• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
5.1.Finite argument clauses
quickinfo

Section 5.1.1 begins with some more general remarks about finite argument clauses. Sections 5.1.2 through 5.1.4 discuss in more detail the use of finite clauses as direct objects, subjects, and PP-complements. Section 5.1.5 continues with a discussion of fragment clauses. A prototypical case of the type of fragment clauses we have in mind is the so-called sluicing construction in (6b), which can be used as a reaction to example (6a). Sluicing constructions are arguably derived by partial deletion of the phonetic content of a finite clause, here indicated by strikethrough.

6
a. Jan heeft gisteren iemand bezocht.
speaker A
  Jan has yesterday someone visited
  'Jan visited someone yesterday.'
b. Kan je me ook zeggen wie Jan gisteren bezocht heeft?
speaker B
  can you me also tell who Jan yesterday visited has
  'Can you also tell me who (Jan visited yesterday)?'

Section 5.1.6 concludes with a brief discussion of wh-extraction from finite clauses, illustrated in (7) by wh-movement of a direct object; the wh-phrase wat in (7b) originates in the same position as the direct object dit boek in (7a); consequently, the embedded clause in (7b) contains an interpretive gap, indicated by the trace ti.

7
a. Ik denk [Clause dat Marie dit boek morgen zal kopen].
  I think that Marie this book tomorrow will buy
b. Wati denk je [Clause dat Marie ti morgen zal kopen]?
  what think you that Marie tomorrow will buy
  'What do you think that Marie will buy tomorrow?'

Wh-extraction is only possible from complement clauses of a limited set of so-called bridge verbs, and our discussion will focus specifically on the properties that a matrix verb must have in order to license wh-extraction. For a more general discussion of the restrictions on wh-movement, see Section 11.3.1.

readmore
References:
    report errorprintcite