Section 19.2.5 has shown that the high-degree/low-degree quantifiers veelmany and weinigfew share several properties with gradable adjectives. It is therefore not surprising that the distribution of these forms is not limited to adnominal positions; the examples in (299) show that they can also be used as adverbial phrases. To conclude this section on quantifiers, we will briefly discuss the properties of such adverbially used quantifiers.

In the (a)-examples in (299), veel and weinig are used as adverbial phrases of frequency; they express that the degree of frequency is higher or lower than some contextually determined norm. The same elements seem to function as adverbial phrases of intensity in the (b)-examples, although some speakers seem to object to the use of weinig and prefer the use of niet veelnot much in this function. The difference between the two adverbial uses can be made clearer by the examples in (300), which show that the degree-of-frequency quantifiers are in a paradigmatic relation with frequency adverbs such as vaakoften, while the degree-of-intensity quantifiers are in a paradigmatic relation with degree adverbs such as ergvery.

The examples in (301) show that the adverbially used forms of veel and weinig are like their adnominal counterparts in that they can be modified by degree modifiers like ergvery and tetoo and can be the input of comparative and superlative formation.

The examples in (303) also show that the degree modifiers genoeg and voldoende and zat can be used as adverbial phrases; often they are accompanied by an om-clause, which helps to specify the contextually determined norm that is being met. The adverbial use of the quantifier zatplenty is less common; it seems fully acceptable in contexts such as (303a), but marginal in contexts such as (303b).

The interpretation of the adverbial veel is sensitive to the semantic properties of the verb phrase with which it is construed; cf. Doetjes (1997:126). When veel modifies a stage-level predicate like the VP headed by reizento travel in (299a), a degree-of-frequency reading results; when an individual-level predicate like the VP headed by houden vanto like in (299b) is modified by veel, a degree-of-intensity reading results. However, not all individual-level VPs are compatible with veel; mental-state verbs like vertrouwen “trust”, which take an NP-complement, do not combine with veel, although they are perfectly modifiable by weinig, as well as by the comparative and superlative forms of both veel and weinig. Veel is therefore unique in this respect.

Instead of veel, Dutch has to use one of the adverbs zeervery or ergvery to express degree quantification for the individual-level verb phrase in (304a), and in everyday speech niet ergnot a lot is usually preferred to weinig in the low-degree example in (304a'). The corresponding examples are given in (305).

In the (a)-examples in (306), which involve individual-level predicates, veel/weinig and erg/niet erg alternate without any significant semantic change. However, for stage-level predicates that are compatible with both veel and erg, like hoestento cough in (306), we find that there is a semantic distinction between these two modifiers: whereas veel and weinig in the (b)-examples express the degree of frequency, (niet) erg in the (c)-examples receives a (non-quantificational) manner interpretation.

The contrast between (306b&c) can be replicated even more clearly in the case of adjectival predicates, as illustrated in (307); cf. Doetjes (1997:129). While in (307a) afwezig means “not (physically) present”, the same adjective in (307b) means “absent-minded”. This reflects a difference between the stage-level and individual-level interpretations of afwezig; veel patterns with the stage-level reading while erg patterns with the individual-level reading. In addition to showing that veel can degree quantify adjectival predicates as well, the data in (307) once again confirms that veel cannot easily be used to quantify individual-level predicates.

There are two points that should be emphasized in connection with the contrast between stage-level and individual-level predicates. The first concerns syntactic transitivity. The examples in (299b) and (304a), repeated below as (308), seem to differ in only one syntactically significant respect: they both involve individual-level predicates, but whereas houden vanto like selects a PP-complement, vertrouwento trust selects an NP-complement.

Apparently, the category of the complement of the individual-level verb matters when it comes to the adverbial use of veel as a degree-of-intensity quantifier. Data confirming this conclusion is provided in (309).

The two primeless examples differ in that veel in (309a) can easily receive the desired degree-of-intensity reading, whereas in (309b) it receives instead a degree-of-frequency reading; in the latter case, the degree-of-intensity is expressed more naturally by adverbs such as erg/zeervery. Be that as it may, the fact that there is no reading available for veel in the primed examples in (309) shows that the nature of the complement is an important factor in the distribution of adverbial veel: it is impossible with stage-level predicates that take a nominal complement.

However, it is not only the nature of the complement that regulates the adverbial distribution of veel; the individual-level/stage-level distinction is also a crucial factor. This is evident from the fact that the transitive stage-level verbs in (310) are perfectly compatible with adverbial veel. These examples show not only that transitivity is not the crucial factor, but also that agentivity is not involved in the dichotomy: the two examples in (310) differ in agentivity, but not in acceptability. That agentivity is not involved is also clear from the fact that the examples in (308b) and (310b) are both non-agentive, but contrast in acceptability.

In conclusion, the adnominal and adverbial use of degree quantifiers in transitive clauses is sometimes difficult to distinguish. The primeless examples in (311), for instance, are ambiguous, as is clear from the fact that the direct object can either pied-pipe or strand the degree quantifier under topicalization: we are dealing with an adnominal modifier in the first case, and with an adverbial modifier in the second.