The examples in (122) show that past participles can either precede or follow the finite perfect auxiliary. The percentage sign indicates that if we look at the regional spread of the two word orders, the order Aux1–Part2 is found only in a limited part of the Dutch-speaking area, which happens to include the prestigious varieties of the standard language spoken in the western/middle part of that area; the maps in Pauwels (1953), Gerritsen (1991), and Barbiers et al. (2008) all show that this order is rare in the varieties of Dutch spoken in Flanders and the more northern part of the Netherlands.

For simplicity, we will follow the common practice of describing the difference in regional distribution of these orders as a north/south or Dutch/Flemish distinction, but the reader should be aware that the varieties spoken in the more northern region of the Netherlands are more like the southern/Flemish region in this regard.

Speakers who allow the Aux1–Part2 order heeft gelezen usually also allow the Part2–Aux1 order gelezen heeft. In fact, there is reason to believe that the latter order is the unmarked one for all speakers: since Barbiers et al. (2008: §1.3.1) found that in reproduction tasks, the order heeft gelezen in the input is often changed to gelezen heeft, while inversion rarely happens when the order gelezen heeft is in the input. That the Part2–Aux1 order gelezen heeft is the unmarked one for all speakers is supported by the fact, illustrated in (123), that the Part2–Aux1 order is the only possible one in det-inf nominalizations with definite theme arguments for all speakers; cf. Zuckerman (2001:63ff).

It now seems generally accepted that the use of the Aux1–Part2 order heeft gelezen is a characteristic of written Dutch and the more formal registers of spoken Dutch (although it is also common in the more casual speech of many speakers); cf. Haeseryn (1990: §2) for a good review of the relevant literature on this issue. A corpus analysis in De Sutter (2005/2007) suggests that even in written Dutch, the Aux1–Part2 order is a secondary one because it is mainly used in relatively simple sentences; there is a negative correlation between the complexity of utterances and the frequency of the Aux1–Part2 order. We refer the reader to Section 6.2.1, sub III, for further discussion of such performance factors, and conclude that standard Dutch permits the Aux1–Part2 order as a stylistically marked option.

The examples in (124) show that we find basically the same variation in te-infinitival clauses in extraposed position: both orders are acceptable (and common on the internet).

It seems reasonable to assume that the Part2–Aux1 order gelezen te hebben is again the unmarked one, but to our knowledge this has not yet been examined.

Like past participles, passive participles can either precede or follow their auxiliary in the northern varieties of standard Dutch, but it seems that the relative frequency of the Aux1–Part2 order is lower in passives than in perfect-tense constructions. The southern varieties are reported to allow only the Part2–Aux1 order, which we have indicated by a percentage sign in (125). See Haeseryn (1990: §2.2) and De Sutter (2005/2007) for detailed discussions.

That both orders are possible is confirmed by the infinitival passive constructions in (126), which show that te-infinitivals in extraposed position also allow both orders in standard Dutch. We think that the Part2–Aux1 order is again the preferred one, especially in the case of the krijgen-passive. This seems to be confirmed by a Google search (December 1, 2013): while the string [aangeboden te krijgen] yielded 261 hits, most of them with the intended verb cluster, the string [te krijgen aangeboden] yielded no more than 34 relevant cases.

Note in passing that infinitival impersonal passive constructions do not occur. The reason for this is not immediately clear, but it may have to do with the fact that propositional verbs like bewerento claim and denkento think require subject control, i.e. the presence of a phonetically empty PRO-subject in the infinitival clause.

The findings in this section are fully consistent with generalization I in (118a): past/passive participles either precede or follow their governing auxiliary. Note, however, that the Aux1–Part2 order is a stylistically marked one, which may not be part of Dutch core grammar, but of the periphery (consciously learned part) of the grammar. This position seems consistent with the fact that this order has long been promoted by normative grammarians; for further discussion, see Section 6.2.1, sub III. If so, we could simplify (118a) by saying that the participle must precede the auxiliary (which would bring standard Dutch more in line with the other Dutch varieties and the Germanic languages in general); although we will not take this step here for the northern varieties of standard Dutch, it seems necessary to provide a descriptively adequate account of the variety of standard Dutch spoken in Flanders.

