- Dutch
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Word stress
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
- Morphology
- Word formation
- Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
- Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
- Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
- Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
- Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
- Word formation
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Phonology
-
- General
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
- Morphology
- Inflection
- Word formation
- Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
- Compositions
- Derivation
- Syntax
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
- Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
- Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
- Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
- Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
- Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
-
- General
- Morphology
- Morphology
- 1 Word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 1.1.1 Compounds and their heads
- 1.1.2 Special types of compounds
- 1.1.2.1 Affixoids
- 1.1.2.2 Coordinative compounds
- 1.1.2.3 Synthetic compounds and complex pseudo-participles
- 1.1.2.4 Reduplicative compounds
- 1.1.2.5 Phrase-based compounds
- 1.1.2.6 Elative compounds
- 1.1.2.7 Exocentric compounds
- 1.1.2.8 Linking elements
- 1.1.2.9 Separable Complex Verbs and Particle Verbs
- 1.1.2.10 Noun Incorporation Verbs
- 1.1.2.11 Gapping
- 1.2 Derivation
- 1.3 Minor patterns of word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 2 Inflection
- 1 Word formation
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
- 0 Introduction to the AP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of APs
- 2 Complementation of APs
- 3 Modification and degree quantification of APs
- 4 Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative
- 5 Attribution of APs
- 6 Predication of APs
- 7 The partitive adjective construction
- 8 Adverbial use of APs
- 9 Participles and infinitives as APs
- Nouns and Noun Phrases (NPs)
- 0 Introduction to the NP
- 1 Characteristics and Classification of NPs
- 2 Complementation of NPs
- 3 Modification of NPs
- 3.1 Modification of NP by Determiners and APs
- 3.2 Modification of NP by PP
- 3.3 Modification of NP by adverbial clauses
- 3.4 Modification of NP by possessors
- 3.5 Modification of NP by relative clauses
- 3.6 Modification of NP in a cleft construction
- 3.7 Free relative clauses and selected interrogative clauses
- 4 Partitive noun constructions and constructions related to them
- 4.1 The referential partitive construction
- 4.2 The partitive construction of abstract quantity
- 4.3 The numerical partitive construction
- 4.4 The partitive interrogative construction
- 4.5 Adjectival, nominal and nominalised partitive quantifiers
- 4.6 Kind partitives
- 4.7 Partitive predication with a preposition
- 4.8 Bare nominal attribution
- 5 Articles and names
- 6 Pronouns
- 7 Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- 8 Interrogative pronouns
- 9 R-pronouns and the indefinite expletive
- 10 Syntactic functions of Noun Phrases
- Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases (PPs)
- 0 Introduction to the PP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of PPs
- 2 Complementation of PPs
- 3 Modification of PPs
- 4 Bare (intransitive) adpositions
- 5 Predication of PPs
- 6 Form and distribution of adpositions with respect to staticity and construction type
- 7 Adpositional complements and adverbials
- Verbs and Verb Phrases (VPs)
- 0 Introduction to the VP in Saterland Frisian
- 1 Characteristics and classification of verbs
- 2 Unergative and unaccusative subjects and the auxiliary of the perfect
- 3 Evidentiality in relation to perception and epistemicity
- 4 Types of to-infinitival constituents
- 5 Predication
- 5.1 The auxiliary of being and its selection restrictions
- 5.2 The auxiliary of going and its selection restrictions
- 5.3 The auxiliary of continuation and its selection restrictions
- 5.4 The auxiliary of coming and its selection restrictions
- 5.5 Modal auxiliaries and their selection restrictions
- 5.6 Auxiliaries of body posture and aspect and their selection restrictions
- 5.7 Transitive verbs of predication
- 5.8 The auxiliary of doing used as a semantically empty finite auxiliary
- 5.9 Supplementive predication
- 6 The verbal paradigm, irregularity and suppletion
- 7 Verb Second and the word order in main and embedded clauses
- 8 Various aspects of clause structure
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
-
- General
- Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
- Segment inventory
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
- Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
- Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
- Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
- Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
- Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
- Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
This section discusses in more detail the properties of the wat voor split. This split is generally assumed to be the result of moving the interrogative pronoun wat into clause-initial position, as in (246d). Splitting the wat voor phrase at some other point is excluded, as is illustrated in (246b&c).
