Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.4.N-ellipsis

quickinfo

Under certain circumstances, the head of a noun phrase need not be overtly expressed. This is possible if the remainder of the noun phrase consists of a definite or indefinite determiner combined with an attributive adjective or an ordinal numeral, as in (104).

104

a.		Jan kocht	een/de blauwe vaas	en	Peter een/de groene [e].
		Jan bought	a/the blue vase	and	Peter a/the green (one)

b.	Jan kreeg	de eerste prijs.	De tweede [e]	ging	naar Peter.
	Jan got	the first prize	the second	went	to Peter
	'Jan got the first prize. The second (prize) was given to Peter.'

N-ellipsis of this sort does not occur with other modifiers of the noun. This is illustrated in (105) by means of a postnominal PP-modifier. Examples such as (105) become acceptable, of course, if an attributive adjective is added: een/de groene [e] met blauwe strepen.

105

	*	Marie kocht	een/de jurk	met groene stippen	en	Els kocht	een/de [e]	met blauwe strepen.
		Marie bought	a/the dress	with green spots	and	Els bought	a/the	with blue stripes

Note that the term N-ellipsis is somewhat misleading given that the ellipsis may involve a larger projection of the noun. Two examples are given in (106): (106a) is interpreted in such a way that Peter has a blue American car and (106b) that Peter tells the long version of the story.

106

a.		Jan heeft	een	groene	Amerikaanse	wagen	en	Peter een blauwe [e].
		Jan has	a	green	American	car	and	Peter a blue (one)

b.		Jan vertelde	de korte versie van het verhaal	en	Peter de lange [e].
		Jan told	the short version of the story	and	Peter the long (one)

N-ellipsis is also possible without the presence of an attributive modifier provided that the remainder of the noun phrase is a cardinal number or a demonstrative pronoun, as in (107). In these examples, the empty noun is represented by [e].

107

a.		Jan kocht	vier vazen	en	Peter drie [e].
		Jan bought	four vases	and	Peter three

b.		Jan kocht	deze vaas	en	Peter die [e].
		Jan bought	this vase	and	Peter that (one)

Given the acceptability of the examples in (107) it does not come as a surprise that the primeless examples in (108) with postnominal PP-modifiers are possible as well. Interestingly, examples such as (108a) seem to require that the second adjunct is reduced. If the second conjunct is not reduced, the construction in (109) with so-called quantitative er seems much preferred.

108

a.		Jan kocht	vier vazen uit China	en	Peter drie [e]	uit Chili.
		Jan bought	four vases from China	and	Peter three	from Chile

b.		Jan kocht	deze vaas uit China	en	Peter die [e]	uit Chili.
		Jan bought	this vase from China	and	Peter that (one)	from Chile

109

a.	*	Jan kocht	vier vazen uit China	en	Peter kocht	drie [e]	uit Chili.
		Jan bought	four vases from China	and	Peter bought	three	from Chile

b.		Jan kocht	vier vazen uit China	en	Peter kocht	er	drie [e]	uit Chili.
		Jan bought	four vases from China	and	Peter bought	er	three	from Chile

This section focuses on cases such as (104a), that is, on cases in which an attributive adjective is present. As is already indicated in the examples above, we will assume that the reduced noun phrase has the structure [NP een groene [e]], where [ e] indicates an empty projection of the noun. The nominal projection [ e] receives an interpretation, which may either be reconstructed from the (linguistic or non-linguistic) context or be established independently; the two cases will be discussed in, respectively, Subsection I and II. Before we do this, we want to point out that for some (but not all) speakers, N-ellipsis is only allowed if the adjective has the attributive -e ending. In other words, for these speakers N-ellipsis is excluded in singular indefinite noun phrases headed by a neuter noun. This gives rise to the contrast in (110), where the empty noun in (110a) is interpreted as the non-neuter noun fiets'bike', and in (110b) as the neuter noun boek'book'.

110

a.	Mijn fiets	is gestolen	en	ik	heb	daarom	een nieuwe [e]	gekocht.
	my bike	is stolen	and	I	have	therefore	a new (one)	bought
	'My bike has been stolen, and therefore Iʼve bought a new one.'

b.	%	Mijn boek	is gestolen	en	ik	heb	daarom	een nieuw [e]	gekocht.
		my book	is stolen	and	I	have	therefore	a new (one)	bought
		'My book has been stolen, and therefore Iʼve bought a new one.'

Further, even those speakers who do accept (110b) occasionally reject cases in which the attributive -e is absent. This is especially the case with adjectives that cannot take the attributive -e ending; cf. Section 5.1.2. The judgments in (111) are of an idiosyncratic nature and may vary from speaker to speaker.

