Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.1.2.1.Selection restrictions on finite direct object clauses

quickinfo

Finite direct object clauses can be selected by a wide range of verbs. Providing an exhaustive enumeration is virtually impossible, but example (31) serves to provide a small, but representative sample of verbs that can do so.

Verbs of communication: aankondigen'to announce', beloven'to promise', bevelen'to command', mailen'to text', roepen'to call', schrijven'to write', melden'to report', smeken'to beg', vertellen'to tell', verzoeken'to request', vragen'to ask', zeggen'to say'Verbs of communication: aankondigen'to announce', beloven'to promise', bevelen'to command', mailen'to text', roepen'to call', schrijven'to write', melden'to report', smeken'to beg', vertellen'to tell', verzoeken'to request', vragen'to ask', zeggen'to say'

Verbs of perception: horen'to hear', kijken'to look', luisteren'to listen', proeven'to taste', ruiken'to smell', voelen'to feel', zien'to see'Verbs of perception: horen'to hear', kijken'to look', luisteren'to listen', proeven'to taste', ruiken'to smell', voelen'to feel', zien'to see'

Verbs of cognition: betwijfelen'to doubt', begrijpen'to understand', doorhebben'to see through', geloven'to believe', overwegen'to consider', voorzien'to expect', vermoeden'to suspect', verwachten'to expect', vinden'to be of the opinion', weten'to know', zich inbeelden'to imagine', zich realiseren'to realize', zich afvragen'to wonder'Verbs of cognition: betwijfelen'to doubt', begrijpen'to understand', doorhebben'to see through', geloven'to believe', overwegen'to consider', voorzien'to expect', vermoeden'to suspect', verwachten'to expect', vinden'to be of the opinion', weten'to know', zich inbeelden'to imagine', zich realiseren'to realize', zich afvragen'to wonder'

Verbs of investigation and discovery: aantonen'to show', nagaan'to examine', onderzoeken'to investigate', ontdekken'to discover'

Verbs of wishing: hopen'to hope', wensen'to wish', willen'to want'

Verbs with subject experiencers: betreuren'to regret', haten'to hate', verafschuwen'to loathe', waarderen'to appreciate'

Direct object clauses also occur in sentences with verbs like achten and vinden'to consider', where they are semantically licensed as the subject of an adjectival or nominal complementive. Note in passing that such object clauses are regularly introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it'.

a.	Jan acht	het	belangrijk	[dat	zijn kleren	netjes	zijn].
	Jan considers	it	important	that	his clothes	neat	are
	'Jan considers it important that his clothes are neat.'

a'.	Jan vindt	het	vervelend	[dat	zijn schoenen	vies	zijn].
	Jan considers	it	annoying	that	his shoes	dirty	are
	'Jan considers it annoying that his shoes are dirty.'

b.	Jan acht	het	een voordeel	[dat	zijn project	later start].
	Jan considers	it	an advantage	that	his project	later starts
	'Jan considers it an advantage that his project starts later.'

b'.	Jan vindt	het	een schande	[dat	zijn project	geen aandacht	krijgt].
	Jan considers	it	a disgrace	that	his project	no attention	gets
	'Jan considers it a disgrace that his project doesnʼt get any attention.'

Finite direct object clauses normally take the form of a declarative clause introduced by the complementizer dat'that', an interrogative clause with the complementizer of'whether' or an interrogative clause introduced by a wh-phrase; examples are given in (33). The following subsections show that providing a simple and straightforward answer to the question as to what determines the distribution of these clause types is not easy: it appears to be determined by various factors, which all seem to have a semantic component, however.

a.	dat	Jan	hoopt	[dat	Marie morgen	komt].
	that	Jan	hopes	that	Marie tomorrow	comes
	'that Jan hopes that Marie will come tomorrow.'

b.	dat	Peter	weet	[of/wanneer	Marie komt].
	that	Peter	knows	whether/when	Marie comes
	'that Peter knows whether/when Marie will come.'

Subsection I to VI will investigate the selection restrictions imposed by the verb types in (31) and discuss a number of factors that seem to determine these restrictions, subsection VII concludes with a discussion of examples such as (32) which illustrate object clauses functioning as a subject of a complementive.