We begin our discussion of perfect-tense constructions with main clauses, i.e. structures in which the finite verb is in second position. Such structures do not seem to exhibit any exceptional behavior: the examples in (139) show that the past participle can either precede or follow the auxiliary. However, we should make the same caveat as in Subsection IA, viz. that the Aux1–Part2 order is found only in a limited part of the Dutch-speaking area, which happens to include the prestigious varieties of the standard language spoken in the western/middle part. More generally, the Part2–Aux1 order seems to be the more common one in speech.

The examples in (140) show that the placement options of past participles in embedded clauses are a little surprising. Since the participle is governed by the auxiliary, we would expect these verbs to be adjacent, but in fact, they can easily be separated by the finite modal verb.

For many speakers, the three different word orders are simply more or less free alternatives, with the Modal1–Aux2–Part3 order moet hebben gelezen again being the stylistically most marked. The varieties of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands and Belgium also seem to differ in their word-order preferences: several types of research have shown that speakers from the Netherlands prefer the Part3–Modal1–Aux2 order gelezen moet hebben, while speakers from Belgium prefer the Modal1–Part3–Aux2 order moet gelezen hebben. Other orders can be attested in some varieties of Dutch, but these are usually considered to be dialectal in nature; cf. Section 6.2.1, sub IV, for a more detailed discussion.

That speakers from the Netherlands prefer to place the participle first in the verb cluster is also clear from the extraposed te-infinitivals in (141); placing the participle in position <2> produces a degraded result for these speakers, whereas some of our Flemish informants readily accept this placement. Placing the participle in position <1> is again limited to the variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. Note that there is not much information about the regional distribution of verb orders in infinitival clauses, so more careful research would be welcome.

The examples in (142) provide similar cases with the subject-raising verb schijnento seem. Such verbs do not trigger extraposition of their infinitival complement, but instead require verb clustering; note that while (142a) is quite natural, some speakers may find (142b) somewhat artificial due to the fact that more or less the same message can be expressed without the modal zullen. Again, placing the participle in position <2> yields a degraded result for speakers from the Netherlands, while some of our Flemish informants have no qualms about accepting it. Placing the participle in position <1> is again limited to the Dutch variety of standard Dutch. Again, a more careful study of the regional distribution of the orders in (142) would be welcome.

Clusters with more than three verbs are possible, but not very common in colloquial speech. It seems that participles can appear anywhere in the cluster, as illustrated in (143) by the embedded counterparts of (142a). Examples (143a) and (143b) again seem to be limited to the varieties of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands and Flanders, respectively. The orders in (143c) and especially (143d) seem to be the more generally accepted ones. Obviously, the regional distribution should be studied in greater detail.

Clusters with four verbs, in which the superior non-finite verbs are all bare infinitives (i.e. all without te), have been studied more closely. The literature reviewed in Haeseryn (1990:70ff) suggests that the orders in (144a&d) are the ones commonly found in the northern varieties of standard Dutch, and that the word order in (144c) is more favored than the order in (144b). In the varieties of standard Dutch spoken in Belgium, on the other hand, the order in (144b) seems to be common.

The acceptability judgments on the examples in (144) seem to be consistent with what we found for the examples in (143), but an important difference is that all orders in (144) seem to be acceptable in the variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands: while speakers of this variety consider examples such as (143b) to be degraded, examples such as (144b) are considered merely stylistically marked.

We begin our discussion of passive constructions with main clauses, i.e. structures in which the finite verb is in second position. Structures of this type seem to behave as expected; the examples in (145) show that the passive participle can either precede or follow the auxiliary, with the usual caveat that the Aux-Part order is found only in a limited part of the Dutch-speaking area, which happens to include the prestigious varieties of the standard language spoken in the western/middle part of that area. More generally, the Part-Aux order seems to be the more common one in speech.

The examples in (146) show that, in embedded clauses, the passive participle can occupy any position in the clause-final verb cluster in the northern varieties of Dutch, although the placement of the participle in final position seems to be less frequent than in perfect-tense constructions, and intermediate placement is relatively rare. The southern varieties do not allow the participle in final position, and also seem to differ from the northern varieties in that they show a preference for placing the participle in the intermediate position of the verb cluster. We refer the reader to Haeseryn (1990: §2.3.2) for a more detailed discussion of these regional differences in frequency.