111

a.	Jan heeft	zijn zilveren ring	verkocht	en	een gouden [e]	gekocht.
	Jan has	his silver ring	sold	and	a golden	bought
	'Jan has sold his silver ring and has bought a golden one.'

b.	*?	Ik	heb	hem	de geprinte brief	gegeven	en	zelf	de handgeschreven [e]	gehouden.
		I	have	him	the printed letter	given	and	myself	the hand.written	kept
		'I gave him the printed letter and have kept the hand-written one myself.'

c.	*	Hij	heeft	een luxe huis	en	ik	een	van alle franje	ontdaan [e].
		he	has	a luxurious home	and	I	an	of all luxury	deposed
		'He has a luxurious home and I have [a house] that is deprived of all luxury.'

Given these problems with uninflected attributive adjectives, which deserve more attention in the future, the following subsections will only provide examples in which the adjective is inflected.

I. Context sensitive N-ellipsis: een/de/het groene'lit: a/the green'
II. Context insensitive N-ellipsis: de/het vreemde (lit: the strange)

[+] I. Context sensitive N-ellipsis: een/de/het groene'lit: a/the green'

This subsection discusses N-ellipsis that is sensitive to the context, which may be of a non-linguistic or a linguistic nature. These two contexts are discussed in, respectively, Subsections A and B. Since N-ellipsis can be confused with backward conjunction reduction, the differences between the two constructions will be discussed in Subsection C.

[+] A. N-ellipsis triggered by the non-linguistic context

N-ellipsis triggered by the non-linguistic context is quite a common phenomenon. When two persons are in the zoo watching the penguins being fed, one could easily say something like (112a). Similarly, while looking at some dolls on display in a shop window, one can say something like (112b-c). Observe that N-ellipsis can apply to several types of arguments: in (112a), we are dealing with a subject, in (112b) with an object, and in (112c) with a prepositional complement.

112

a.	De kleine [e]	heeft	nog	geen vis	gekregen.
	the small	has	yet	no fish	received
	'The small one didnʼt get any fish yet.'

b.	Ik	ga	de grote [e]	met de blauwe jurk	kopen.
	I	go	the big	with the blue dress	buy
	'Iʼll buy that big one with the blue dress.'

c.		Kijk	eens	naar	de grote [e]	met de blauwe jurk!
		look	prt	at	the big	with the blue dress

The examples in (113) show that N-ellipsis triggered by the non-linguistic context is marked if the adjective is preceded by the definite neuter determiner het. For example, when we are looking at a number of CDs, it would be perfectly acceptable to use (113a) with the definite determiner de, but it would be awkward to use (113b) when we are looking at number of books.

113

a.	Ik	heb	net	de nieuwe [e]	van Lou Reed	gekocht.	de CD
	I	have	just	the new	by Lou reed	bought
	'I just bought the new one.'

b.	%	Ik	heb	net	het nieuwe [e]	van Jeroen Brouwers	gekocht.	het boek
		I	have	just	the new	by Jeroen Brouwers	bought
		'I just bought the new one.'

[+] B. N-ellipsis triggered by the linguistic context

The context from which the content of the empty noun can be recovered can also be provided by the linguistic environment. The following subsections discuss some restrictions on the antecedent of the elided nominal projection.

[+] 1. N-ellipsis licensed by an element in a preceding sentence

The primeless examples in (114) show that N-ellipsis can be licensed by some syntactically realized noun in a preceding sentence, whereas the primed examples show that N-ellipsis is excluded if [ e]precedes the overtly realized noun. The unacceptability of the singly-primed examples is not due to the empty element but to the overtly realized one, which will be clear from the fact that applying N-ellipsis to the latter, as in the doubly-primed examples, will give rise to a fully acceptable result if the discourse provides a suitable antecedent for both empty nouns.

114

a.	Ik	heb	een nieuwe stoel	gekocht.	Jij	mag	de oude [e]	meenemen.
	I	have	a new chair	bought	you	may	the old	away.take
	'I bought a new chair. You may take the old one.'

a'.

Ik heb een nieuwe [e] gekocht. Jij mag de oude stoel meenemen.

a''.

Ik heb een nieuwe [e] gekocht. Jij mag de oude [e] meenemen.

b.	Ik heb de nieuwe postzegels	gezien.	De mooiste [e]	komt	uit Finland.
	I have the new stamps	seen	the most.beautiful	comes	from Finland
	'Iʼve seen the new stamps. The most beautiful one comes from Finland.'

b'.

Ik heb de nieuwe [e] gezien. De mooiste postzegel komt uit Finland.

b''.

Ik heb de nieuwe [e] gezien. De mooiste [e] komt uit Finland.

The conditions on the interpretation of [ e]resemble those on the interpretation of referential personal pronouns. This will become clear when we compare the examples in (114) with those in (115), in which coreference is indicated by italics. Just like [ e]in the primeless examples in (114), the pronoun hij in (115a) is dependent for its interpretation on the direct object in the preceding sentence, and like the empty noun in the primed examples of (114), the pronoun in (115b) cannot precede its antecedent. This becomes possible, however, if the antecedent itself is an empty noun or a pronoun, as in the doubly-primed examples in (114) and example (115c).

