• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
    12.4. Parts of constituents
    quickinfo

    There is a wide range of constructions in which a part of a clausal constituent occurs in postverbal position. Prototypical cases of such extraposed phrases are relative clauses and postnominal clauses/PPs (both modifiers and complements). Examples are provided in (73), in which the italicized parts clearly form a clausal constituent semantically. We refer to cases like these as split extraposition constructions (by analogy to the notion of split topicalization, which refers to cases in which a part of a clausal constituent is topicalized). Italics will be used throughout this subsection to indicate the split clausal constituents.

    Example 73
    a. Hij heeft de man bezocht die hier gisteren was.
    relative clause
      he  has  the man  visited  who  here  yesterday  was
      'He has visited the man who was here yesterday.'
    b. dat Jan de vraag stelde of het regende.
    complement clause
      that  Jan the question  put  whether  it  rained
      'that Jan asked the question whether it rained.'
    c. dat Jan een boek gekocht heeft uit de 16e eeuw.
    PP-modifier
      that  Jan a book  bought  has  from the 16th century
      'that Jan has bought a book from the 16th century.'

    For a long time, generative grammar has taken it for granted that split extraposition constructions are derived by movement from underlying structures in which the italicized parts are syntactic units; cf. Baltin (2006) for a review, subsection I will show that there are reasons for rejecting such a movement approach, subsection II continues by showing that split extraposition is not limited to relative clauses and complements/modifiers of noun phrases, but that it is a more general phenomenon. We illustrate this in (74) by cases in which an adjectival complementive is split: in (74a) the PP-complement op Peter of the adjective boos'angry' is extraposed, and in (74b), the extraposed clause is part of a complex modifier phrase of the adjective klein'small'.

    Example 74
    a. dat Marie erg boos is op Peter.
      that  Marie  very angry  is at Peter
      'that Marie is very angry with Peter.'
    b. dat de computer zo klein is dat hij overal past.
      that  the computer  so small  is  that  he  everywhere  fits
      'that the computer is so small that it fits everywhere.'

    The conclusion that split extraposition cannot be derived by movement may give rise to the idea that we are not dealing with extraposition but with some form of right dislocation; cf. Section 12.1, sub IV, where it is shown that extraposition and right dislocation are sometimes difficult to distinguish, subsection III will argue against this hypothesis by showing that the postverbal parts of split extraposition constructions differ from right-dislocated phrases in that the former cannot be stranded under VP-topicalization; Kaan (1992) has in fact shown that both parts of the split constituent must be pied piped in order to obtain an acceptable result. We illustrate this in the (a)-examples in (75) for the extraposed relative clause in (73a); example (75b) is added to show that the full noun phrase can be stranded under VP-topicalization but in this case the relative clause is simply not extraposed, as is clear from the fact that it precedes the sentential negation niet'not', which cannot occur in postverbal position. Kaan’s generalization will be used as a test for distinguishing the postverbal part in split extraposition constructions from right-dislocated phrases.

    Example 75
    a. [De man bezocht die hier gisteren was] heeft hij niet.
      the man  visited  who  here  yesterday  was has  he  not
    a'. * [De man bezocht] heeft hij niet die hier gisteren was.
    a''. * [Bezocht die hier gisteren was] heeft hij de man niet.
    b. Bezocht heeft hij [de mandie hier gisteren was] niet.

    The (a)-examples clearly show that the postverbal part in split extraposition constructions is clearly clause-internal, subsection IV concludes by discussing a fairly recent alternative for the movement approach initiated by Koster (2000), according to which split extraposition is a form of juxtaposition of the VP and some other phrase.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  Relative clauses and postnominal complements/modifiers

    Prototypical cases of split extraposition involve nominal arguments with a relative clause or a postnominal clause/PP. We illustrate this again in the examples in (76): the primeless examples indicate the structures of the noun phrases in the non-split pattern, while the primed examples illustrate the split extraposition pattern.

