- Dutch
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Verbs: Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I: Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases IIIa: Selected clauses/verb phrases (introduction)
- 1.0. Introduction
- 1.1. Main types of verb-frame alternation
- 1.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 1.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 1.4. Some apparent cases of verb-frame alternation
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa: Selected clauses/verb phrases (introduction)
- 4.0. Introduction
- 4.1. Semantic types of finite argument clauses
- 4.2. Finite and infinitival argument clauses
- 4.3. Control properties of verbs selecting an infinitival clause
- 4.4. Three main types of infinitival argument clauses
- 4.5. Non-main verbs
- 4.6. The distinction between main and non-main verbs
- 4.7. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb: Argument and complementive clauses
- 5.0. Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 5.4. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc: Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId: Verb clustering
- 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)
- 11.0. 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
- 11.4. Bibliographical notes
- 12 Word order in the clause IV: Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 14 Characterization and classification
- 15 Projection of noun phrases I: Complementation
- 15.0. Introduction
- 15.1. General observations
- 15.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 15.3. Clausal complements
- 15.4. Bibliographical notes
- 16 Projection of noun phrases II: Modification
- 16.0. Introduction
- 16.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 16.2. Premodification
- 16.3. Postmodification
- 16.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 16.3.2. Relative clauses
- 16.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 16.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 16.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 16.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 16.4. Bibliographical notes
- 17 Projection of noun phrases III: Binominal constructions
- 17.0. Introduction
- 17.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 17.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 17.3. Bibliographical notes
- 18 Determiners: Articles and pronouns
- 18.0. Introduction
- 18.1. Articles
- 18.2. Pronouns
- 18.3. Bibliographical notes
- 19 Numerals and quantifiers
- 19.0. Introduction
- 19.1. Numerals
- 19.2. Quantifiers
- 19.2.1. Introduction
- 19.2.2. Universal quantifiers: ieder/elk ‘every’ and alle ‘all’
- 19.2.3. Existential quantifiers: sommige ‘some’ and enkele ‘some’
- 19.2.4. Degree quantifiers: veel ‘many/much’ and weinig ‘few/little’
- 19.2.5. Modification of quantifiers
- 19.2.6. A note on the adverbial use of degree quantifiers
- 19.3. Quantitative er constructions
- 19.4. Partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions
- 19.5. Bibliographical notes
- 20 Predeterminers
- 20.0. Introduction
- 20.1. The universal quantifier al ‘all’ and its alternants
- 20.2. The predeterminer heel ‘all/whole’
- 20.3. A note on focus particles
- 20.4. Bibliographical notes
- 21 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- 22 Referential dependencies (binding)
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 23 Characteristics and classification
- 24 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 25 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 26 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 27 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 28 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 29 The partitive genitive construction
- 30 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 31 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 32 Characteristics and classification
- 32.0. Introduction
- 32.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 32.2. A syntactic classification of adpositional phrases
- 32.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 32.4. Borderline cases
- 32.5. Bibliographical notes
- 33 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 34 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 35 Syntactic uses of adpositional phrases
- 36 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 32 Characteristics and classification
- Coordination and Ellipsis
- Syntax
-
- General
-
- General
- Morphology
- Morphology
- 1 Word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 1.1.1 Compounds and their heads
- 1.1.2 Special types of compounds
- 1.1.2.1 Affixoids
- 1.1.2.2 Coordinative compounds
- 1.1.2.3 Synthetic compounds and complex pseudo-participles
- 1.1.2.4 Reduplicative compounds
- 1.1.2.5 Phrase-based compounds
- 1.1.2.6 Elative compounds
- 1.1.2.7 Exocentric compounds
- 1.1.2.8 Linking elements
- 1.1.2.9 Separable Complex Verbs and Particle Verbs
- 1.1.2.10 Noun Incorporation Verbs
- 1.1.2.11 Gapping
- 1.2 Derivation
- 1.3 Minor patterns of word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 2 Inflection
- 1 Word formation
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
- 0 Introduction to the AP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of APs
- 2 Complementation of APs
- 3 Modification and degree quantification of APs
- 4 Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative
- 5 Attribution of APs