a. | Wat voor een boeken | heb | jij | gelezen? | |
what for a books | have | you | read | ||
'What kind of books did you read?' |
b. | * | Wat voor een heb jij boeken gelezen? |
c. | * | Wat voor heb jij eenboeken gelezen? |
d. | Wat heb jij voor een boeken gelezen? |
It has been argued that the syntactic function of the wat voor phrase, along with its surface position in the clause, is relevant for the question as to whether the wat voor split is allowed. We will review the relevant data in I, and show that at least subjects and direct objects of various sorts of verbs allow the split, provided that they occupy their “base” position in the clause. The wat voor split is blocked not only by movement of the wat voor phrase, but also by the presence of certain other elements in the clause, such as the negative adverb niet'not'. This will be discussed in Subsection II, where we will also discuss so-called “parasitic gaps” licensed by a wat voor phrase.
Whether wat voor split is possible depends on the syntactic function of the phrase. The following subsections will show that direct objects, subjects and nominal predicates do allow the split, while indirect objects and complements of prepositional phrases do not. Further, it will be shown that the surface position of the stranded remnant of the wat voor phrase (from now on: remnant) may also bear on whether the split is possible or not. This is generally assumed to follow from the general prohibition of subextraction from a moved phrase, the so-called freezing principle.
The examples in (247a&b) show that direct objects may undergo the wat voor split, but that the remnant must generally be left-adjacent to the verb(s) in clause-final position, that is, scrambling of the remnant, as in (247b), is excluded as an instantiation of thefreezing effect. PP-over-V also gives rise to a degraded result: speakers of Dutch may differ somewhat on their judgments of (247c), but all agree that it is marked compared to (247a).
a. | Wati | heb | je | gisteren [ ti | voor (een) boeken] | gelezen? | |
what | have | you | yesterday | for a books | read | ||
'What kind of books did you read yesterday?' |
b. | * | Wati heb je [ tivoor (een) boeken]j gisteren tj gelezen? |
c. | % | Wati heb je gisteren gelezen [ tivoor (een) boeken]? |
The only elements that may intervene between the remnant and the clause-final verb(s) are phrases that compete for the same position: (248a&b) provide examples involving, respectively, a verbal particle, aan, and a PP-predicate, in de kast. The latter example is perhaps slightly marked, but certainly not ungrammatical. Note in this connection that if R-extraction has taken place from the PP-predicate, as in (248b'), the result is fully acceptable.
a. | Wati | heb | je | de kinderen [ ti | voor (een) boeken] | aangeraden? | |
what | have | you | the children | for a books | prt.-recommended | ||
'What kind of books did you read aloud to the children?' |
b. | (?) | Wati | heb | je [ ti | voor (een) boeken] | in de kast | gezet? |
what | have | you | for a books | into the bookcase | put | ||
'What kind of books did you put into the bookcase?' |
b'. | Wati | heb | je | er [ ti | voor (een) boeken] | in | gezet? | |
what | have | you | there | for a books | into | put | ||
'What kind of books did you put into it?' |
The examples in (249) show that inverting the order of the wat voor remnant and the particle or (the stranded preposition of) the PP-predicate gives rise to an ungrammatical result.
a. | * | Wati heb je de kinderen aan [ tivoor (een) boeken] geraden? |
b. | * | Wati heb je in de kast [ tivoor (een) boeken] gezet? |
c. | * | Wati heb je erin [ ti | voor (een) boeken] gezet? |
The data involving the nominative subject of the clause are more complex than the data involving the direct object. The following subsections will show that the wat voor split is allowed in passive constructions and clauses involving an unaccusative verb, provided that the subject occupies its base position and not the (derived) subject position. If the construction contains a transitive or an intransitive verb, the split only seems to be possible in expletive constructions.