    Example 76
    a. dat hij [de man [die dit boek geschreven heeft]] kent.
      that  he  the man  who  this book  written  has knows
      'that he knows the man who has written this book.'
    a'. dat hij de man kent die dit boek geschreven heeft.
      that  he  the man  knows  who  this book  written  has
    b. dat hij [de bewering [dat Marie gelogen had]] niet kon weerleggen.
      that  he  the contention   that  Marie lied  had  not  could  rebut
      'that he couldnʼt rebut the claim that Marie had lied.'
    b'. dat hij de bewering niet kon weerleggen dat Marie gelogen had.
      that  he  the contention  not  could  rebut  that  Marie lied had
    c. dat hij [de man [met het aapje]] gezien heeft.
      that  he   the man  with the monkey  seen  has
      'that he has seen the man with the monkey.'
    c'. dat hij de man gezien heeft met het aapje.
      that  he  the man  seen  has  with the monkey

    For completeness’ sake, we add the examples in (77) in order to show that split extraposition is not only possible with prepositional phrases but also with post- and circumpositional phrases; cf. Veld (1993:section 4.3).

    Example 77
    a. dat ze een weg <de berg op> bouwden <de berg op>.
      that  they  a road  the mountain up  built
      'that they built a road up the mountain.'
    b. dat ze een gang <onder de weg door> groeven < onder de weg door>.
      that  they  a tunnel  under the road door  dug
      'that they dug a tunnel underneath the road.'

          Until the mid 1990’s many generative grammarians assumed that the split patterns in (76) and (77) are derived by movement. One reason was that a movement analysis immediately accounts for the fact that the postverbal phrase obeys selection restrictions imposed by the presumed selecting head, as well as the fact that the pre- and postverbal PP are in complementary distribution: cf. Corver (1991).

    Example 78
    dat Jan de hoop <op/*voor hulp> verloor <op/*voor hulp>.
      that  Jan the hope    on/for help  lost
    'that Jan lost all hope of help.'

    The nature of the movement is not entirely clear, however. One generally accepted derivation involved the postulation of an extraposition transformation (which in the case of PPs was sometimes referred to as PP-over-V), which optionally moves the postnominal clause/PP rightwards into some postverbal position, as illustrated by structure (79a). Another view, which originates from the 1970’s and became quite popular after the publication of Kayne (1994), is the so-called raising (or promotion) analysis. According to this analysis, the noun phrase is generated to the right of the verb and subsequently moved into some position to left of the verb, while optionally stranding its post-nominal part; this is indicated by structure (79b), in which NP* stands for a somewhat larger nominal projection than the moved NP-projection.

    Example 79
    a. [... [NP ... N ti ] ... V [rel-clausei/clause/PP]i]
    extraposition/PP-over-V
    b. [... [NP ... N]i ... V [NP*ti [rel-clausei/clause/PP]]]
    raising/promotion

    Despite the popularity of the two proposals there are many theoretical and empirical problems with them; we will provide some of the most important issues below and refer the reader to Koster (1973/1995/2000), Kaan (1992), De Vries (2002:ch.7), Boef (2013:ch.3), and references cited there for more detailed discussions.
          A quite problematic aspect of the extraposition analysis in (79a) is that it presupposes that relative clauses and postnominal PPs can be extracted from noun phrases, while there is actually no independent evidence to support that claim. For example, while virtually any clausal constituent can be moved into clause-initial position, topicalization of relative clauses and postnominal clauses/PPs is excluded, as is illustrated by the primed examples in (80). The number sign in (80c') indicates that this example is acceptable if the met-PP is interpreted as a comitative adverbial phrase; this reading is irrelevant here.