- 6 Predication of APs
- 7 The partitive adjective construction
- 8 Adverbial use of APs
- 9 Participles and infinitives as APs
- Nouns and Noun Phrases (NPs)
- 0 Introduction to the NP
- 1 Characteristics and Classification of NPs
- 2 Complementation of NPs
- 3 Modification of NPs
- 3.1 Modification of NP by Determiners and APs
- 3.2 Modification of NP by PP
- 3.3 Modification of NP by adverbial clauses
- 3.4 Modification of NP by possessors
- 3.5 Modification of NP by relative clauses
- 3.6 Modification of NP in a cleft construction
- 3.7 Free relative clauses and selected interrogative clauses
- 4 Partitive noun constructions and constructions related to them
- 4.1 The referential partitive construction
- 4.2 The partitive construction of abstract quantity
- 4.3 The numerical partitive construction
- 4.4 The partitive interrogative construction
- 4.5 Adjectival, nominal and nominalised partitive quantifiers
- 4.6 Kind partitives
- 4.7 Partitive predication with a preposition
- 4.8 Bare nominal attribution
- 5 Articles and names
- 6 Pronouns
- 7 Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- 8 Interrogative pronouns
- 9 R-pronouns and the indefinite expletive
- 10 Syntactic functions of Noun Phrases
- Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases (PPs)
- 0 Introduction to the PP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of PPs
- 2 Complementation of PPs
- 3 Modification of PPs
- 4 Bare (intransitive) adpositions
- 5 Predication of PPs
- 6 Form and distribution of adpositions with respect to staticity and construction type
- 7 Adpositional complements and adverbials
- Verbs and Verb Phrases (VPs)
- 0 Introduction to the VP in Saterland Frisian
- 1 Characteristics and classification of verbs
- 2 Unergative and unaccusative subjects and the auxiliary of the perfect
- 3 Evidentiality in relation to perception and epistemicity
- 4 Types of to-infinitival constituents
- 5 Predication
- 5.1 The auxiliary of being and its selection restrictions
- 5.2 The auxiliary of going and its selection restrictions
- 5.3 The auxiliary of continuation and its selection restrictions
- 5.4 The auxiliary of coming and its selection restrictions
- 5.5 Modal auxiliaries and their selection restrictions
- 5.6 Auxiliaries of body posture and aspect and their selection restrictions
- 5.7 Transitive verbs of predication
- 5.8 The auxiliary of doing used as a semantically empty finite auxiliary
- 5.9 Supplementive predication
- 6 The verbal paradigm, irregularity and suppletion
- 7 Verb Second and the word order in main and embedded clauses
- 8 Various aspects of clause structure
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
The distinction between (in)transitive and unaccusative verbs discussed in Section 2.1 is originally due to Perlmutter (1978) and Burzio (1986), but see also Pollmann (1975: §5.3) for an earlier proposal of roughly the same kind, inspired by Fiengo (1974:81). For Dutch, this distinction has been elaborated in T.Hoekstra (1984a): the claim that some of the tests developed by Pollmann and Hoekstra (like the selection of the perfect auxiliary zijn and the attributive use of past/passive participles) are sufficient but not necessary conditions for assuming unaccusative status of a verb is due to Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) and Mulder (1992); see also the diachronic study of auxiliary selection by monadic verbs in Kern (1912: Part III). The nom-dat verbs have been discussed in detail in Lenerz (1977), Koster (1978) and especially Den Besten (1985): a relevant discussion of their Middle Dutch predecessors, which could take the form of nom-dat and/or impersonal dat-gen verbs, can be found in Van de Velde (2004) and the references cited there. The idea that a separate class of undative verbs should be distinguished was first put forward in Broekhuis (1992) and further developed in Broekhuis & Cornips (1994/2012); similar ideas formulated in earlier generative frameworks can be found in Pollmann (1975: §6.2) and Janssen (1976).
The complementive constructions discussed in Section 2.2 have played an important role in the so-called small-clause debate between Stowell (1983), who argued that secondary predicates form a constituent with their logical subject, and Williams (1980), who claimed that the two need only be in a c-command relation within a specific local domain. An influential Dutch supporter of Stowell’s proposal is T.Hoekstra (1984a/1988/2004: Part IV), while Williams’ proposal has been defended by Neeleman (1994b). Proposals that potentially reconcile or at least combine some of the advantages of the two competing ideas can be found in Bowers (1993), Hale & Keyser (1993) and Den Dikken (2006). We follow Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) in assuming that locational PPs can function as complementives, thereby deviating from most other grammars of Dutch, which usually consider all locational PPs to be adverbial phrases. The hypothesis that particles can also function as complementives has been defended in Den Dikken (1992/1995). This assumption is controversial, since it has been argued that particle verbs are complex verbal heads; cf. Neeleman & Weerman (1993/1999) and the references cited there. The two positions are not necessarily incompatible, because it has been argued that particles can be reanalyzed with the verb or syntactically incorporated into it; cf. Den Dikken (1995) and Koopman (1995) for discussion and references.