I. Verbs of communication
II. Verbs of (direct) perception
III. Verbs of cognition
IV. Verbs of investigation and discovery
V. Verbs of wishing
VI. Subject experiencer verbs
VII. Finite object clauses that function as the subject of a complementive
VIII. Conclusion

[+] I. Verbs of communication

At first sight, it seems relatively straightforward to determine whether a verb of communication selects a declarative or an interrogative clause. The former are selected by verbs like zeggen'to say' and aankondigen'to announce', which are used in the (a)-examples in (34) to report something that was said/announced, while the latter are selected by ditransitive verbs like vragen'to ask' and smeken'to beg', which are used in the (b)-examples to report something that was asked/requested. In short, the choice between declarative and interrogative clauses is determined by the speech act reported by the speaker.

a.	Jan zei	[dat	Peter ziek	was].
	Jan said	that	Peter ill	was
	'Jan said that Peter was ill.'

a'.	Marie	kondigde	aan	[dat	Els ontslag	zou	nemen].
	Marie	announced	prt.	that	Els resignation	would	take
	'Marie announced that Els would resign.'

b.	Jan vroeg Marie [of	Peter ziek	was].
	Jan asked Marie whether	Peter ill	was
	'Jan asked Marie whether Peter was ill.'

b'.	Marie smeekt	Els [of	ze	nog	wat langer	wil	blijven].
	Marie begs	Els whether	she	yet	a.bit longer	want.to	stay
	'Marie begged Els that she would stay a bit longer.'

Closer inspection reveals the situation to be more complex than this. The above only holds in cases of indirect reported speech; in other contexts verbs like zeggen and aankondigen may also select interrogative clauses, as is shown by the two (b)-examples in (35). The choice between the three examples depends on the speaker's knowledge state. Example (35a) is used when the speaker knows that there will be a reorganization, but does not know whether Marie has made this public. Example (35b) is normally used when the speaker does not know for certain whether or not there will be a reorganization, and (35b') is used when he knows that there will be a reorganization but does not know when it will take place.

a.	Heeft	Marie gezegd	[dat het instituut	gereorganiseerd	zal	worden]?
	has	Marie said	that the institute	reorganized	will	be
	'Did Marie say that the institute will be reorganized?'

b.	Heeft	Marie gezegd	[of	het instituut	gereorganiseerd	zal	worden]?
	has	Marie said	whether	the institute	reorganized	will	be
	'Did Marie say whether the institute will be reorganized?'

b'.	Heeft	Marie gezegd	[wanneer	het instituut	gereorganiseerd	zal	worden]?
	has	Marie said	when	the institute	reorganized	will	be
	'Did Marie say when the institute will be reorganized?'

The examples in (36) show that the speaker has a similar choice if the sentence is negated. The choice between the three utterances again depends on the speaker's knowledge state. Example (36a) can be used to express that the speaker knows that there will be a reorganization but that Marie did not make this public or to express that the speaker expected that Marie would announce a reorganization but that this expectation was not borne out. Example (36b) will typically be used when the speaker does not know for certain whether or not there will be a reorganization, and (36b') expresses that, while the speaker is convinced that there will be a reorganization, Marie did not give more specific information about the time when it will take place.

a.	Marie heeft	niet gezegd	[dat	het instituut	gereorganiseerd	zal	worden].
	Marie has	not said	that	the institute	reorganized	will	be
	'Marie didnʼt say that the institute will be reorganized.'

b.	Marie heeft	niet gezegd	[of	het instituut	gereorganiseerd	zal worden].
	Marie has	not said	whether	the institute	reorganized	will be
	'Marie didnʼt say whether the institute will be reorganized.'

b'.	Marie heeft	niet gezegd	[wanneer	het instituut	gereorganiseerd	zal worden].
	Marie has	not said	when	the institute	reorganized	will be
	'Marie didnʼt say when the institute will be reorganized.'