    Example 80
    a. Hij kent [de man [die dit boek geschreven heeft]].
      he  knows  the man  who  this book  written  has
      'He knows the man who has written this book.'
    a'. * Die dit boek geschreven heeft kent hij de man.
      who  this book  written  has  knows  he  the man
    b. Hij kon [de bewering [dat Marie gelogen had]] niet weerleggen.
      he  could   the contention   that  Marie lied  had  not  rebut
      'He couldnʼt rebut the claim that Marie had lied.'
    b'. * Dat Marie gelogen had kon hij de bewering niet weerleggen.
      that  Marie lied  had  could  he  the contention  not  rebut
    c. Hij heeft [de man [met het aapje]] gezien.
      he  has  the man  with the monkey  seen
      'He has seen the man with the monkey.'
    c'. # Met het aapje heeft hij de man gezien.
      with the monkey  has  he  the man  seen

    The unacceptability of the primed examples follows from the hypothesis that noun phrases are islands for movement (cf. Section 11.3.1.1, sub VB), but this hypothesis would make the extraposition analysis in (79a) highly implausible anyway. Of course, there are also arguments in favor of the extraposition analysis but these do not seem very strong. For example, it has been argued that noun phrases such as het debuut van Hella Haasse do allow topicalization of their postnominal PP. However, topicalization of this sort is possible only if the PP is headed by van or over, and Section N2.2.1, sub VC, has shown that such topicalized PPs can be analyzed as restrictive adverbial phrases.

    Example 81
    a. Hij heeft [het debuut van Hella Haasse] gelezen.
      he  has   the debut  of Hella Haasse  read
      'He has read Hella Haasseʼs debut novel.'
    b. Hij heeft het debuut gelezen van Hella Haasse.
    extraposition
      he  has  the debut  read  of Hella Haasse
    b'. Van Hella Haasse heeft hij het debuut gelezen.
    topicalization
      of Hella Haasse  has  he  the  debut  read

    A more convincing argument in favor of the analysis in (79a) might be that scrambling of the object across a clausal adverb has a deteriorating effect on extraposition; this may follow from the so-called freezing effect, according to which moved phrases are islands for extraction. It should be noted, however, that Guéron (1980) has argued on the basis of English that extraposition is possible only from noun phrases that are part of the focus (new information) of the clause, while scrambled nominal arguments are typically part of the presupposition.

    Example 82
    a. Hij heeft waarschijnlijk die man <met het aapje> gezien <met het aapje>.
      he  has  probably  that man    with the monkey  seen
      'He has probably seen that man with the monkey.'
    b. Hij heeft die man <met het aapje> waarschijnlijk gezien <*met het aapje>.
      he  has  that man  with the monkey  probably  seen

    Another potential argument against the freezing approach and in favor of Guéron’s proposal is that De Vries (2002:244) claims that split extraposition is possible in the case of topicalized phrases. It is not so clear, however, whether examples such as (83) indeed involve extraposition or whether we are dealing with right dislocation; the percentage signs in these examples indicates that according to some speakers an intonation break is preferred, which would suggest that we are dealing with right dislocation. Unfortunately, the VP-topicalization test from Section 12.1, sub IV, cannot be used to help us out in this case because the clause-initial position is already filled by the topicalized noun phrase itself; we therefore have to leave this issue for future research.

    Example 83
    a. Dat boek heb ik de man gegeven %(,) dat hij graag wilde hebben.
      that book  have  I  the man  given  which  he  gladly  wanted  have
      'I have given that man the book which he liked to have.'
    b. Twee boeken heeft Jan hem gegeven %(,) met mooie foto’s.
      two books  has  Jan him given  with beautiful pictures
      'Jan has given the man two books with beautiful pictures.'