Much of the traditional research on PP-complements has focused on developing tests to distinguish these PPs from those used adverbially; cf. Van de Toorn (1971/1981), Zwaan (1972), Paardekooper (1986), Haeseryn et al. (1997) and Klooster (2001). The fact that this work has not led to tests that unambiguously determine whether we are dealing with a PP-complement or not has led to some pessimism, which in turn has resulted in the practice that many grammars simply enumerate the V + PP collocations that involve PP-complements; cf. Paardekooper (1986) and Haeseryn et al. (1997). Some researchers have even concluded that the distinction between PP-complements and adverbial PPs should be abandoned altogether. We refer the reader in particular to a series of publications by Schermer-Vermeer (1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 2006, and 2007), who nevertheless maintains that a subset of “prepositional complements” in a broader sense is characterized by a close semantic relation to the main verb; this set differs from the more restricted set of PP-complements discussed in Section 2.3 in that it also includes (in our terminology) periphrastic indirect objects, PPs used as complementives, and a subset of adverbial phrases. A number of papers following DeVos and Vandeweghe (2003) argue that, as in the case of nominal objects of verbs, a distinction should be made between primary and secondary prepositional objects; cf. in particular Vandeweghe (2005, 2011). A discussion of the pros and cons of this proposal can be found in Section 2.3.4, sub I, as well as in Vandeweghe and Colleman (2011), Colleman (2014), Broekhuis (2014), Vandeweghe (2014), and the discussion between Schermer-Vermeer and Broekhuis in Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics (2019). Although it is not discussed in this section, we note here that many PP-complements were realized as genitive objects in earlier stages of the language; cf. Duinhoven (1989). Our discussion in Section 2.3 is based on the work of Koster (1973/1974), Van Riemsdijk (1978), T.Hoekstra (1984a), Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) and Den Dikken (1995), Neeleman & Weerman (1999), Helmantel (2002), Loonen (2003) and Broekhuis (2004/2007/2014).
There is virtually no literature on AP-complements, which also explains why Section 2.4 is relatively short. The discussion of causative psych-verbs in Section 2.5 is based on discussions in Den Besten (1985), Belletti & Rizzi (1988), Everaert (1982/1986), Bennis (1986/2004), Grimshaw (1990), E. Hoekstra (1991), Broekhuis (1992), Mulder (1992), Pesetsky (1995) and Van der Putten (1986/1997). Comparison of these verbs with makento make in periphrastic causative constructions can be found in E. Hoekstra (1991), Mulder (1992) and Pesetsky (1995). Data on nom-dat verbs can be found in T.Hoekstra (1984a), Den Besten (1985) and Broekhuis (1992). Discussions of reflexive psych-verbs can be found in Bennis (1986), Everaert (1986), E.Hoekstra (1991) and Mulder (1992). Levin (1993) also discusses psych-verbs and provides many references to other languages.
The classification of nom-acc verbs has been hotly debated. Some authors claim that they are transitive verbs; cf. E.Hoekstra (1991), Mulder (1992), Pesetsky (1995) and Van der Putten (1997). Others suggest that they are unaccusative verbs (Belletti & Rizzi 1988), while it has also been proposed that these verbs are unergative, but not unaccusative (Broekhuis 1992), or unergative with respect to case marking and unaccusative with respect to theta-role selection (Bennis 2004). The hypothesis that the causative psych-verbs are complex verbs composed of a (zero) causative verb and an embedded psychological predicate is due to Pesetsky (1995); cf. also E.Hoekstra (1991), Mulder (1992) and Broekhuis (1992). All these studies fall short in not distinguishing between causative constructions with a cause and a causer subject.
Not many studies are specifically to inherently reflexive constructions. Relevant discussions and references can be found in Burzio (1981/1986), Dobrovie-Sorin (2006), and especially Everaert (1986), which is also a rich source for the relevant Dutch data.
References