That speakers from the Netherlands prefer to place the participle first in the verb cluster is also clear from the extraposed te-infinitivals in (147), in which placing the participle in position <2> leads to a degraded result; cf. Smits (1987). Some of our Flemish informants, on the other hand, allow the participle to be placed in position <2>. The placement of the participle in position <1> is again limited to the variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. Note that we have not given an example of the impersonal passive, because these cannot occur in infinitival clauses of this type for independent reasons; cf. Subsection IA.

The examples in (147) involve the propositional verb beweren, which triggers extraposition of its infinitival complement. In (148) we find similar examples with the subject-raising verb schijnen; note that while the (a) and (b)-examples are quite natural, some speakers might consider the (c)-example artificial, since more or less the same message can be expressed without the modal zullen. Placing the participle in position <2> again leads to a degraded result for speakers from the Netherlands, while some of our Flemish informants are quite comfortable with this placement. The placement of the participle in position <1> is again limited to the variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands.

The embedded counterparts of (148) show more or less the same pattern; we show this in (149) only for the regular passive in (148b). The percentage signs in (149a) and (149b) again express that the marked orders are limited to the variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands and Flanders, respectively. The orders in (143c) and especially in (143d) seem to be the more generally accepted ones.

Clusters such as the one in (149), with four (or more) verbs and a te-infinitive as a non-finite superior verb, have not been studied much. On the other hand, clusters with four verbs in which the superior non-finite verbs are all bare infinitives have been studied in more detail. The literature reviewed in Haeseryn (1990:70ff) suggests that the orders in (150a&d) are the ones commonly found in the northern varieties of standard Dutch, and that the word order in (150c) is more favored than the order in (150b). In the varieties of standard Dutch spoken in Belgium, on the other hand, the order in (150b) seems to be a common one. This is consistent with what we found for the examples in (149), but an important difference is that all orders in (150) seem to be acceptable to speakers of the variety of standard Dutch spoken in the Netherlands: while such speakers consider examples such as (149b) to be degraded, example (150b) is considered to me merely stylistically marked.

For completeness’ sake, example (151) provides similar examples for the krijgen-passive, for which the same observations can be made as for (150).

We have shown that perfect-tense and passive constructions behave in full accordance with generalization I in (135a): past participles can follow or precede the perfect auxiliary. In fact, it seems that participles can occur anywhere in the verb cluster. This is illustrated in (152), where the dots stand for zero or more verbs in the verb cluster besides the passive auxiliary and the main verb.

The Aux–Part order, however, seems to be a stylistically marked one, limited to the northern varieties of standard Dutch. In the southern varieties, we tend to find the pattern in (153).

The northern and southern varieties also seem to differ in that the former prefers to place the participle first in the verb cluster (e.g. Part3–V1–Aux2), whereas the latter prefers to place it in an intermediate position (e.g. V1–Part3–Aux2). The northern varieties also seem to be special in that they prohibit placing the participle between a te-infinitive and an auxiliary: *... Vte-inf <Part> Aux.

Passive constructions are special in that they do not exhibit the IPP-effect in the perfect tense. This means that passive constructions are an exception to the general rule that verb clusters do not contain more than one participle. This is illustrated in (154) by a krijgen-passive; the past/passive participles are italicized.

The examples in (155) show that this exceptional behavior regarding the IPP-effect goes hand in hand with another special attribute: while the main verb can either precede or follow the passive auxiliary krijgen in imperfect constructions in the northern varieties of standard Dutch, the main verb must precede the auxiliary in the corresponding perfect constructions; cf. Den Besten (1985).

The examples in (156) show that larger verb clusters in which the passive auxiliary appears as a past participle show more or less the same behavior: the participial main verb gestuurd can be placed first in the cluster and in all positions indicated by “✓”, but not in the position following the participial form of the passive auxiliary gekregen, which is therefore marked with an asterisk.

Whether we find the same effect in regular passives such as (157) is more difficult to answer: the judgments of speakers of the southern variety of Dutch are not helpful, since they do not readily allow the Aux1–Part2 order in (157a) anyway, while speakers of the northern varieties are hampered by the fact that they consider the overt expression of the perfect auxiliary geworden in (157b) to be marked or at best archaic. However, to the extent that (157b) is accepted by the latter group, they agree that the passive participle geslagen must precede the passive auxiliary geworden; placing the passive participle after the auxiliary leads to a completely unacceptable result.

Note that many speakers of the southern varieties accept the orders in (157b) that are marked by two question marks, although they may require the passive auxiliary geweest instead of geworden; cf. Section 6.2.2, sub II.