    Guéron’s claim may also tally with the fact that extraposition from noun phrases with definite articles is difficult and perhaps even impossible in English; cf. Baltin (2006). It should be noted, however, that replacing the demonstrative die'that' by the definite article de'the' in Dutch examples such as (82a) does not have the same far-reaching effect on acceptability judgments as in English, as is clear from the full acceptability of the examples in (76); see also Koster (2000). Whatever accounts for this conspicuous difference between English and Dutch, the main conclusion for the moment is that it is not a priori clear that an appeal to the syntactic notion of freezing is needed to account for the acceptability contrast indicated in the two examples in (82). This conclusion seems supported by the acceptability judgments on the examples in (84), which show that split extraposition becomes more difficult in general if more material intervenes between the extraposed phrase and its intended associate, which is given in italics; cf. Corver (1991:134).

    Example 84
    a. Els zei dat het zoontje had opgebeld van de buren.
      Els said  that  the sondim.  had prt.-called  of the neighbors
      'Els said that the son of the neighbors had called.'
    b. ?? Els zei dat het zoontje haar had opgebeld van de buren.
      Els said  that  the sondim.  her  had prt.-called  of the neighbors
      Intended reading: 'Els said that the son of the neighbors had called her.'
    c. * Els zei dat het zoontje haar vriendin had opgebeld van de buren.
      Els said  that  the sondim.  her friend  had prt.-called  of the neighbors
      Intended reading: 'Els said that the son of the neighbors had called her friend.'

          Let us now turn to the raising analysis in (79b). A potential problem for this analysis is related to the fact that extraposition is not only possible from direct objects but also from indirect objects and subjects. In (85), we provide examples with extraposed relative clauses: the relative clauses and their antecedents are again in italics.

    Example 85
    a. Jan heeft iemand ontmoet die hem wil helpen.
    direct object
      Jan has  someone  met who  him  wants  help
      'Jan has met someone who wants to help him.'
    b. Jan heeft iemand 10 euro gegeven die hem wil helpen.
    indirect object
      Jan has  someone  10 euro  given  who  him wants  help
      'Jan has given 10 euros to someone who wants to help him.'
    c. Er heeft iemand opgebeld die hem wil helpen.
    subject
      there  has  someone  prt.-called  who  him  wants  help
      'Someone who wants to help him has telephoned.'

    The examples in (85) involve indefinite nominal arguments but the examples in (86) show that split extraposition is also possible with definite nominal arguments (although the result seems slightly marked in case of an indirect object), provided that the nominal arguments are part of the focus (new information) of the clause and thus follow clausal adverbs such as waarschijnlijk'probably' (if present); placement of de man further to the left gives rise to a degraded result. Note in passing that the examples in (86) refute De Haan’s (1974:176-7) claim that split extraposition is excluded in the case of (definite) indirect objects and subjects.

    Example 86
    a. Jan heeft waarschijnlijk de man ontmoet die hem wil helpen.
      Jan has  probably  the man  met  who  him wants  help
    b. (?) Jan heeft waarschijnlijk de man 10 euro gegeven die hem wil helpen.
      Jan has  probably  the man  10 euro  given  who  him wants  help
    c. Gisteren heeft waarschijnlijk de man opgebeld die hem wil helpen.
      yesterday  has  probably  the man  prt.-called  who  him wants  help

    Split extraposition with PPs is illustrated in (87). The case with an indirect object in (87b) is again somewhat marked but the case with a subject in (87c) is impeccable. Note that the acceptability of the (b)- and (c)-examples in (86) and (87) refutes De Haan’s (1974:176-7) claim that split extraposition is excluded in the case of (definite) indirect objects and subjects; the marked status of split extraposition with the indirect object in the (b)-examples should probably be attributed to the intervention effect noted in (84).

    Example 87
    a. Jan heeft hier veel mensen ontmoet met financiële problemen
      Jan has  here many people  met  with financial problems
      'Jan has met a lot of people with financial problems here.'
    b. ? Marie heeft veel mensen raad gegeven met financiële problemen.
      Marie has  many people  advice  given  with financial problems
      'Marie has given advice to many people with financial problems.'
    c. Hier hebben altijd veel mensen gewoond met financiële problemen.
      here have  always  many people  lived  with financial problems
      'Many people with financial problems have lived here over time.'

