- Dutch
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Coordination and Ellipsis
- Nouns and noun phrases (JANUARI 2025)
- 15 Characterization and classification
- 16 Projection of noun phrases I: Complementation
- 16.0. Introduction
- 16.1. General observations
- 16.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 16.3. Clausal complements
- 16.4. Bibliographical notes
- 17 Projection of noun phrases II: Modification
- 17.0. Introduction
- 17.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 17.2. Premodification
- 17.3. Postmodification
- 17.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 17.3.2. Relative clauses
- 17.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 17.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 17.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 17.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 17.4. Bibliographical notes
- 18 Projection of noun phrases III: Binominal constructions
- 18.0. Introduction
- 18.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 18.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 18.3. Bibliographical notes
- 19 Determiners: Articles and pronouns
- 19.0. Introduction
- 19.1. Articles
- 19.2. Pronouns
- 19.3. Bibliographical notes
- 20 Numerals and quantifiers
- 20.0. Introduction
- 20.1. Numerals
- 20.2. Quantifiers
- 20.2.1. Introduction
- 20.2.2. Universal quantifiers: ieder/elk ‘every’ and alle ‘all’
- 20.2.3. Existential quantifiers: sommige ‘some’ and enkele ‘some’
- 20.2.4. Degree quantifiers: veel ‘many/much’ and weinig ‘few/little’
- 20.2.5. Modification of quantifiers
- 20.2.6. A note on the adverbial use of degree quantifiers
- 20.3. Quantitative er constructions
- 20.4. Partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions
- 20.5. Bibliographical notes
- 21 Predeterminers
- 21.0. Introduction
- 21.1. The universal quantifier al ‘all’ and its alternants
- 21.2. The predeterminer heel ‘all/whole’
- 21.3. A note on focus particles
- 21.4. Bibliographical notes
- 22 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- 23 Referential dependencies (binding)
- Syntax
-
- General
This section has discussed A'-scrambling, which involves negation, focus and topic movement. We have seen that there are reasons for assuming that negative phrases expressing sentence negation are obligatorily moved into the specifier position of the functional projection NegP, from which they can take scope over the proposition expressed by the lexical domain of the clause. Similarly, contrastive foci and topics are obligatorily moved into the specifier of FocP and TopP, from where they can take scope over their associated backgrounds/comments, which can again be taken to be located in the lexical domain of the clause. The fact that contrastive foci are often higher in the structure than phrases expressing sentence negation, while contrastive topics are higher than contrastive foci leads to the overall structure in (172), where the brackets without labels stand for potential functional projections that may still be discovered by future research.
[CP ... C [TP ... T [ ... [TopP Top [... [FocP Foc [... [NegP ... Neg [LD ....]]]]]]]]] |
The representation in (172) is conspicuously similar to what we find in languages such as Hungarian, which are strongly templatic in the sense that there is a strict order of phrases of various semantic types: topic > focus > neg. It therefore need not surprise us that the description of the Hungarian functional domain provided in É.Kiss (2002) is essentially similar to the one given in (172), although it adds a functional projection between TopP and FocP which provides a landing site for certain quantified expressions, especially those involving a universal quantifier or a numeral expression such as sok'many', számos'several' and több mint n'more than n'. We might therefore expect that such phrases also undergo A'-movement in languages other than Hungarian: although Svenonius (2000) and Christensen (2005) have shown that this expectation is indeed borne out for Icelandic, it still remains to be shown for Dutch. Although further comparison of Dutch and Hungarian is needed in order to get a more complete picture of the similarities and differences between these languages, the fact that the functional domains of the clause in unrelated languages like Dutch and Hungarian are so similar gives credibility to the hypothesis that this domain is at least partly determined by certain universal (perhaps semantic) properties of the language system.
- 2005Interfaces. Negation - syntax - brainUniversity of Aarhus, MR Research CentreThesis
- 2002The syntax of HungariannullCambridge syntax GuidesnullCambridge University Press
- 2000Quantifier Movement in IcelandicSvenonius, Peter (ed.)The derivation of VO and OVJohn Benjamins255-292
