Section 6.2.5 has discussed the high/low degree quantifiers veel and weinig, and it was shown that these quantifiers share several properties with gradable adjectives. It therefore does not come as a surprise that the distribution of the forms veel and weinig is not restricted to adnominal positions; they can also be used as adverbial phrases; cf. (183). To conclude this section on quantifiers, we will briefly discuss the properties of such adverbially used quantifiers.

In the (a)-examples in (183), 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 as in the (b)-examples, although some speakers seem to object to the use of weinig, and prefer the use of niet veel'not much' in this function. The difference between the two adverbial uses can be made clearer by means of the examples in (184), which show that the degree-of-frequency quantifiers are in a paradigmatic relation with frequency adverbs like vaak'often', whereas the degree of-intensity quantifiers are not.

      Just like the adnominally used forms, the adverbially used forms of veel and weinig can be modified by degree modifiers like erg'very' and te'too', and they can also be the input of comparative and superlative formation.

      The interpretation of adverbial veel is sensitive to the semantic properties of the verb phrase with which it is construed; cf. Doetjes (1997: 126). If veel modifies a stage-level predicate like the VP headed by reizen'to travel' in (183a), a degree-of-frequency reading results; if an individual-level predicate like the VP headed by houden van'to like' in (183b) is modified by veel, a degree-of-intensity interpretation ensues. 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, though 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 regard.

Instead of veel, Dutch has to use one of the adverbs zeer'very' or erg'very' to express degree quantification for the individual-level verb phrase in (187a), and in the everyday vernacular niet erg'not a lot' is usually preferred to weinig in the low degree example in (187a'). The corresponding examples are given in (188).

In the (a)-examples in (189), 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 hoesten'to cough' in (189), 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 purely non-quantificational, manner interpretation.

The contrast between (189b&c) can be replicated even more clearly in the case of adjectival predicates, as illustrated in (190); cf. Doetjes (1997: 129). While in (190a) afwezig means “not (physically) present”, the same adjective in (190b) means “absent-minded”. This reflects a difference between the stage-level and the individual-level interpretation of afwezig; veel patterns with the stage-level reading while erg teams up with the individual-level reading. Apart from showing that veel can degree-quantify adjectival predicates as well, the data in (190) once again confirm that veel has difficulty quantifying individual-level predicates.

      There are two points that should be stressed in connection with the contrast between stage-level and individual-level predicates. The first concerns transitivity. The examples in (183b) and (187a), repeated below as (191), seem to differ in one syntactically significant respect only: they both involve individual-level predicates, but whereas houden van'to like' selects a PP-complement, vertrouwen'to trust' takes 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 are provided in (192).

The two primeless examples differ in that veel can readily receive the desired degree-of-intensity reading in (192a), whereas it instead receives a degree-of-frequency reading in (192b); in the latter example, the degree-of-intensity is more naturally expressed with the aid of adverbs like erg/zeer'very'. Be that as it may, the fact that no reading is available for veel in the primed examples in (192) shows that the nature of the complement is an important factor when it comes to the distribution of adverbial veel: veel is impossible if the stage-level predicate takes a nominal complement.
      It is, however, not the nature of the complement alone that regulates the adverbial distribution of veel; the individual-level/stage-level distinction is a crucial factor as well. This is evident from the fact that the transitive stage-level verbs in (193) are perfectly compatible with adverbial veel. These examples show not only that transitivity is not the crucial factor, but also that agentivity is not implicated in the dichotomy: the two examples in (193) differ with respect to agentivity but not in acceptability. That agentivity is not involved is also clear from the fact that the examples in (191b) and (193b) are both non-agentive but do contrast in acceptability.