    The problem that the acceptability of the examples in (85) to (87) poses for the raising analysis is that this analysis presupposes that relative clauses can appear postverbally only if the noun phrases they modify are base-generated in a position following the surface position of the clause-final verbs. While this is plausible for objects, this is quite unlikely for subjects: assuming that the subject in (85c) is base-generated to the right of the surface position of the main verb is incompatible with the standard assumption presented in Section 9.2 that the clause-final verb is located within VP and thus follows the base position of the external argument (subject) of the main verb. The raising analysis therefore makes it necessary to revise the standard analysis of Dutch clauses, which should not be done light-heartedly; see also Koster (2000:8). Note in passing that the so-called scattered deletion approach proposed in Wilder (1995) and Sheehan (2010), which we did not discuss here, has the same flaw (which is in fact presented as a virtue by Sheehan on the basis of English data); we refer the reader to De Vries (2002:ch.7) for a more extensive review of this approach.
          A problem for either proposal in (79) is that extraposition is also possible from a noun phrase that does not function as a clausal constituent itself but is embedded in a clausal constituent. This is illustrated in (88) for cases in which the noun phrases function as the complement of a prepositional object.

    Example 88
    a. Jan heeft [op [die man [die hem wil helpen]]] gewacht.
      Jan has  for  that man   who  him  wants  help  waited
      'Jan has waited for that man who wants to help him.'
    a'. Jan heeft [op die man] gewacht die hem wil helpen.
    b. Jan moet [op [de bevestiging [dat hij mag komen]]] wachten.
      Jan must  for  the confirmation   that  he  may  come  wait
      'Jan has to wait for the confirmation that he is allowed to come.'
    b'. Jan moet [op de bevestiging] wachten dat hij mag komen.
    c. Jan heeft [op [die man <met het aapje>]] gewacht.
      Jan has   for   that man    with the monkey  waited
      'Jan has waited for that man with the monkey.'
    c'. Jan heeft [op die man] gewacht met het aapje.

    The problem for the extraposition analysis in (79a) is that we must assume that the extraposed phrase is extracted, not just from a noun phrase but also from the containing PP: cf. ... [PP P [NP ... N ti ]] ... V [rel-clause/clause/PP]i. The fact that examples such as *Wiei wacht je [PP op ti]?'Who are you waiting for?' are unacceptable shows that Dutch PPs normally behave as islands for movement, and this makes the extraposition analysis quite implausible because the extraposed phrase is not only extracted from a noun phrase but also from a PP. The problem with the raising approach is of a different nature: the presumed leftward movement involves the non-constituent op die man (cf. [PPop [NPdie man [rel-clausedie ...]]]). Under normal circumstances we would expect that movement of this PP cannot strand the postnominal phrase. It should be noted, however, that this argument only applies to theories that assume that the PP is base-generated as a unit; if we assume that complement-PPs are created in the course of the derivation, as suggested by Kayne (2004), this problem need not arise.
          It is also generally assumed that extraposition is possible from noun phrases that are embedded in a postnominal PP, although there seem to be several restrictions on this option that are not yet well understood. Example (89a) has two alternating versions with extraposition. The first version is given in (89b) and simply involves extraposition of a postnominal PP from a direct object. The second alternant, which is given in (89c), is the one that is relevant here: it involves extraposition of a relative clause from a noun phrase that is embedded in a postnominal modifier (as is clear from the fact that the relative pronoun die cannot take the noun boek as antecedent because it does not agree with it in gender (cf. Het boek dat ik gelezen heb'the book I have read'), and thus must be construed with the noun plaatjes).