115

a.		Ik	belde	Peter	gisteren.	Hij	is	ontslagen.
		I	called	Peter	yesterday	he	has.been	dismissed

b.	*?	Ik	belde	hem	gisteren.	Peter	is	ontslagen.
		I	called	him	yesterday	Peter	has.been	dismissed

c.		Ik	belde	hem	gisteren.	Hij	is	ontslagen.
		I	called	him	yesterday	he	has.been	dismissed

Note that N-ellipsis discourse is also possible if the syntactically realized antecedent is neuter, in contrast to what is the case if the antecedent is determined by the non-linguistic context. This will become clear by comparing the examples in (116) with the one in (113b).

116

a.	Ik	heb	een nieuw woordenboek	gekocht.	Jij	mag	het oude [e]	hebben.
	I	have	a new dictionary	bought	you	may	the old	have
	'I bought a new dictionary. You may take the old one.'

b.	Ik	heb	de nieuwe boeken	gezien.	Het gele [e]	komt	uit Finland.
	I	have	the new books	seen	the yellow	comes	from Finland
	'Iʼve seen the new books. The yellow one comes from Finland.'

[+] 2. N-ellipsis and coordination

If the sentences in (114) are coordinated by means of the conjunction en'and', the judgments remain the same. More cases of N-ellipsis in coordinated clauses are given in (117) to (119). These examples show that N-ellipsis may apply both in full and in reduced clauses; in (118) the subject of the second conjunct is not expressed, and in (119) the verb of the second conjunct is absent as the result of gapping.

117

a.	dat	Jan [NP	de grote tent]	opzet	en	Piet [NP	de kleine [e]]	neerhaalt.
	that	Jan	the big tent	puts.up	and	Piet	the small	pulls.down
	'that Jan is putting up the big tent and Piet is pulling down the small one.'

b.	dat	Jan [NP	het sterke paard]	roskamt	en	Piet [NP	het zieke [e]]	knuffelt.
	that	Jan	the strong horse	curries	and	Piet	the sick	cuddles
	'that Jan is currying the strong horse and Piet is cuddling the sick one.'

118

a.	dat	Jan [NP	de grote tent]	opzet	en [NP	de kleine [e]]	neerhaalt.
	that	Jan	the big tent	puts.up	and	the small	pulls.down
	'that Jan is putting up the big tent and pulling down the small one.'

b.	dat	Jan [NP	het sterke paard]	roskamt	en [NP	het zieke [e]]	knuffelt.
	that	Jan	the strong horse	curries	and	the sick	cuddles
	'that Jan is currying the strong horse and cuddling the sick one.'

119

a.	dat	Jan [NP	de grote tent]	opzet	en	Piet [NP	de kleine [e]]
	that	Jan	the big tent	puts.up	and	Piet	the small
	'that Jan is putting up the big tent and Piet (is putting up) the small one.'

b.	dat	Jan [NP	het sterke paard]	roskamt	en	Piet [NP	het zieke [e]]
	that	Jan	the strong horse	curries	and	Piet	the sick
	'that Jan is currying the strong horse and Piet (is currying) the sick one.'

Although N-ellipsis leads to a fully acceptable result in coordinated sentences, this seems not to be the case in coordinated noun phrases. The examples in (120) and (121), which involve subjects and objects, respectively, are not acceptable for most speakers, and even for those speakers that accept these examples, the preferred option will still be backward conjunction reduction, which results in structures where the interpretative gap precedes the overtly realized noun; cf, subsection IC.

120

a.	%	dat [NP	[de grote tent]	en	[de lichte [e]]]	worden	gebruikt.
		that	the big tent	and	the light	are	used

b.	%	dat [NP	[het sterke paard]	en	[het lieve [e]]]	worden	geroskamd.
		that	the strong horse	and	the kind	are	curried

121

a.	%	dat Jan [NP	[de grote tent]	en	[de lichte [e]]]	gebruikt.
		that Jan	the big tent	and	the light	uses

b.	%	dat Jan [NP	[het sterke paard]	en	[het lieve [e]]]	roskamt.
		that Jan	the strong horse	and	the kind	curries

[+] 3. N-ellipsis and subordination

In addition to occurring in successive and coordinated sentences, N-ellipsis may also occur in the case of subordination. This is demonstrated in the primeless examples in (122). Although some speakers accept the primed examples under the intended interpretation, for most speakers the overt noun must precede the empty one.

122

a.	De domme student	dacht	dat	de slimme [e]	hem	wel	zou	helpen.
	the silly student	thought	that	the smart	him	prt	would	help
	'The silly student thought that the smart one would help him.'

a'.

