity from the system by allowing all dependent clauses to occur clause-internally. From our perspective, however, such a change would introduce an irregularity into the system because it goes against the well-supported hypothesis that V1-clauses are categorically rejected in clause-internal position. This hypothesis can be saved, however, if we assume that constructions with conditional V1-clauses but without resumptive dan are not part of Dutch core grammar.
Two options present themselves. One possibility, which is also considered by Van der Horst & Van der Horst, is built on the observation that the use of resumptive dan is a property of spoken language, that is, it is disfavored in written language; its omission in constructions with conditional V1-clauses may therefore be a case of hypercorrection. Another possibility appeals to the fact that some speakers allow omission of resumptive elements in clause-initial position. If correct, the analysis of the constructions with conditional V1-clauses without resumptive dan would be as given in (162a). This would give rise to the expectation that speakers who allow (162a) also allow "preposition stranding" in examples such as (162b), provided at least that apparent preposition stranding results from the deletion of the resumptive pronominal part of the discontinuous PP daar ... op.

162

a.	%	Regent	het	morgen,	[dan	ga	ik	naar de bioscoop].
		rains	it	tomorrow	then	go	I	to the cinema
		'If it rains, then Iʼll go to the cinema.'

b.	%	Bananen,	[daar	ben	ik	dol	op].
		bananas	there	am	I	fond	of
		'Bananas, Iʼm fond of (them).'

Since we are not able to test whether this expectation is borne out, we have to leave this to future research, while noting that we believe that a correlation is likely to be found. The reason for this optimism is that according to Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:270) the rise in popularity of the two constructions in (162) occurred more or less simultaneously (in the second half of the 20th century). Whatever the outcome of such an investigation, we can conclude from the discussion above that it is not at all obvious that the occurrence of conditional V1-clauses without resumptive dan refutes the hypothesis that V1-clauses do not occur clause-internally: an appeal to hypercorrection or an analysis such as (162a) would be completely consistent with this hypothesis.
Adverbial-like V1-clauses containing the modal verbs willen and mogen constitute a second potential problem. We will confine the discussion to cases with willen, as illustrated in (163). At first sight, these examples seem to be regular conditional constructions of the type discussed in subsection I: the optionality of the resumptive element dan'then' in (163a) suggests that the als-clause is a run-of-the-mill adverbial clause, which can either occupy the clause-initial position of the main clause or be left-dislocated; the obligatoriness of dan in (163b) further suggests that we are dealing with a proper V1-clause in the sense that it occurs clause-externally.

163

a.	Als	je	wil	slagen	(dan)	moet	je	harder	werken.
	if	you	want	pass.the.exam	then	come	you	harder	work
	'If you want to pass the exam, (then) you must work harder.'

b.	Wil	je	slagen	*(dan)	moet	je	harder	werken.
	want	you	pass.the.exam	then	come	you	harder	work
	'If you want to pass the exam, (then) you must work harder.'

Closer scrutiny shows, however, that in at least some cases we may be dealing with a slightly different construction type. First, the examples in (164) show that the alternation between the als-clause and the V1-clause is not always possible.

164

a.	??	Als	het project	wil	slagen,	(dan)	moeten	we hard	werken.
		if	the project	wants	succeed	then	must	we hard	work

b.	Wil	het project	slagen,	*(dan)	moeten	we	hard	werken.
	wants	the project	succeed	then	must	we	hard	work
	'We must work hard if the project is to succeed.'

Second, example (164b) does not express a material implication: the eventuality of "the project becoming a success" as expressed in the first clause is not presented as a sufficient condition for the eventuality of "we working hard" as expressed in the second clause. In fact, the relation is reversed: the second eventuality can be seen as a prerequisite for the first one to come into existence; Boogaart et al. (2007:240) characterize examples such as (164b) as teleological in nature. Related to this is that the modal verb willen in (164) cannot have a deontic (volitional) interpretation but is instead interpreted epistemically; cf. Section 5.2.3.2, sub IIIA. The primed examples in (165) show that teleological V1-clauses differ from the conditional ones in that they can occur in clause-final position.

165

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'.	*	Ik	ga	naar de bioscoop,	regent	het	morgen.
		I	go	to the cinema	rains	it	tomorrow

b.	Wil	het project	slagen,	dan	moeten	we	hard	werken.
	wants	the project	succeed	then	must	we	hard	work
	'If the project is to succeed, we must work hard.'

b'.	We	moeten	hard	werken,	wil	het project	slagen.
	we	must	hard	work	wants	the project	succeed
	'We must work hard if the project is to succeed.'