    Example 89
    a. dat Jan [een boek [met plaatjes [die ingekleurd zijn]]] heeft gekocht.
      that  Jan   a book   with pictures   which colored are  has  bought
      'that Jan has bought a book with colored pictures.'
    b. dat Jan een boek heeft gekocht met plaatjes die ingekleurd zijn.
      that  Jan a book  has  bought  with pictures  which colored are
    c. (?) dat Jan een boekmet plaatjes heeft gekocht die ingekleurd zijn.
      that  Jan a book with pictures  has  bought  which colored are

    Example (89c) is perhaps slightly marked compared to (89b), but seems fully acceptable; the contrast may be computational in nature in the sense that speakers simply tend to connect extraposed relative clauses to the (structurally) closest antecedent. In (89c), this is, of course, the nominal projection een boek met plaatjes, and not the more deeply embedded phrase plaatjes. For one reason or another, this effect seems stronger if the extraposed phrase is of the same category as the postnominal modifier. This is illustrated in (90) for PPs.

    Example 90
    a. dat Jan [een boek [met plaatjes [in kleur]]]] heeft gekocht.
      that  Jan   a book   with pictures   in color  has  bought
      'that Jan has bought a book with colored pictures.'
    b. dat Jan een boek heeft gekocht met plaatjes in kleur.
      that  Jan a book  has  bought  with pictures  in color
    c. ? dat Jan een boekmet plaatjes heeft gekocht in kleur.
      that  Jan a book with pictures  has  bought  in color

    Example (90c) is reasonably acceptable but there are cases with a similar structure that are judged infelicitous by at least some speakers: see Haeseryn et al. (1997:1381ff.) for a range of cases which they claim resist split extraposition of the kind under discussion; see Johnson (1991: section 3.3.4 for similar data from English. Examples such as (91c), for instance, are given as unacceptable, although some of our informants consider them fairly acceptable, which we have indicated by a percentage sign.

    Example 91
    a. dat Jan [een boek [met foto’s [van zijn hond]]] heeft.
      that  Jan   a book   with pictures   of his dog  has
      'that Jan has a book with pictures of his dog.'
    b. dat Jan een boek heeft met foto’s van zijn hond.
      that  Jan a book  has  with pictures of his dog
    c. % dat Jan een boekmet foto’s heeft van zijn hond.
      that  Jan a book with pictures  has  of his dog

    Although it is unclear to us what determines whether extraposition of a more deeply embedded PP leads to a generally accepted result or not, we conjecture that the restrictions are not of a syntactic nature, but that considerations of processing, semantic coherence, prosody, etc. are involved; because we are not aware of any in-depth investigations of this, we have to leave this to future research. If our provisional conclusion that all the (c)-examples in (89) to (91) are syntactically well-formed turns out to be well-founded, it would lead to problems of the kind that were already pointed out for the examples in (88). This time we are not aware of any existing proposal that can be utilized to solve the problem for the raising analysis. For completeness’ sake, note that the scattered deletion approach, which we dismissed earlier, would be able to handle this problem; see De Vries (2002:ch.7) for this.
          Finally, we want to point out that the split extraposition pattern is also possible if the noun phrase is the complement of a locational/temporal adverbial PP; this is illustrated in (92) by means of a relative clause. The acceptability of the primed examples is again a severe problem for the movement analyses in (79), as such adverbial phrases are often considered to be absolute islands for movement. In addition, the raising approach is problematic because it requires the adjunct PPs to be base-generated postverbally and to be moved into their preverbal surface position, while there are good reasons for assuming the opposite: that the adverbial phrase is base-generated in preverbal position can be supported by the fact that this is the unmarked position for non-prepositional adverbial phrases like morgen'tomorrow' and gisteren'yesterday'; see Section 12.3, sub IV. Note in passing that this problem also holds for the scattered deletion approach mentioned earlier.