De domme [e] dacht dat de slimme student hem wel zou helpen.

b.	De rode druiven	waren	te zoet,	hoewel	de witte [e]	lekker	waren.
	the red grapes	were	too sweet	although	the white	appetizing	were
	'The red grapes were too sweet, although the white ones were appetizing.'

b'.

De rode [e]waren te zoet, hoewel de witte druiven lekker waren.

c.	Ik	wil	eerst	de oude auto	kwijt	voordat	ik	een nieuwe [e]	koop.
	I	want	first	the old car	get.rid.of	before	I	a new	buy
	'I want to get rid of my old car, before I buy a new one.'

c'.

Ik wil eerst de oude [e] kwijt voordat ik een nieuwe auto koop.

The interpretation of the empty noun again resembles the interpretation of a personal pronoun in this respect; cf. the discussion of (115). This is illustrated in (123), in which coreference is again indicated by italics.

123

a.		Jan denkt	dat	hij	wel	geholpen	zal	worden.
		Jan thinks	that	he	prt	helped	will	be

a'.

Hij denkt dat Jan wel geholpen zal worden.

b.		Jan kwam	langs,	hoewel	hij	ziek	was.
		Jan dropped	in	although	he	ill	was

b'.

Hij kwam langs, hoewel Jan ziek was.

c.		Jan	ontbijt	altijd,	voordat	hij	vertrekt.
		Jan	has.breakfast	always	before	he	departs

Hij ontbijt altijd, voordat Jan vertrekt.

The order restriction on the overt and the empty noun is not a surface phenomenon. For example, the primeless examples in (124) show that topicalization of the complement/adjunct clauses in (122) does not block N-ellipsis in the subordinate clause. However, topicalization of the subordinated clauses renders N-ellipsis in the main clause fully acceptable too; this is illustrated in the primed examples in (124), which should be compared with the primed examples in (122).

124

a.		Dat de slimme [e]	hem	wel	zal helpen,	denkt	alleen	de domme student.
		that the smart	him	prt	would help	thinks	only	the silly student

a'.

Dat de slimme student hem wel zal helpen, denkt alleen de domme [e].

b.		Hoewel	de witte [e]	lekker	waren,	waren	de rode druiven	te zoet.
		although	the white	appetizing	were	were	the red grapes	too sweet

b'.

Hoewel de witte druiven lekker waren, waren de rode [e] te zoet.

c.		Voordat	ik	een nieuwe [e]	koop,	wil	ik	eerst	de oude auto	kwijt.
		before	I	a new	buy	want	I	first	the old car	get.rid.of

c'.

Voordat ik een nieuwe auto koop, wil ik eerst de oude [e] kwijt.

The examples in (125) show that the interpretation of [ e] again resembles the interpretation of the referential personal pronouns in this respect: we refer the reader to N5.2.1.5, sub III, for more discussion of the conditions on the interpretation of the personal pronouns.

125

a.	Dat	hij	wel	geholpen	zal	worden,	denkt	alleen	Jan	zelf.
	that	he	prt	helped	will	be	thinks	only	Jan	himself
	'Only Jan himself thinks that heʼll be helped.'

a'.

Dat Jan wel geholpen zal worden, denkt alleen hij zelf.

b.	Hoewel	hij	ziek	was,	kwam	Jan	langs.
	although	he	ill	was	came	Jan	along
	'Although he was ill, Jan came along.'

b'.

Hoewel Jan ziek was, kwam hij langs.

c.	Voordat	hij	vertrekt,	ontbijt	Jan altijd.
	before	he	leaves	has.breakfast	Jan always
	'Jan is always having breakfast, before he leaves.'

c'.

Voordat Jan vertrekt, ontbijt hij altijd.

[+] 4. N-ellipsis in simple Clauses

N-ellipsis can also apply within simple clauses. This is illustrated in the primeless examples in (126), in which N-ellipsis on a direct/prepositional object is triggered by the subject. Unlike what is the case in the complex sentences in (122), it occasionally seems to be possible for the empty noun to precede the overtly realized one in simple clauses, as shown in the primed examples.

126

a.	Het oude paard	trapte	(naar)	het jonge [e].
	the old horse	kicked	towards	the young
	'The old horse kicked (in the direction of) the young one.'

a'.

Het oude [e] trapte (naar) het jonge paard.

b.		Het oude paard	staat	naast	het jonge [e].
		the old horse	stands	next.to	the young

b'.

Het oude [e] staat naast het jonge paard.

The cases of N-ellipsis in the primeless and primed examples of (126) seem to behave differently in various respects. For example, the primed examples require a special intonation contour; contrastive accent (indicated by small capitals) must be placed on the attributive adjectives. Another conspicuous difference is that the overt and empty noun need not have the same number in the primeless examples, whereas this seems to be required in the primed examples. This can easily be demonstrated in (127) by means of the neuter noun paard'horse', which takes the determiner het in the singular and the determiner de in the plural.