The nominative subject of a passive clause corresponds to the accusative object of its active counterpart. In Dutch, the subject of a passive clause can occupy two positions: either it occupies the position that is normally taken by the direct object, or it occupies the regular subject position of the clause. This can be demonstrated relatively easily by considering the passive of a ditransitive construction: in (250b), the nominative argument het boek follows the indirect object dekinderen, which suggests that it occupies the same position as the direct object in the active construction in (250a); in (250c), on the other hand, it precedes the indirect object, which suggests that it occupies the regular subject position.
a. | Gisteren | heeft | Jan de kinderen | het boek | voorgelezen. | |
yesterday | has | Jan the children | the book | read.aloud | ||
'Jan read the book aloud to the children yesterday.' |
b. | Gisteren | is | de kinderen | het boek | voorgelezen. | |
yesterday | has.been | the children | the book | read.aloud |
c. | Gisteren | is | het boek | de kinderen | voorgelezen. | |
yesterday | has.been | the book | the children | read.aloud |
If the nominative noun phrase in (250b) indeed occupies the same position as the direct object in (250a), it does not come as a surprise that the wat voor split of a subject is possible in (251b); after all, the same thing holds for the direct object in (251a). Given that the wat voor phrase in (250c) is generally assumed to have been moved into the regular subject position, the freezing principle correctly predicts that the wat voor split is impossible in (251c).
a. | Wati | heeft | Jan de kinderen | gisteren [ ti | voor een boek] | voorgelezen? | |
what | has | Jan the children | yesterday | for a book | read.aloud |
b. | Wati | is | de kinderen gisteren [ ti | voor een boek] | voorgelezen? | |
what | has.been | the children yesterday | for a book | read.aloud |
c. | * | Wati | is | [ti | voor een boek]j | de kinderen gisteren tj | voorgelezen? |
what | has.been | [ti | for a book | the children yesterday | read.aloud |
It has been argued that, just like the subject of a passive construction, the subject of an unaccusative verb is a “derived” subject. Given the discussion of the passive construction in 1 above, this can be readily shown in the case of dyadic unaccusative verbs. If the nominative argument follows the (dative) object, as in (252a), the wat voor split is possible, hence it is plausible to assume that it occupies a position that is comparable to that of a direct object. If it precedes the object, as in (252b), the wat voor split is excluded, which suggests the working of the freezing principle; in other words, the subject has been moved from its original position in (252a) into the regular subject position of the clause.
a. | Wati | zouden | hem | nou [NPti | voor een boeken] | bevallen? | |
what | would | him | prt | for a books | please | ||
'What kind of books would please him?' |
b. | * | Wati zouden [NPti voor een boeken]j hem nou tj bevallen? |
If we are dealing with a monadic unaccusative verb, the wat voor split is possible also, but only in the expletive construction. This can be accounted for by assuming that in expletive constructions, the regular subject position is filled by the expletive er, so the nominative argument must occupy its base position in (253a). Example (253b) is ungrammatical since er must be present if the indefinite subject remains in its base position. Example (253c), finally, is ungrammatical since the nominative argument has been moved into the regular position, and hence invokes a violation of the freezing principle.
a. | Wati zijn er | gisteren [NPti | voor mensen] | aangekomen? | |
what are there | yesterday | for people | prt.-arrived | ||
'What kind of people have arrived yesterday?' |
b. | *? | Wati zijn gisteren [NPti voor mensen] aangekomen? |
c. | * | Wati zijn [NPti voor mensen]j gisteren tj aangekomen? |
Note, however, that there is a caveat in order here. In (253) and in the examples below, we abstract away from the fact that expletive er can be dropped if certain adverbial phrases are present. A typical example involves the place adverb daar'there' in (254); see Section 8.1.4 for discussion. The fact that the wat voor remnant is placed after the adverb daar suggests that in this example the indefinite subject also occupies its base position.
Wat | zijn | (er) | daar | voor mensen | aangekomen? | ||
what | are | there | there | for people | prt.-arrived | ||
'What kind of people have arrived there?' |
The wat voor split can be sensitive to the semantic type of the predicate, especially the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates. Whereas the former often allow the expletive construction, the latter do not due to the fact that they block an existential reading of the subject noun phrase; see Hartmann (2008: §1.4) for a review of the literature. Therefore, it is not surprising that in a copular construction (which is always an unaccusative construction), the adjectival predicate determines whether the wat voor split is possible or not. A typical stage-level predicate like beschikbaar'available' allows the wat voor split whereas an individual-level predicate like waterdicht'waterproof' does not; see Section 5.1.5.1, sub IIIA) for exceptions. Example (255b) with er is unacceptable because the individual-level predicate waterdicht does not license an existential reading of the noun phrase schoenen'shoes' and is therefore not possible in an expletive construction. Finally, (255b') without er is ungrammatical due to the freezing principle.