    Example 92
    a. Ik heb Els [tijdens [een workshop [waar zij een lezing gaf]]] gezien.
      I  have  Els   during   a workshop  where  she  a talk  gave  seen
      'I saw Els during a workshop where she gave a talk.'
    a'. Ik heb Els tijdens een workshop gezien waar zij een lezing gaf.
      I  have  Els during a workshop  seen  where  she  a talk  gave
    b. Ik heb Els voor het laatst [in [een park [waar ik vaak kom]]] gezien.
      I have Els for the last.time   in   a park  where  I  often  come  seen
      'The last time I saw Els was in a park I like to frequent.'
    b'. Ik heb Els voor het laatst in een park gezien waar ik vaak kom.
      I  have  Els for the last.time  in a park  seen  where  I  often  come

          All things considered, we may conclude from the data in this subsection that the split extraposition pattern cannot be accounted for by the two movement analyses in (79); these proposals can only be maintained if we allow the proposed movements to violate otherwise well-motivated island constraints on movement. The raising (as well as the scattered deletion) approach furthermore requires that we adopt the quite unorthodox claim that the external argument (≈ subject) of the verb has a base-position that is structurally lower than (or, in linear terms, to the right of) the surface position of the clause-final verb.

    [+]  II.  Other cases of split extraposition

    Subsection I has illustrated the split extraposition pattern for nominal phrases. Although this is the prototypical case, it has been known for a long time that the split also occurs with other categories; cf. Koster (1974). We illustrate this in (93a) for complementive adjectival phrases with a PP-complement. It should be noted that such cases cannot easily be used to argue against a movement analysis of extraposition because the PP-complements can also be moved leftwards, as is illustrated in the primed examples by means of topicalization.

    Example 93
    a. dat Marie [AP erg boos <op Peter>] is <op Peter>.
      that  Marie  very angry    at Peter  is
      'that Marie is very angry with Peter.'
    a'. [Op Peter]i is Marie [AP erg boos ti].
      at Peter  is Marie  very angry
    b. dat Jan [AP erg dol <op chocola>] is <op chocola>.
      that  Jan  very fond   of chocolate  is
      'that Jan is very fond of chocolate.'
    b'. [Op chocola]i is Jan [AP erg dol ti].
      of chocolate  is Jan  very fond

    Things are different if the extraposed phrase is part of a modifier of the adjective. This is illustrated in (94) by means of the discontinuous degree phrase zo ... dat hij overal past'so .. that it fits everywhere'. Despite the fact that A3.1.3, sub IB, has shown that the finite degree phrase is part of the AP (they can be extraposed together), it is preferably in extraposed position; placing the clause in the position preceding the copular verb zijn gives rise to a quite marked result. Nevertheless, the fact illustrated by (94b) that the degree clause cannot be topicalized in isolation strongly suggests that it cannot be extracted from the AP; cf. Rijkhoek (1998).

    Example 94
    a. dat de computer zo klein is dat hij overal past.
      that  the computer  so small  is  that  he  everywhere  fits
      'that the computer is so small that it fits everywhere.'
    b. * Dat hij overal past is de computer zo klein.

    The unacceptability of (94b) thus suggests again that the split extraposition pattern in (94a) is not island-sensitive. This is further supported by the examples in (95), which show that the AP can easily be more deeply embedded: in (94b) the split AP is part of a direct object and in (94c) it is part of a PP-object.

    Example 95
    a. dat Jan [een zo kleine computer] wil hebben dat hij overal past.
      that  Jan   a  so small  computer want  have  that he fits everywhere
      'that Jan wants to have such a small computer that it fits everywhere.'
    b. dat Jan [naar [een zo kleine computer]] zoekt dat hij overal past.
      that  Jan   for   a  so small  computer looks  that he fits everywhere
      'that Jan is looking for such a small computer that it fits everywhere.'

    That extraposition of degree clauses is not island-sensitive is also clear from the fact that they can be associated with modified manner adverbs such as hard'loud' in (96), despite the fact that such adverbial phrases are often considered to be absolute islands for movement.