127

a.	Het oude paard	trapte	(naar)	de jonge [e].
	the old horse	kicked	towards	the young
	'The old horse kicked (in the direction of) the young ones.'

a'.

Het oude [e] trapte (naar) de jonge paarden.

b.		Het oude paard	staat	tussen	de jonge [e].
		the old horse	stands	between	the young (ones)

b'.

Het oude [e] staat tussen de jonge paarden.

[+] C. N-ellipsis versus backward conjunction reduction

Although the primed examples in (126) are fully acceptable, we have seen that N-ellipsis normally requires that the empty pronoun be preceded by the overtly realized one. There are, however, examples such as (128) that seem to violate this restriction on N-ellipsis. Such examples always involve coordination; example (128a) involves coordinated clauses, and (128b) involves coordinated noun phrases (as is evident from the plural agreement on the finite verb).

128

a.		[[Jan gebruikt	de grote —]	en	[Piet gebruikt	de kleine tent]].
		Jan uses	the big	and	Piet uses	the small tent

b.		[[De	grote —]	en	[de kleine tent]]	staan in de gang.
		the	big	and	the small tent	stand in the corridor

These cases are, however, only apparent counter-examples as they are not cases of N-ellipsis but of backward conjunction reduction, which, as the name already indicates, occurs in coordinated structures only. backward conjunction reduction involves deletion of material at the immediate right edge of the first conjunct under phonological identity with material on the immediate right edge of the second conjunct. Schematically, this deletion operation can be represented as in (129).

129

[[X Z] conjunction [Y Z]] ⇒

[[X ∅] conjunction [Y Z]]

In (129), X, Y and Z stand for random strings of words, with the only restriction that the final constituents of X and Y are accented (i.e., form a contrast with each other). A typical example is given in (130a), in which the deletion is represented by means of double strikethrough. Observe that the deleted string does not make up a constituent; it consists of the main verb gehad, the direct object een gesprek, the adverbial phrase met de directeur, and a subpart of the adverbial phrase of time voor de lunch; see also the impossibility of topicalization of this string in *De lunch een gesprek met de directeur gehad heeft Jan voor. In this example, the prepositions voor and na must receive accent. That the deleted string must be at the immediate right edge of the first conjunct is clear from the fact that the embedded counterpart of (130a) in (130b) is only acceptable if the finite verb heeft, which is overtly realized in (130a), is also omitted.

130

a.		[Jan	heeft	voorde lunch een gesprek met de directeur gehad]	en	[Piet heeft	na	de lunch	een gesprek	met de directeur	gehad].
		Jan	has	before	and	Piet has	after	the lunch	a talk	with the director	had

b.		dat	[Jan voorde lunch een gesprek met de directeur gehad heeft]	en	[Piet na	de lunch	een gesprek	met de directeur	gehad	heeft].
		that	Jan before	and	Piet after	the lunch	a talk	with the director	had	has

Given that we have established that the deleted string must be at the immediate right edge of the first conjunct, we are now able to test whether the examples in (128) involve N-ellipsis or backward conjunction reduction. Let us start with example (128a), which involves coordination of clauses; if this example involves N-ellipsis, we would expect that the noun could also be left out if the noun phrase is followed by other lexical material (cf. example (112b)), whereas we would expect this to be impossible if it involves backward conjunction reduction. The predictions can be tested by putting the example in the perfect tense, as a result of which the participle is placed in clause-final position, as in (131a). Since most speakers consider this sentence unacceptable, we may conclude that we are not dealing with N-ellipsis in (128a), but with backward conjunction reduction. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the sentence becomes fully acceptable if the participle in the first conjunct is deleted as well, as is shown in (131b).

131

a.	%	Jan heeft	de grote —	gebruikt	en	Piet heeft	de lichte tent	gebruikt.
		Jan has	the big	used	and	Piet has	the light tent	used

b.		Jan heeft	de grote tent gebruikt	en	Piet heeft	de lichte tent	gebruikt.
		Jan has	the big	and	Piet has	the light tent	used

Something similar arises in the case of (128b), which involves coordination of noun phrases: as soon as something follows the interpretative gap in the first conjunct, the structure becomes unacceptable for most speakers. This is brought about in (132a) by adding a possessive van-PP. Example (132b) illustrates that N-ellipsis is not sensitive to the addition of a van-PP, which suggests that example (128b) is also a case of backward conjunction reduction.