Not all verbs of communication are compatible with an interrogative argument clause if they occur in an interrogative or negative sentence. The examples in (37), for instance, show that the verb aankondigen'to announce' in (37a') does not easily allow it, which is probably due to the fact that it is factive in the sense discussed in Section 5.1.2.3. Observe also that there is a contrast in acceptability between yes/no- and wh-clauses and that the latter do occasionally occur on the internet.

a.	Heeft	Marie aangekondigd	[dat/*of	Els ontslag	neemt]?
	has	Marie prt.-announced	that/whether	Els resignation	takes
	'Has Marie announced that/*whether Els will resign?'

a'.	??	Heeft	Marie aangekondigd	[waarom	Els ontslag	neemt]?
		has	Marie prt.-announced	why	Els resignation	takes

b.	Marie	heeft	niet	aangekondigd	[dat/*of	Els ontslag	neemt].
	Marie	has	not	prt.-announced	that/whether	Els resignation	takes
	'Marie hasnʼt announced that/*whether Els will resign.'

b'.	??	Marie	heeft	niet	aangekondigd	[waarom	Els ontslag	neemt].
		Marie	has	not	prt.-announced	why	Els resignation	takes

For completeness' sake, the examples in (38) show that verbs like vragen can sometimes also be used with declarative argument clauses, in which case we are dealing with a request/demand rather than a question. The two meanings can be distinguished easily: vragen with the meaning "to ask" takes a nominal object that alternates with an aan-PP, whereas vragen with the meaning "to request/demand" prefers a van-PP and admits a nominal object in formal/archaic contexts only.

a.	Jan vroeg	(aan)	Marie	[of/*dat	Peter ziek	was].
	Jan asked	to	Marie	whether/that	Peter ill	was
	'Jan asked Marie whether/*that Peter was ill.'

b.	Jan vroeg	?(van) zijn team	[dat	het	altijd	beschikbaar	was].
	Jan asked	of his team	that	it	always	available	was
	'Jan asked of his team that they would always be available.'

[+] II. Verbs of (direct) perception

The examples in (39) show that the perception verbs proeven'to taste', ruiken'to smell' and voelen'to feel' may select either a declarative or an interrogative clause. The meaning of the verbs in the primed and the primeless examples differs in that in the former case the subject of the perception verb senses involuntarily (in the sense of "without conscious control") that the state of affairs expressed by the embedded clause holds (Yuk, the soup has gone off!), whereas in the primed examples the subject intentionally employs his/her senses to establish whether the state of affairs expressed by the embedded clause holds (No, don't worry, the soup is still fine).

a.	Marie	proefde/rook	[dat	de soep	bedorven	was].	involuntary
	Marie	tasted/smelled	that	the soup	tainted	was
	'Marie tasted/smelled that the soup had gone off.'

a'.	Marie	proefde/rook	[of	de soep	bedorven	was].	voluntary
	Marie	tasted/smelled	whether	the soup	tainted	was
	'Marie tasted/smelled whether the soup had gone off.'

b.	Jan voelde	[dat	de was	droog	was].	involuntary
	Jan felt	that	the laundry	dry	was
	'Jan felt that the laundry was dry.'

b'.	Jan voelde	[of	de was	droog	was].	voluntary
	Jan felt	whether	the laundry	dry	was
	'Jan felt whether the laundry was dry.'

It does not seem to be the case that we are dealing with two uses of one and the same verb but with real polysemy. The reason for assuming so is that in the domain of vision and hearing there are two specialized verbs for the two meanings: zien'to see' and horen'to hear' are used for involuntary perception, whereas kijken'to look' and luisteren'to listen' are used for the active involvement of vision and hearing.

a.	Marie zag	[dat/*of	de zon	scheen].	involuntary
	Marie saw	that/whether	the sun	shone
	'Marie saw that the sun was shining.'

a'.	Marie keek	[of/*dat	de zon	scheen].	voluntary
	Marie looked	whether/that	the sun	shone
	'Marie looked whether the sun was shining.'

b.	Jan hoorde	[dat/*of	de deur	klapperde].	involuntary
	Jan heard	that/whether	the door	rattled
	'Jan heard that the door was rattling.'

b'.	Jan luisterde	[of/*dat	de deur	klapperde].	voluntary
	Jan listened	whether/that	the door	rattled
	'Jan listened whether the door was rattling.'

That the distinction between involuntary and voluntary perception is also relevant for the polysemous verbs proeven, ruiken and voelen is clear from the fact that imperatives, which imply voluntary action, require these verbs to take an embedded question.

a.	Proef/ruik	even	[of/*dat	de soep	nog	eetbaar	is]!	voluntary
	taste/smell	prt	whether/that	the soup	yet	edible	is
	'Just taste/smell whether the soup is still edible.'

b.	Voel	even	[of/*dat	de was	al	droog	is]!	voluntary
	feel	prt	whether/that	the laundry	already	dry	is
	'Just feel whether the laundry is dry.'