    Example 96
    dat de band zo hard speelt dat je elkaar niet kan verstaan.
      that  the band  so loudly  plays  that  one  each.other  not  can  hear
    'that the band plays so loudly that you canʼt hear each other.'

    We find essentially the same with dan/als-phrases accompanying comparatives; see Section A4. The examples in (97) first show that despite the fact that the dan/als-phrases cannot be topicalized, the split extraposition pattern is possible (and perhaps even preferred). This again suggests that split extraposition is not island-sensitive.

    Example 97
    a. dat zijn computer minder snel <dan de mijne> is <dan de mijne>.
      that  his computer  less fast    than the mine  is
      'that his computer is less fast than mine.'
    b. * Dande mijne is zijn computer minder snel.

    More support comes from the fact that the comparative can easily be more deeply embedded: in (98a) the split AP is part of a direct object and in (98b) it is part of a PP-object.

    Example 98
    a. dat Jan [een snellere computer] wil hebben dande mijne.
      that  Jan   a  faster  computer wants  have  than the mine
      'that Jan wants to have a faster computer than mine.'
    b. dat Jan [naar [een snellere computer]] zoekt dande mijne.
      that  Jan   for   a  faster computer looks  than the mine
      'that Jan is looking for a faster computer than mine.'

    That extraposition of dan/als-phrases is not sensitive to islands is also clear from the fact that they can be associated with modified manner adverbs such as sneller'faster' in (99), despite the fact that such adverbial phrases are often considered to be absolute islands for movement.

    Example 99
    dat Jans computer sneller werkt dan de mijne.
      that  Janʼs computer  faster  works  than the mine
    'that Janʼs computer works more quickly than mine.'

    For completeness’ sake, observe that split extraposition is not possible in the case of attributively used adjectives. This is illustrated by means of the examples in (100); while the PP-complement of the adjective verliefd can be extraposed if the AP is used as a complementive, it cannot if it is used as an attributive modifier.

    Example 100
    a. dat Jan verliefd <op Marie> is <op Marie>.
      that  Jan in-love   with Marie  is
      'that Jan is in love with Peter.'
    b. dat ik een <op Peter> verliefde jongen ontmoette <*op Peter>.
      that  I  a   with Marie  in.love  boy  met
      'that I met a boy who is in love with Peter.'
    [+]  III.  VP-topicalization

    Subsections I and II have shown that split extraposition is not sensitive to islands for extraction, which suggests that we are not dealing with movement, which subsequently raises the question as to what extraposition is. One possibility is that we are dealing with right dislocation. This does not seem the correct solution, however, given that Section 12.1, sub IV, has shown that right-dislocated phrases have a tendency of stranding under VP-topicalization, while postverbal phrases in split extraposition constructions tend to be pied piped, as illustrated in (101) for extraposed postnominal phrases. Observe that the primed examples are acceptable with the typical intonation contour of an afterthought, that is, with an intonation break and an additional accent in the phrase following this break. This would suggest that while the dislocated phrases are external to the preposed verbal projection, the extraposed phrases in (101) are internal to it. Recall from the introduction to this section that the nominal phrase in preverbal position must also be pied piped in order to arrive at an acceptable result (Kaan’s generalization); this is, of course, expected given that Subsection I has shown that scrambling blocks the split extraposition pattern.

    Example 101
    a. [De man kennen die dit boek geschreven heeft] doet hij niet.
      the man  know  who  this book  written  has  does  he  not
      'He doesnʼt know the man who has written this book.'
    a'. [De man kennen] doet hij niet *(,) die dit boek geschreven heeft.
    b. [De bewering weerleggen dat Marie gelogen had] kon hij niet.
      the contention  rebut  that  Marie lied had  could  he  not
      'He couldnʼt rebut the claim that Marie had lied.'
    b'. [De bewering weerleggen] kon hij niet *(,)dat Marie gelogen had.
    c. [De man gezien met het aapje] heeft hij niet.
      the man  seen  with the monkey  has  he