132

a.	%	[[De grote —	van mij]	en	[de kleine tent van de kinderen]]	staan daar.
		the big	of me	and	the small tent of the children	stand there
		'The big tent of mine and the small tent of the childrenʼs are standing over there.'

dat

Jan [NP

de grote [N tent]

van mij]

opzet

Piet

[NP

de kleine [Ne]

van de kinderen]

neerhaalt.

that

Jan

the big tent

of me

puts.up

and

Piet

[NP

the small

of the children

down-pulls

'that Jan is putting up the big tent of mine and Piet is pulling down the small one of the childrenʼs.'

For completeness’ sake, note that, unlike N-ellipsis, backward conjunction reduction is not sensitive to the presence or absence of the adjectival -e ending. This is clear from the fact that, unlike (110b) and (111b), the examples in (133) are acceptable for all speakers of Dutch.

133

a.	Piet heeft	een nieuw huis gekocht	en	Marie heeft	een oud huis	gekocht.
	Piet has	a new	and	Marie has	an old house	bought
	'Piet bought a new, and Marie bought an old house.'

b.	Piet heeft	de handgeschreven versie meegenomen	en	Marie heeft	de geprinte	versie	meegenomen
	Piet has	the hand.written	and	Marie has	the printed	version	with-taken
	'Piet took the hand-written, and Marie took the printed version.'

[+] II. Context insensitive N-ellipsis: de/het vreemde (lit: the strange)

Subsection I has discussed context sensitive N-ellipsis, that is, cases in which the interpretation of the empty noun is determined by the non-linguistic context or an overtly realized noun phrase in preceding discourse. In some cases, however, adjectives without a noun can be used without the context providing any clues about the intended interpretation. The subcases in (134) can be distinguished.

134

a.		Het-group -count
		i. abstract nouns: het leuke'the entertaining thing'
		ii.geographical names: het Griekse'the Greek thing'

b.		De-group +count
		i. +human nouns: de blinde/bejaarde'the blind/aged person'
		ii.biological terms: de lipbloemige/katachtige'the labiate/feline'

[+] A. Meaning

The interpretation of the construction is mainly determined by the selected definite article: noun phrases with het refer to abstract, non-countable entities, whereas noun phrases with de refer to persons. This will become clear by means of the following minimal pairs.

135

a.	het vreemde	(van de zaak)
	the strange	of the case
	'the strange thing (of the case)'

a'.		de vreemde
		the strange
		'the stranger'

b.	het zieke	(van het geval)
	the sick	of the case
	'the sick aspect (of the case)'

b'.		de zieke
		the ill
		'the sick person'

The examples in (136) show that the two groups differ in that the het-group can normally be combined with the article het only, whereas the de-group can be freely combined with other determiners like indefinite articles, demonstratives, etc.

136

a.	*	een/dat	vreemde	van de zaak
		a/that	funny	of the case

b.	een/die	vreemde
	a/that	strange
	'a/that stranger'

There are, however, some exceptions to the claim that non-human noun phrases of this type cannot occur with an indefinite article. Examples like (137a&b) are possible and are typically used to refer to jokes of a certain type. Some more or less idiomatic examples can be found in (137c&d).

137

een leuke/goede

'a funny/good joke'

een paar vieze

'a couple of dirty jokes'

een gouwe ouwe

'a golden oldie'

d.	Jij	bent	me	een mooie/rare!
	you	are	me	a beautiful/weird
	'Youʼre a funny sort, and no mistake!'

[+] B. Restrictions

The examples in (138) show that the constructions in (134) are subject to a phonological constraint: they do not occur with adjectives that end in the long vowels /a/ or /i/. Furthermore, the examples in (139) show that the constructions in (134) cannot be formed on the basis of simplex loan words either. The adjectives in (138) and (139) have in common that they do not get the attributive -e ending, but it is important to note the attributive form without schwa cannot perform the function of the adjectives in (134) either.

138

a.	*	een	prima(-e)
		a	fine (person)

a'.		een	prima(*-e)	vent
		a	fine	chap

b.	*	het	sexy(-e)
		the	sexy (thing)

b'.		het	sexy(*-e)	gebaartje
		the	sexy	gesture

139

a.	*	het/de	privé(-e)
		the	private (thing/person)

a'.		de	privé(*-e)	les
		the	private	lesson

b.	*	het/de	gratis(-e)
		the	free thing/person

b'.		de	gratis(*-e)	behandeling
		the	free	treatment

In this connection, it should be noted that the number of adjectives ending in /a/ and /i/ is quite limited. Moreover, according to the criteria in De Haas and Trommelen (1993), the cases given in (138) do not even belong to the Germanic part of the Dutch lexicon. So perhaps the examples in (138) are unacceptable for the same reason as those in (139); they are loan words. For completeness’ sake, observe that the adjective albino'albino', but not the adjective indigo'indigo', occurs as a noun: de albino; *de indigo.

