Section 4.6 characterizes structures that exhibit monoclausal behavior by pointing to two prototypical properties. First, such structures exhibit verb clustering/clause splitting: the verbs are placed together in clause-final position, and the dependents of the most deeply embedded verb (e.g. nominal arguments and modifiers) must precede the cluster as a whole. Second, such structures exhibit the infinitivus-pro-participio (IPP) effect in perfect-tense constructions with three or more verbs.

The examples in (2) illustrate the monoclausal properties of structures containing the aspectual verb komen: example (2a) shows that the verbs cluster in clause-final position; this results in the splitting of the lexical projection of the main verb reparerento repair, which is italicized. Example (2b) illustrates the IPP-effect.

However, the two properties in Table 1 are neither necessary nor sufficient for assigning non-main verb status to a given verb. The examples in (3) show that exhibiting the IPP-effect is not a necessary condition; it does not occur in passive constructions, despite the fact that passive auxiliaries are often considered prototypical cases of non-main verbs. Note that the percentage sign in (3b) indicates that most speakers from the Netherlands omit the participle geworden in the regular passive, whereas it is often realized by Flemish speakers.

Although it is generally true for most speakers from the Netherlands that verb clustering leads to a splitting of the lexical projection of the most deeply embedded verb, it is not quite true that this always leads to a structure in which the dependents of this verb precede the non-main verbs: e.g. verbal particles may remain adjacent to it, and the same holds for certain monosyllabic complementive adjectives; cf. the examples in (4) and the discussion in Section A28.2.2, sub I, for more details.

In fact, the restriction that verb clusters are impermeable to dependents of the embedded verb is even less strict for speakers of the Flemish variety of standard Dutch, where the verb cluster can easily include a wide variety of complementives, indefinite objects, etc. This means that we can only maintain that verb clustering is a necessary condition for assuming non-main verb status if we replace the stronger claim that verb clustering requires splitting of the lexical projection of the main verb with the weaker claim that it makes splitting possible. The discussion in this chapter will show that there is a great deal of word-order variation in verb clusters, especially those containing a past or passive participle. Although the regional variation along the north-south dimension has been an intensively studied research topic since Pauwels (1953), we still found some gaps in the available information. We were fortunate to obtain native speaker judgments from the following Flemish speakers: Evie Coussé (East Flanders), Benny de Decker (Province of Antwerp) and Reinhild Vandekerckhove (West-Flanders).

Subsection I has shown that the two tests in Table 1 for determining whether or not we are dealing with a monoclausal structure tend to give reasonably reliable results for speakers of the regional variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands, but are not without their problems in light of the patterns we find in the variety of standard Dutch spoken in Belgium. This subsection continues with an examination of structures that exhibit monoclausal behavior, and shows that it is not the case that main verbs can only occur as the deepest embedded verb in such structures (as most grammars that adopt the “one-main-verb-only” criterion assume); in addition, higher verbs can also have main verb status.

In example (5a), the verb proberento try clearly functions semantically as a main verb; it is a two-place predicate expressing the core meaning of the main clause. That we are dealing with a two-place predicate is clear from the fact that the infinitival clause can be pronominalized, as shown in (5b).

Example (6) expresses practically the same meaning as (5a), so there is no semantic reason to assume that the verb proberen functions as a non-main verb in this construction. Nevertheless, the structure exhibits monoclausal behavior, i.e. verb clustering and the IPP-effect; cf. Section 5.2.2.3 for a detailed discussion.

The examples in (5) and (6) thus show that while the monoclausal properties in Table 1 are typically found with certain prototypical non-main verbs, it is not the case that they are restricted to these verbs. This suggests that exhibiting these properties is not sufficient to conclude that the less deeply embedded verbs are non-main verbs, and for this reason it was proposed in Section 4.6 to simply define main verbs as n-place predicates; any verb that takes one or more arguments is a main verb.

Assuming that subject/object pronouns always function as arguments, pronominalization of the projection of the infinitive can be used as a test for distinguishing between main and non-main verbs: infinitival clauses can only be pronominalized if they are selected by a main verb. The claim that the aspectual verb gaan in example (7a) is a non-main verb can therefore be supported by the fact, illustrated by the corresponding primed example, that the infinitival clause (Jan) de televisie repareren cannot be pronominalized; the number sign indicates that Dat gaat is only possible in the irrelevant reading “that can be done”. That the verb proberen is a main verb is clear from the fact that pronominalization of the infinitival clause de televisie te repareren is easily possible.

Another difference between main and non-main verbs is that while the former can increase the number of nominal arguments in the sentence, the latter cannot. This is the reason why the two primed examples in (8) are discussed in different sections. Example (8a') is discussed in Section 5.2.3.5 as a case of a main verb with an infinitival argument clause, because the use of hebben goes hand in hand with the addition of the nominal argument Jan. Example (8b'), on the other hand, is discussed in this chapter on non-main verbs, because the use of hebben does not affect the number of nominal arguments in the clause, at least not on the traditional assumption that the two arguments Jan and Piet are selected by the past participle gekust (but see Section 6.2.4 for some reasons not to adopt this view).

By defining the distinction between main and non-main verbs in terms of their ability or inability to select arguments, the dividing line between the two will be drawn at a different place than in most descriptive grammars: the set of non-main verbs will be considerably reduced. This definition does not affect the set of non-main verbs that select a participle (although Section 6.2.4 will give reasons to assume that perfect and passive auxiliaries are less different from their non-main verb cognates with different semantic/syntactic functions in this respect than is usually assumed).

On the other hand, the set of non-main verbs that select a te-infinitive is considerably reduced. While descriptive grammars usually assume that this set includes the semi-aspectual verbs in (10a) as well as the modal verbs in (10b), the latter are excluded by our definition because they allow pronominalization of the infinitival clause and thus clearly have an argument structure: for example, pronominalizing the infinitival clause in Jan bleek zijn fiets verkocht te hebbenJan turned out to have sold his bike results in Dat bleek (lit. that turned out). We indicate our exclusion of the modal verbs in (10b) from the set of non-main verbs by marking them with the number sign #.

The set of non-main verbs that select a bare infinitive is also reduced. While more traditional grammars assume that this set includes at least the modal, causative and aspectual verbs in (11), our definition includes only the last category. The modal verbs are again excluded, because they allow pronominalization of the infinitival clause, as can be seen by comparing Jan moet dat boek lezenJan must read that book with Jan moet dat (Jan must do that; lit. Jan must that). And the causative verbs are excluded because they typically add an additional nominal argument, as can be seen by comparing Jan zingt een liedjeJan sings a song with Jan liet Marie een liedje zingen Jan made Marie sing a song. The sign # again indicates that we deviate from the traditional view by excluding the verbs in (11a&b) from the set of non-main verbs.

This chapter on non-main verbs considers the verb types mentioned in (9) to (11), for as far as they are not marked with a number sign. The verb types marked with a number sign are discussed in Section 5.2 on main verbs taking an infinitival argument.