a. | Wati | zijn | er | [NPti | voor | boeken] | beschikbaar. | |
what | are | there | [NPti | for | books | available | ||
'What kind of books are available?' |
b. | * | Wati | zijn | er | [NPti | voor | schoenen] | waterdicht? |
what | are | there | [NPti | for | shoes | waterproof | ||
'What kind of shoes are waterproof?' |
b'. | * | Wati zijn [NPti voor schoenen]jtj waterdicht? |
Den Besten (1985) has claimed that regular intransitive verbs do not allow the wat voor split. It seems, however, that this is an overgeneralization. As with monadic unaccusative verbs, the wat voor split seems possible if expletive er is present; the split in (256a) is at worst slightly marked and certainly gives rise to a much better result than the split in (256b).
a. | (?) | Wati | hebben | er | gisteren [NPti | voor (een) jongens] | gevochten? |
what | have | there | yesterday | for a boys | fought | ||
'What kind of boys fought yesterday?' |
b. | * | Wati hebben [NPti voor een jongens]j gisteren tj gevochten? |
The contrast in (256) is not really surprising from the perspective of present-day generative grammar, given that there is a growing body of evidence in favor of the claim that the subject of an intransitive clause is not base-generated directly in the regular subject position, but in some more deeply embedded position. The fact that the nominative argument does not occupy the regular subject position in (256a) is also clear from the fact that it follows the adverbial phrase gisteren. If (256b) is indeed derived by moving the subject into the regular subject position of the clause, its unacceptability can be made to follow from the freezing principle.
Finally, note that it has been suggested that the wat voor split is only possible if the clause contains a verb in clause-final position, especially if a modal verb like zouden in (257a) is present. Although some difference in acceptability between the examples in (257) can perhaps be detected, we think it would be an overstatement to say that (257a) is perfectly well-formed and that (257c) is completely unacceptable: all examples seem acceptable.
a. | Wat | zouden | er | hier | voor een mensen | gewoond | hebben? | |
what | would | there | here | for a people | lived | have | ||
'What kind of people would have lived here?' |
b. | Wat | hebben | er | hier | voor een mensen | gewoond? | |
what | have | there | here | for a people | lived |
c. | Wat | wonen | er | hier | voor een mensen? | |
what | live | there | here | for a people |
What has been said in Subsection 3 regarding the subject of an intransitive verb also holds for the subject of a transitive clause. Although it has been claimed that the wat voor split is excluded for the subject of a transitive verb, this seems an overgeneralization. In (258a), an example is given that seems relatively good.
a. | Wati | hebben | er | [NPti | voor een vogels] | je voedertafel | bezocht? | |
what | have | there | [NPti | for a birds | your feeding table | visited | ||
'What kind of birds have visited your feeding table?' |
b. | ? | Wati hebben [NPti voor een vogels] je voedertafel bezocht? |
Actually, (258b) is much better than might have been expected, as it seems to involve movement and hence should invoke a freezing effect. However, it may be the case that this example is ambiguous, because a definite direct object often makes it possible to drop the expletive er. This is shown in (259): example (259a) shows that in most varieties of Dutch the interrogative subject wie must be accompanied by the expletive. However, if a definite direct object is present, expletive er is preferably dropped; see Section 8.1.4 for more discussion.
a. | Wie rookt | %(er)? | |
who smokes | there |
b. | Wie rookt | (?er) | de sigaar? | |
who smokes | there | the cigar |
So, in order to determine whether (258b) is excluded by the freezing principle, we have to take the placement of adverbs into account: if the subject precedes the adverb, it occupies the regular subject position, and the wat voor split is predicted to be impossible; if it follows the adverb, it is probably in its base position, and the wat voor split is predicted to be possible. As is shown by (260), the subject may actually occupy either position, so we may indeed conclude that (258b) is ambiguous. The judgments on the two examples are more or less as predicted.
a. | ? | Wati | hebben | gisteren [NPti | voor een vogels] | je voedertafel | bezocht? |
what | have | yesterday | for a birds | your feeding.table | visited | ||
'What kid of birds visited your feeding table yesterday?' |
b. | * | Wati hebben [NPti voor een vogels]j gisteren tj je voedertafel bezocht? |
The primed examples in (261) show that wat voor split of nominal indirect objects always leads to a degraded result; note that for some speakers, the primeless examples are also somewhat degraded (a prepositional indirect object seems preferred by most speakers).
a. | (?) | Wat voor een meisje | heb | je | een lolly | gegeven? |
what for a girl | have | you | a lollipop | given | ||
'To what kind of girl did you give a lollipop?' |
a'. | *? | Wat heb je voor een meisje een lolly gegeven? |
b. | (?) | Wat voor een mensen | heb | je | je artikel | toegestuurd? |
what kind of people | have | you | your paper | prt.-sent | ||
'To what kind of people did you send your paper?' |
b'. | *? | Wat heb je voor een mensen je stuk toegestuurd? |
As was shown earlier in (230), repeated here as (262), wat voor split of the complement of a preposition is excluded as well due to the fact that subextraction from a nominal complement of a preposition is generally excluded.
a. | [PP | Op [NP | wat voor een bericht]] | wacht je? | |
[PP | for | what for a message | wait you | ||
'For what kind of message are you waiting?' |
b. | * | Wati wacht je [PP op [NPti voor een bericht]]? |
It is interesting to note that the wat voor split differs in this respect from the exclamative wat-construction discussed in Section 1.2.2.1, sub IV. The two (a)-examples in (263) suggest that this construction is similar to the wat voor construction: the fact illustrated in (263a) that wat and its associated noun phrase may precede the finite verb in clause-initial position suggests that the two form a constituent, and the availability of the split pattern in (263a') suggests that wat can be extracted from this constituent by wh-movement. However, this movement analysis of (263a') runs into problems with (263b): since subextraction from a nominal complement of a preposition is normally excluded, the movement analysis wrongly predicts this example to be ungrammatical.
a. | Wat | een hoop boeken | heeft | hij! | |
what | a lot [of] books | has | he | ||
'What a lot of books he has!' |
a'. | Wat heeft hij een hoop boeken! |
b. | Wat | beschikt | hij [PP | over | een hoop boeken]! | |
what | has | he | P | a lot [of] books | ||
'What a lot of books he has at his disposal!' |
Wat voor split of a nominal predicate is fully acceptable. This is illustrated in (264).
a. | Wat voor een jongen | is Jan eigenlijk? | |
what for a boy | is Jan actually | ||
'What kind of boy is Jan actually?' |
b. | Wat is Jan eigenlijk voor een jongen? |
In the case of wat voor split, movement of wat does of course not involve movement of an argument but of a part of an argument, viz. the complete wat voor phrase. This has several consequences, which are discussed in this subsection. We start with discussion of so-called parasitic gaps in Subsection A, followed by the discussion of several intervention effects in Subsection B. Finally, we conclude in Subsection C by pointing out a semantic difference between split and unsplit a wat voor phrases.
If wat is an argument in its own right, it may license a so-called parasitic gap in the infinitival adverbial phrase [zonder ... te lezen] in (265a). The complement of lezen need not be overtly expressed, but can be expressed by a phonetically empty parasitic gap PG, the content of which is identified by the moved wh-phrase (which is indicated by the subscript “i”). In other words, the interpretation of this example is something like “for which x, Jan threw x away without reading x”. As is shown in (265b), a parasitic gap can also be licensed if a wat voor phrase is moved into clause-initial position as a whole.
a. | Wati | gooide | Jan [zonder PGi | te lezen] ti | weg? | |
what | threw | Jan without | to read | away | ||
'What did Jan throw away without reading?' |
b. | [Wat | voor | een | boek]i | gooide | Jan | [zonder PGi | te lezen] ti | weg? | |
what | for | a | book | threw | Jan | without | to read | away | ||
'What kind of book did Jan throw away without reading?' |
The N1wat from the wat voor phrase, on the other hand, cannot license such a parasitic gap: it can license neither a parasitic gap with the function of direct object of the infinitival verb lezen (cf. (266a)), nor a parasitic gap that functions as an N1in a wat voor phrase functioning as the direct object of lezen (cf. (266b)). It has been assumed that this is due to the fact that parasitic gaps can be licensed by arguments only.
a. | * | Wati | gooide | Jan [zonder PGi | te lezen] [ ti | voor een boeken] | weg? |
what | threw | Jan without | to read | for a books | away |
b. | * | Wati | gooide | Jan [zonder [PGi | (voor een tijdschriften)] | te lezen] | [ ti | voor een boeken] | weg? |
what | threw | Jan without | for a magazines | to read | [ ti | for a books | away |
For completeness’ sake, note that, according to some speakers, example (267b) is acceptable as well. If this is really the case, this example is a problem for the earlier claim that scrambling induces a freezing effect. Since it is generally assumed that Dutch parasitic gaps must be licensed by a wh-moved or a scrambled phrase (cf. Bennis & Hoekstra 1984), it would follow that the wat voor phrase in (267b) has been scrambled, and, consequently, a freezing effect is wrongly predicted to arise.
a. | [Wat | voor | een | boek]i | gooide | Jan | [zonder PGi | te lezen] ti | weg? | |
what | for | a | book | threw | Jan | without | to read | away | ||
'What kind of book did Jan throw away without reading?' |
b. | % | Wati gooide Jan [ ti voor een boek]j [zonder PGj te lezen] tj weg? |
In this connection it should also be mentioned that Beermann (1997) claims that, in German, one occurrence of wat may bind the gaps in two or more wat voor phrases. Example (268) shows that this is not possible in Dutch. In fact, the examples in (268b&c) show that wat voor split is degraded anyway in these examples; the only fully acceptable option is to move the full subject into clause-initial position.
a. | * | Wati | hebben | (er) [ ti | voor een meisjes] [ ti | voor een jongens] | gekust? |
what | have | there | for a girls | for a boys | kissed | ||
Intended meaning: 'What kind of girls kissed what kind of boys?' |
b. | *? | Wati hebben | (er) [ ti voor een meisjes] [ watvoor een jongens] gekust? |
c. | * | Wati hebben | (er) [ wat voor een meisjes] [ tivoor een jongens] gekust? |
d. | [Wat voor een meisjes]i hebben ti [ wat voor een jongens] gekust? |
The previous subsection has shown that the interrogative element wat does not function as an argument; it is only the full wat voor that acts like that. This subsection shows that this conclusion is supported by the so-called intervention effect. Arguments and non-arguments differ in that the latter are more sensitive to certain intervention effects than the former. As is shown in (269), for example, an interrogative direct object can be moved across the negative adverb niet, whereas an interrogative adverbial phrase of manner cannot. Below, we will see that N1wat behaves like a non-argument in the sense that it cannot cross certain adverbs, as a result of which the wat voor split is sensitive to the presence of these adverbs.
a. | Welke auto | heb | jij | niet | gerepareerd? | |
which car | have | you | not | repaired | ||
'Which car didnʼt you repair?' |
b. | * | Hoe | heb | jij | die auto | niet | gerepareerd? |
how | have | you | that car | not | repaired | ||
'*How didnʼt you repair that car?' |
The examples in (270) show that time and place adverbs like gisteren'yesterday' and daar'there' do not have any effect on the wat voor split. The split is possible as long as the remnant follows the adverb.
a. | Wat | voor | een | boeken | heeft | hij | gisteren/daar | gelezen? | |
what | for | a | books | has | he | yesterday/there | read | ||
'What kind of books did he read yesterday/there?' |
b. | Wat heeft hij gisteren/daar voor een boeken gelezen? |
c. | *? | Wat heeft hij voor een boeken gisteren/daar gelezen? |
The situation is different, however, with manner adverb like zorgvuldig'carefully', modal adverbs like zeker'certainly', frequency adverbs like vaak'often', or the negative adverb niet'not'; the (a)- and (b)-examples in (271) to (273) show that these adverbial phrases allow movement of the complete wat voor, but block the wat voor split. Perhaps the (b)-examples become slightly better if the wat voor remnant precedes the adverbial phrase, as in the (c)-examples, but they still seem to be severely degraded; note that if one were to consider these examples grammatical, a similar problem would arise for the freezing principle, as has been pointed out for (267b).
a. | Wat | voor | een | boeken | heeft | hij | zorgvuldig | gelezen? | |
what | for | a | books | has | he | carefully | read | ||
'What kind of books did he read carefully?' |
b. | * | Wat heeft hij zorgvuldig voor een boeken gelezen? |
c. | ?? | Wat heeft hij voor een boeken zorgvuldig gelezen? |
a. | Wat | voor | een | boeken | heeft | hij | zeker/vaak | gelezen? | |
what | for | a | books | has | he | certainly/often | read |