[+] C. Proposed analyses

This subsection discusses two popular analyses for the examples in (134); see Booij (2002:51-2) for a brief sketch of two alternative proposals. According to the first, traditional proposal, the formations are nominalizations and the -e ending is a nominalizing affix. According to the second proposal, we are dealing with N-ellipsis and the -e ending is therefore the attributive inflection.

[+] 1. The nominalization analysis

Traditionally, the cases in (134) are considered as instances of nominalization. There are at least four facts supporting this position. First, the examples in (140) show that plural formation of the de-group is possible, which is typically a nominal and not an adjectival property. Note that this argument is mainly based on the orthographic convention, given that the plural -n is not pronounced in Standard Dutch, and that the het-group does not provide similar evidence, given that it consists of non-count noun phrases only.

140

de blinde(n)

'the blind one(s)'

de goede(n)

'the good one(s)'

de lipbloemige(n)

'the labiate(s)'

de katachtige(n)

'the feline(s)'

Second, the -e affix may also appear on adjectives that do not allow the attributive inflection. This holds for the adjectives in (141) that orthographically end in -en. This ending is normally pronounced as schwa but realized as [ən] in the primeless examples.

141

a.		het	besprokene
		the	discussed (thing)

a'.		het	besproken(*-e)	probleem
		the	discussed	problem

b.		de	besprokene
		the	discussed (person)

b'.		de	besproken(*-e)	persoon
		the	discussed	person

Observe that if the adjective orthographically ends in -e (schwa), the -e affix is absent; the /n/ in (142) is the plural ending, which should not be confused with the /n/ of besproken in the examples in (141).

142

a.	?	De perfiden	onder ons	zullen zeggen dat ...
		the perfidious ones	among us	will say that ...

b.		De malafiden	maken	het	onmogelijk	voor de bonafiden.
		the malafide ones	make	it	impossible	for the bonafide ones

Third, the examples in (143) seem to provide independent evidence for the fact that the -e ending can be used as a nominalizing affix. The alternative of treating it as attributive inflection runs afoul of the fact that possessive pronouns normally do not inflect. A nominalization approach would furthermore account for the fact that the resulting forms can be preceded by a determiner. Note in this connection that the form jullie cannot be nominalized, which may be related to the observation made in Subsection B that this prohibition also holds for adjectives ending in /i/.

143

		singular	plural
1st person		de/het mijne	de/het onze
2nd person	colloquial	de/het jouwe	*de/het jullie(-e)
	polite	de/het uwe	de/het uwe
3rd person	masculine	de/het z ijne	?de/het hunne
	feminine	de/het hare
	neuter	de/het zijne

The examples in (143) are perhaps not entirely comparable to the cases of context insensitive N-ellipsis under discussion here, given that their interpretation is generally context-dependent; cf. (144a). This does not hold, however, for their plural counterparts in (144b), which are typically used to refer to a certain set of peoples.

144

a.	Jij	zingt	eerst	jouw lied.	Daarna	zing	ik	het mijne.
	you	sing	first	your song	After	sing	I	the mine
	'You sing your song first, subsequently, Iʼll sing mine.'

b.	Luther en	de zijnen
	Luther and	the his
	'Luther and his followers'

Finally, the examples in (145) pose a severe problem for the N-ellipsis analysis, as the postulated empty nominal element [ e] cannot be replaced by a phonetically realized one. Since the nominalization approach does not postulate such an empty element, these facts indirectly support this approach.

145

a.	de	ouden	van dagen
	the	old	of days
	'senior citizens'

a'.	*	de	oude	mensen	van dagen
		the	old	people	of days

b.		de	armen	van geest
		the	poor	of spirit

b'.	*	de	arme	mensen	van geest
		the	poor	people	of spirit

c.		de	groten	van naam
		the	great	of name

c'.	*	de	grote	mensen	van naam
		the	great	people	of name

[+] 2. The N-ellipsis analysis

The arguments given in the previous subsection provide important evidence in favor of a nominalization approach to the constructions in (134), but there are also arguments against such an approach, and in favor of assuming that these examples involve N-ellipsis, that is, that we are dealing with genuine adjectives in these cases.
The first argument concerns plural formation, and could be interpreted as a counterargument to the first argument in favor of nominalization. Although nouns that end in a schwa often can have either a plural -s or a plural -n morpheme, the first seems more common than the latter (which is not pronounced in Standard Dutch). The cases under discussion, however, resist a plural in -s categorically; cf. the primed and primeless examples in (146).

146

a.		de blinden/*blindes
		'the blind ones'

a'.		de types/?typen
		'the type/the types'

b.		de rijken/*rijkes
		'the rich'

b'.		de dames/*damen
		'the lady/ladies'

c.		de snellen/*snelles
		'the quick ones'

c'.		de piramides/?piramiden
		'the pyramids'

d.		de goeden/*goedes
		'the good ones'

d'.		de ruïnes/?ruïnen
		'the ruins'

This argument against nominalization is probably not very strong given that a noun like waarde'value' does not allow the plural s either: waarden versus *waardes. The same thing holds for a group of nouns ending in the phonetic sequence [idə] that do not allow the -s either: druïden'druids' vs. *druïdes. Consequently, it may be the case that, like these nouns, the affix -e simply has the idiosyncratic property of requiring the plural -n morpheme.

Another morphological distinction between the constructions in (134b) and simple nouns ending in schwa is that the first resist diminutive formation, whereas the latter generally allow it. For this, compare the primeless and primed examples in (147). This of course supports the N-ellipsis analysis.

147

*het blindetje

a'.

het typetje

'the character'

*het rijketje

b'.

het dametje

'the little lady'

*het snelletje

c'.

het piramidetje

'the little lady'

*het goedetje

d'.

het ruïnetje

'the little ruin'

In addition to these morphological arguments, there are also syntactic arguments that favor the N-ellipsis approach to the constructions in (134), and go against a nominalization approach. First, the (allegedly) nominalized adjectives in (148) can be modified by intensifiers like onweerstaanbaar (148a) and erg/zeer'very' (as is clear from the absence of the attributive –e inflection on these forms). Since modification of a noun by an intensifier is not possible (cf. *de erg/zeer kapitalist'lit: the very capitalist'), we conclude that we are dealing with adjectives in (148).

148

a.		het	onweerstaanbaar	leuke	(ervan)
		the	irresistibly	funny	of it

b.		de	erg/zeer	rijke
		the	very	rich

For completeness’ sake, note that modification by means of an attributively used adjective is also possible. This is of course expected under both approaches given that we may simply be dealing with stacked adjectives. Compare:

149

		de	zielige	arme	(man)
		the	pitiful	poor	man

The second syntactic argument involves the PP-complements of deverbal adjectives like afhankelijk'dependent'. Section 5.3, sub IB1, has shown that such complements must precede the adjective in attributive position: placement of the PP-complement between the adjective and the noun or after the noun is excluded. If we assume an N-ellipsis analysis, we can therefore immediately account for the fact that the PP van een uitkering must precede afhankelijken in (150b).

150

a.		de	van een beurs	afhankelijke	studenten
		the	on a grant	dependent	students

a'.

de afhankelijke <van een beurs> studenten <van een beurs>

de <van een beurs> afhankelijken <*van een beurs>

As expected, if the adjective is associated with a phrase that can follow the noun, it can also follow the (allegedly) nominalized adjective. This is demonstrated in (151) with adjectives in their equative, comparative and superlative use, which can be combined with postnominal als-, dan- and van-phrases, respectively.

151

a.		een	even	goede	(leerling)	als Jan
		an	as	good	student	as Jan

b.		een	betere	(leerling)	dan Jan
		a	better	student	than Jan

c.		de	beste	(leerling)	van de klas
		the	best	student	of the class

More cases of a somewhat different nature are given in the primeless examples in (152), which should be compared with the primed examples.

152

a.		het	leuke	van de grap
		the	funny	of the joke

a'.		het	leuke	punt	van de grap
		the	funny	point	of the joke

b.		het	vreemde	van de zaak
		the	strange	of the case

b'.		het	vreemde	aspect	van de zaak
		the	strange	aspect	of the case

The facts in (148) to (152) follow immediately if we assume N-ellipsis, whereas it is not clear how they could be accounted for under the nominalization approach.
For completeness’ sake, note that it has been argued that examples such as (153a) disfavor the nominalization analysis: since the adjectival participle geplaatste is combined with an argument (a locational PP), it has been suggested that nominalization would have to take a phrase as its input in such cases, which is exceptional. However, since example (153b) shows that nomalizations like plaatsen clearly retain their selectional properties, it can be assumed that something similar holds for the nominalized participle in (153a).

153

a.	het	in de kast	geplaatste
	the	in the cupboard	put
	'the thing(s) which has/have been put in the cupboard'

b.	het boeken	in de kast	plaatsen
	the books	in the cupboard	put
	'the placement of books into the cupboard'

[+] 3. Conclusion

The discussion in the previous subsections has shown that it cannot be unequivocally determined at present whether the noun phrases in (134) involve nominalized adjectives or N-ellipsis. Both analyses find support in the known data, but both meet certain problems as well.

References:

Booij, Geert2002The morphology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
Haas, Wim de & Trommelen, Mieke1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvormingSDU Uitgeverij

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ArticleCardinal NumeralClauseConjunction ReductionCoordinationCoreferenceDefinite ArticleDemonstrative PronounEllipsisGappingIndefinite ArticleN-EllipsisNominalizationNumeralOrdinal NumeralPersonal PronounPronounReconstructionRight Node RaisingSubordinationTopicalization

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles