The two uses of the spatial PPs do not seem to differ in terms of topicalization; both (81a) and (81b) are acceptable. The examples differ in that the complementive seems to prefer to be contrastively accented, while this is not the case for the adverbial phrase.

The examples in (82) show that the complementive PP must be left-adjacent to the verb(s) in clause-final position, whereas the adverbially used PP can occur in several positions in the middle field of the clause.

From the fact that the verb springen takes the auxiliary zijn with a complementive PP and that complementives must be left-adjacent to the verbs in clause-final position, it follows that (83a') is impossible: the auxiliary zijn forces a complementive reading, so that the PP must be left-adjacent to the clause-final verbs. Since adverbial PPs can occur in other positions in the middle field, (83b') is of course predicted to be possible.

We have purposely avoided using the term scrambling in the above discussion. The reason is that scrambling is generally taken to refer to leftward movement (across the adverbs) in the middle field of the clause; it is not clear whether we are dealing with movement here or whether the adverbial phrases are simply base-generated in different positions. The latter possibility is supported by the fact, illustrated in (84), that there can be more than one spatial adverbial phrase in a single clause. Note that the adverbial phrases in (84) are strictly ordered: the more general one (in Amsterdam/de tuin) precedes the clause adverb vaak and must also precede the more specific one (bij Peter/onder de boom); cf. Section V8.2.3 for a more detailed discussion of examples of this kind.

For the sake of completeness, note that (85a) does not refute the claim that the more general spatial phrase must precede the more specific one: example (85b) shows that these two PPs can be part of a larger constituent, in which the PP in de tuin functions as an attributive modifier of the noun boom: [PP onder [NP de boom [PP in de tuin]]].

PP-over-V can also be used to disambiguate the two constructions in (79): if it does not apply, as in (86a), both readings are available; if it does apply, as in (86b), only the adverbial reading survives.

From the fact that the verb springen takes the auxiliary zijn if the PP is a complementive and the fact that complementives cannot occur in extraposed position, it follows that (87a') is impossible: the auxiliary zijn forces a complementive reading, so that the PP must precede the clause-final verbs. Since adverbial PPs can be in extraposed position (87b') is correctly predicted to be possible.

Finally, if there is more than one adverbial PP in the clause, PP-over-V reverses the order of these PPs in the middle field of the clause; cf. Koster (1974). This can be seen by comparing the examples in (88) with those in (84). Note that example (88b) also allows for an analysis in which in de tuinin the garden is an attributive modifier of the noun boomtree. Note also that the primed examples in (88) become acceptable if the PPs by Peter and onder de boom are presented as an afterthought; in this reading they are usually preceded by an intonation break.

It seems that R-extraction is not easily possible with spatial adverbial phrases. While extraction of a relative R-pronoun is perfectly acceptable from the complementive PP in (89a), it leads to a marked status when applied to the spatial adverbial PP in (89b); cf. Section 36.3 for a detailed discussion.

However, there are many unclear cases; speakers’ judgments on R-extraction from spatial adverbial clauses seem to vary considerably sometimes. This is particularly true for R-extraction in relative clauses; some speakers find examples such as (90a) quite acceptable, while others require the preposition to be pied piped, as in (90b). Some speakers even object to both (90a) and (90b) and simply use the relative adverbial pro-form waarwhere in (90c).

The previous subsections have shown that adverbially used PPs differ from complementive adpositional phrases in several ways. These differences are summarized in Table 5. Recall from the discussion of (65) in Section 35.2.2 that spatial adpositional phrases may also be used as supplementives. However, it seems that the distinction between supplementive and adverbial adpositional phrases can only be made on the basis of their semantic relation to (the arguments of) the clause.