The contrast between involuntary and voluntary perception seems quite sharp if the argument clause is introduced by the complementizer of, but more diffuse when introduced by a wh-phrase. The examples in (42) seem to allow both readings: example (42c), for instance, does not require that Jan purposely feels how wet the washing was, but that he may accidently it that while putting the washing in the cupboard.

a.	Marie proefde	[welke kruiden	er	in de soep	zaten].
	Marie tasted	which herbs	there	in the soup	were
	'Marie tasted which herbs were in the soup.'

b.	De hond	rook	[welke man	cannabis	bij zich	had].
	the dog	smelled	which man	cannabis	with refl	had
	'The dog smelled which man was in possession of cannabis.'

c.	Jan	voelde	[hoe nat	de was	nog	was].
	Jan	felt	how wet	the laundry	still	was
	'Jan felt how wet the washing still was'

That verbs of involuntary perception are compatible with embedded wh-questions is also shown by the acceptability of the examples in (43), which contrast sharply with the primeless examples in (40).

a.	Jan zag	onmiddellijk	[welke boeken	Marie	geleend	had].
	Jan saw	immediately	which books	Marie	borrowed	had
	'Jan immediately saw which books Marie had borrowed.'

b.	Jan hoorde	onmiddellijk	[wie	de kamer	binnenkwam].
	Jan heard	immediately	who	the room	entered
	'Jan immediately heard who entered the room.'

A warning flag is needed here, however, given that interrogative argument clauses are generally possible with the verbs zien'to see' and horen'to hear' if we are dealing with indirect perception, as is illustrated in (44). This means that examples such as (43) can only be used for distinguishing verbs of voluntary and involuntary perception if we are dealing with direct perception and not with indirect perception (e.g., on the basis of empty spaces on the book shelves or the sound of foot steps).

a.	Jan ziet	(aan haar gezicht)	onmiddellijk	[dat/of	ze	vrolijk	is].
	Jan saw	from her face	immediately	that/whether	she	merry	is
	'Her face shows Jan immediately that/whether sheʼs merry.'

b.	Jan hoort (aan de misthoorns)	[dat/of	het	mistig	is].
	Jan hears from the foghorns	that/whether	it	misty	is
	'The blast of the foghorns tells Jan that/whether it is foggy.'

In addition, the examples in (45) show that zien'to see' and horen'to hear' are also fully compatible with an embedded yes/no questions if they head an interrogative or negative sentence; in this respect they behave just like non-factive verbs of communication like zeggen'to say' discussed in Subsection I.

a.	Heb	je	gezien	[dat/of	de zon	scheen]?
	have	you	seen	that/whether	the sun	shone
	'Have you seen that/whether the sun was shining?'

a'.	Ik	heb	niet	gezien	[dat/of	de zon	scheen].
	I	have	not	seen	that/whether	the sun	shone
	'I havenʼt seen that/whether the sun was shining.'

b.	Heb	je	gehoord	[dat/of	de deur	klapperde]?
	have	you	heard	that/whether	the door	rattled
	'Have you heard that/whether the door was rattling?'

b'.	Ik heb	niet	gehoord	[dat/of	de deur	klapperde].
	I have	not	heard	that/whether	the door	rattled
	'I havenʼt heard that/whether the door was rattling.'

The examples in (46) show that the addition of a modal verb can have a similar effect on the selection restrictions.

a.	Jan kan	zien	[dat/of	de zon	schijnt].
	Jan can	see	that/whether	the sun	shines
	'Jan can see that/whether the sun is shining.'

b.	Jan kan	horen	[dat/of	de deur	klappert].
	Jan can	hear	that/whether	the door	rattles
	'Jan can hear that/whether the door is rattling.'

We will return to verbs of involuntary and voluntary perception in Section 5.2.3.3 where we show that they differ in yet another way: the former but not the latter may occur in AcI-constructions: Jan zag/*keek de zon opkomen'Jan saw the sun rise'.

[+] III. Verbs of cognition

Verbs of cognition can be divided into the four groups in (47) on the basis of the question as to whether they select a declarative or an interrogative clause.

zich afvragen'to wonder'

geloven'to believe', voorzien'to anticipate', verwachten'to expect', vinden'to be of the opinion', zich inbeelden'to imagine'

begrijpen'to understand', vermoeden'to suspect', zich realiseren'to realize'

weten'to know', overwegen'to consider' and betwijfelen'to doubt'

The verb zich afvragen'to wonder' in (47a) cannot be combined with a declarative argument clause; it only occurs with interrogative clauses introduced by the complementizer of or some wh-phrase.

a.	Jan vraagt	zich	af	[of/*dat	Marie dat boek	gelezen	heeft].
	Jan wonders	refl	prt.	whether/that	Marie that book	read	has
	'Jan wonders whether Marie has read that book.'

b.	Jan vraagt	zich	af	[welk boek	Marie	gelezen	heeft].
	Jan wonders	refl	prt.	which book	Marie	read	has
	'Jan wonders which book Marie has read.'

The verbs in (47b) take a declarative object clause introduced by the complementizer dat'that': interrogative clauses give rise to degraded results. This is illustrated in (50) for the verb geloven'to believe'.

a.	Jan gelooft	[dat/*of	Marie	morgen	niet	kan	komen].
	Jan believes	that/whether	Marie	tomorrow	not	can	come
	'Jan believes that/*whether Marie canʼt come tomorrow.'

b.	*	Jan gelooft	[wanneer	Marie niet	kan	komen].
		Jan believes	when	Marie not	can	come

c.	*	Jan gelooft	[waarom	Marie	morgen	niet	kan	komen].
		Jan believes	why	Marie	tomorrow	not	can	come

The situation is less clear for the verbs in (47c). The examples in (50) show that the verb begrijpen'to understand' cannot take an interrogative verb introduced by the complementizer of'whether', but that interrogative clauses introduced by a wh-phrase yield a much better result—although example (50b) is definitely marked without the anticipatory pronounhet'it', example (50c) is fully acceptable. The verbs vermoeden'to suspect' and zich realiseren'to realize' show a similar behavior here.

a.	Jan begrijpt	(het)	[dat/*of	Marie	morgen	niet	kan	komen].
	Jan understands	it	that/whether	Marie	tomorrow	not	can	come
	'Jan understands that/*whether Marie canʼt come tomorrow.'

b.	Jan begrijpt	??(het)	[wanneer	Marie niet	kan	komen].
	Jan understands	it	when	Marie not	can	come
	'Jan understands when Marie canʼt come.'

c.	Jan begrijpt	(het)	[waarom	Marie morgen	niet	kan	komen].
	Jan understands	it	why	Marie tomorrow	not	can	come
	'Jan understands why Marie canʼt come tomorrow.'

The examples in (51) show that verbs of the type geloven'to believe' and the type begrijpen'to understand' also behave differently if they function as the head of an interrogative or negative sentence: whereas the former remain incompatible with interrogative argument clauses, the latter readily accept them.

a.	Heeft	Jan geloofd	[dat/of/wanneer	Marie	komt]?
	has	Jan believed	that/whether/when	Marie	comes
	'Did Jan believe that Marie would come?'

a'.	Jan gelooft	niet	[dat/of/wanneer	Marie	komt].
	Jan believes	not	that/whether/when	Marie	comes
	'Jan doesnʼt believe that Marie will come.'

b.	Heeft	Jan	begrepen	[dat/of/wanneer	Marie	komt]?
	has	Jan	understood	that/whether/when	Marie	comes
	'Did Jan understand that/whether/when Marie will come?'

b'.	Jan begrijpt	niet	[dat/of/wanneer	Marie	komt].
	Jan understands	not	that/whether/when	Marie	come
	'Jan doesnʼt understand that/whether/when Marie will come.'

Observe that example (51b) with a declarative clause will normally be used when the speaker wants to check whether Jan did get the relevant information that Marie will come, whereas the use of an interrogative clause suggests that the speaker himself does not know whether/when Marie will come and would in fact like to have more information about it (which might be available to Jan). Similarly, example (51b') with a declarative clause expresses that Jan does not grasp the established fact that Marie will come, whereas the (time of) Marie's coming is left open when begrijpen takes an interrogative argument clause.
The verbs in group (47d) seem to be compatible both with declarative and interrogative argument clauses. We illustrate this in (52) for the verb weten. Example (52a) is used to express that Jan is cognizant of the fact that Marie is not able to come, and the examples in (52b&c) are used to express that Jan is able to provide further information about whether/when Marie will come.

Jan

weet

[dat

Marie niet

kan

komen].<