Since we have assumed that clause-final adverbial clauses are placed clause-internally, example (165b) is a potential counterexample to our hypothesis that V1-clauses can only occur clause-externally. A possible solution can be found in Beekhuizen (2008:46), where it is suggested that V1-clauses in examples such as (165b) are in fact parenthetical clauses. There are indeed reasons for assuming that this is the case: Subsection I has shown that parenthetical clauses have the characteristic property that they can contain tenminste'at least' and this option is also available for clause-final teleological V1-clauses. Observe the contrast between the two examples in (166), which seems to show that a clause cannot simultaneously be left-dislocated and parenthetical in nature. For completeness' sake, we have added example (165c) to show that the parenthetical clause can also appear in the middle field of de clause.

166

a.	Wil	het project	*(tenminste)	slagen,	dan	moeten	we	hard	werken.
	wants	the project	at.least	succeed	then	must	we	hard	work
	'For the project to succeed, we must work hard.'

b.	We	moeten	hard	werken,	wil	het project	tenminste	slagen.
	we	must	hard	work	wants	the project	at.least	succeed
	'We must work hard in order for the project to succeed.'

c.	We	moeten,	wil	het project	tenminste	slagen,	hard	werken.
	we	must	wants	the project	at.least	succeed	hard	work
	'We must work hard in order for the project to succeed.'

The presence of dan proves that the V1-clause in (166a) is clause-external and the possibility of tenminste in (166a) makes it plausible that we are dealing with a parenthetical clause, and these two facts, in turn, strongly suggest that teleological V1-clauses conform to our hypothesis that adverbial-like V1-clauses occur clause-externally only. But, of course, more investigation of this construction is needed to establish this conclusion more firmly; we refer the reader to Beekhuizen (2008:ch.5) for a good starting point.

[+] VI. Conclusion

Subsections I to IV have shown that the italicized V1/2-clauses in (123), repeated here as (167), are clause-external; in the conditional construction in (167a), this is clear from the fact that most speakers require the expression of the resumptive element dan'then' in the initial position of the main clause; in the contrastive and concessive constructions in (167b&d), this is clear from the fact that the initial position of the main clause is occupied by some other constituent. For the exclamative construction in (167c), this is a bit harder to show but a juxtaposition analysis is quite plausible given that the first clause may also be used as the first conjunct in the near-synonymous coordinate construction Helpt Marie iemand en dan wordt ze door hem beroofd!'Imagine: Marie is helping someone and then that person robs her!'.

167

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 again tomorrow, then 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
	'Whereas Jan was very satisfied, Jan certainly wasnʼt.'

c.	Helpt	Marie	iemand,	wordt	ze	door hem	beroofd!	exclamative V1
	helps	Marie	someone	be	she	by him	robbed
	'Imagine: Marie is helping someone and that person robs her!'

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.'

The discussion supported the hypothesis that verb-first/second is impossible in run-of-the-mill, that is, clause-internal adverbial clauses, subsection V concluded with a number of potential problems for this hypothesis; it seems plausible, however, that the V1-clauses discussed in this section are not clause-internal either.

References:

Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
Beekhuizen, Barend2008Afhankelijke V1-constructies in het Nederlands
Besten, Hans den1983On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rulesAbraham, Werner (ed.)On the formal nature of the WestgermaniaAmsterdamBenjamins47--131
Boogaart, Ronny & Janssen, Theo2007Tense and aspectGeeraerts, Dirk & Cuykens, Hubert (eds.)The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguisticsOxford/New YorkOxford University Press803-828
Dikken, Marcel den2003Comparative correlatives and verb secondKoster, Jan & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)Germania et alia. A Linguistic website for Hans den Besten
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Horst, Joop van der2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxisLeuvenUniversitaire Pers Leuven
Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij
Horst, Joop van der & Horst, Kees van der1999Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuwDen Haag/AntwerpenSDU Uitgevers & Standaard Uitgeverij

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AccentClauseComplementizerConcessive ClauseConditional ClauseContrastive AccentContrastive TopicContrastive ClauseCoordinationDeclarative ComplementizerExclamativeFocus ParticleLeft DislocationModal VerbNon-main ClausesParticleTeleological ClauseTopicVerb-firstVerb-Second

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles