Object clauses usually follow the clause-final verbs and can optionally be introduced by the anticipatory pronoun hetit; placing the object clause in the middle field of the clause generally leads to a highly degraded result. This is illustrated in the (a)-examples in (356) for finite clauses and by the (b)-examples for infinitival clauses.

For completeness, the examples in (357) show that the object clauses of the verb besluitento decide can also appear as the complement of the corresponding nominalization besluitdecision.

In (356) the object clause is an internal argument of the verb besluitento decide. However, direct object clauses can also function as logical subjects (external arguments) of e.g. adjectival complementives. This is illustrated in the vinden-construction in (358); the anticipatory pronoun het is obligatory and the object clause usually follows the clause-final verbs; placing the object clause in the middle field leads to a severely degraded result (leaving aside the marked case in which the finite clause is assigned a factive reading; cf. Section 5.1.2.3).

Subject clauses are possible when they originate as internal arguments of the matrix verb; this is clear from the fact, illustrated in (359), that the primeless examples of the transitive constructions in (356) can be passivized. The passive construction is impersonal when it is introduced by the expletive erthere and personal when it contains the anticipatory subject pronoun hetit. The primed examples in (359) show that subject clauses must follow the clause-final verbs; they cannot be placed in the regular subject position right-adjacent to the complementizer.

Subject clauses also occur in dyadic unaccusative constructions, in which they also originate as internal arguments of the verb. This is illustrated with the nom-dat object-experiencer psych-verb bevallento please in (360); the primed examples again show that subject clauses cannot occur in the regular subject position. In these examples the anticipatory pronoun is obligatory and the expletive er cannot be used.

The examples in (361) show that the same holds for the nom-acc object-experiencer psych-verb vervelento annoy, provided that the subject functions as a cause (and not as a causer) argument; cf. Section 2.5.1.3 for a detailed discussion of these psych-verbs.

In the examples above, the subject clause is an argument of the matrix verb. However, subject clauses can also function as logical subjects (external arguments) of e.g. adjectival complementives, which is clear from the fact that the vinden-constructions in (358) can be passivized; this is shown in (362). The anticipatory pronoun het is normally obligatory and appears as the subject of the construction; it is impossible to place the subject clause in the regular subject position. Again, the expletive er cannot be used.

The same thing is illustrated by the copular constructions in (358); again, the anticipatory pronoun het is normally obligatory, and it is impossible to place the subject clause in the regular subject position.

The examples in (364) show that finite and infinitival clauses can also be used as PO-clauses, in which case they can be introduced by an anticipatory pronominal PP er + P. This pronominal PP can be omitted with certain verbs but not with all; cf. Section 2.3.1, sub VI, for a detailed discussion. The primed examples show that complement clauses cannot appear in the middle field of the clause, regardless of whether the pronominal PP ernaar is present.

For completeness, the examples in (365) show that finite and infinitival clauses can also be used as PP-complements of adjectives. The pronominal PP can be omitted with certain adjectives, but not with all, and the complement clause cannot appear in the middle field of the clause.

Interestingly, anticipatory pronominal PPs do not occur in noun phrases. The nominalizations of the primeless examples in (366) can only be combined with the pronominal PP ernaar when the clause is not realized. For completeness’ sake, it should be noted that, for some as yet unclear reason, nominalization leads to a somewhat marked result when the complement is a finite clause.

The previous subsections have shown that infinitival argument clauses preceded by om behave like their finite counterparts in that they normally follow the clause-final verbs; they cannot occur in the middle field of the clause. However, it is possible to topicalize or left-dislocate the infinitival clause, although the options seem somewhat more limited than in the case of finite argument clauses.

The previous subsections have shown that infinitival argument clauses preceded by om exhibit syntactic behavior similar to that of finite argument clauses. First, they can function as subject, direct object, and prepositional object. Second, they usually appear after the clause-final verbs and can be introduced by an anticipatory pronominal element in the middle field of the clause. The only difference seems to be related to topicalization; while topicalization of finite object clauses is easily possible, topicalization of object om + te infinitivals seems to lead to degraded results. The same contrast has been claimed to hold for subject clauses, but we have seen that there are many cases in which subject clauses can occur quite felicitously in sentence-initial position, and we have therefore provisionally assumed that the reported contrast is not real. Finite and infinitival prepositional object clauses also behave in the same way, in that they both resist topicalization. We also discussed left dislocation and showed that in this area there is no difference at all between finite clauses and infinitival clauses preceded by om; left dislocation is always possible.