Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

11.3.1.3.Islands for question formation

quickinfo

Section 11.3.1.1 has shown that wh-movement is a near-obligatory operation in the formation of wh-questions, as it is needed to create operator-variable chains. From a semantic point of view the formation of such chains requires preposing of the wh-element only, but if some syntactic restriction blocks extraction of this element, wh-movement may also pied-pipe a larger phrase. If such a restriction does not apply, stranding normally is the preferred option. Section 11.3.1.2 has further shown that embedded clauses cannot be pied-piped by wh-movement; consequently, if long wh-movement is impossible for some reason, certain semantically plausible questions simply cannot be formed.
The seminal work of Ross (1967) has made it clear that there is a wide range of constructions that resist the formation of semantically plausible wh-questions. We will refer to such cases as islands for question formation, thus taking the notion of island in a slightly stricter sense than is normally done by not only excluding wh-extraction (stranding) but also pied piping; the reason is purely practical given that stranding and pied piping were already discussed in Section 11.3.1.1. As this section will focus on the empirical data from Standard Dutch, we refer the reader to Szabolsci (2006), Müller (2011) and Boeckx (2012) for recent theoretical approaches to island phenomena.

I. Factive islands: the distinction between strong and weak islands
II. Embedded questions
III. Subject clauses
IV. Adjunct clauses
V. Complex noun phrases
VI. Coordinate structures
VII. A note on resumptive prolepsis

[+] I. Factive islands: the distinction between strong and weak islands

Section 11.3.1.2, sub IV, has shown that long wh-movement is normally excluded from factive clauses. This is illustrated again in example (214b): while long wh-movement is fully acceptable with the non-factive matrix verb denken'to think', it gives rise to a degraded result with the factive matrix verb weten'to know'. It must be noted, however, that some speakers do allow long wh-movement if the wh-phrase is D-linked such as welk boek'which book' in (214b'). Recall that we do not include the intermediate trace in the initial position of the embedded clause if this is not immediately relevant for our discussion.

214

a.	Jan dacht/wist	[dat	Marie	zijn boek	gekocht	had].
	Jan thought/knew	that	Marie	his book	bought	had
	'Jan thought/knew that Marie had bought his book.'

b.		Wati	dacht/*wist	Jan	[dat	Marie ti	gekocht	had]?
		what	thought/knew	Jan	that	Marie	bought	had

b'.		Welk boeki	dacht/%wist	Jan	[dat	Marie ti	gekocht	had]?
		which book	thought/knew	Jan	that	Marie	bought	had

The percentage sign in (214b') indicates that judgments differ from speaker to speaker and from case to case; the (b)-examples in (214) improve for many speakers if we substitute the factive verb betreuren'to regret' for weten'to know', as in (215).

215

a.	??	Wati	betreurde	Jan	[dat	Marie ti	gekocht	had]?
		what	regretted	Jan	that	Marie	bought	had

b.	?	Welk boeki	betreurde	Jan	[dat	Marie ti	gekocht	had]?
		which book	regretted	Jan	that	Marie	bought	had

That there is a great deal of speaker variation is clear from the fact that the judgments on examples such as (215a) found in the linguistic literature also vary considerably: some researchers reject examples of this type as fully ungrammatical (e.g. Hoeksema 2006:147), while others accept them as fully acceptable (e.g. Bennis 1986:104) or suggest some intermediate status (Barbiers 1998). The diacritics here should not be considered as the expression of absolute but of relative judgments: the use of a double question mark in (215a) instead of an asterisk at least does justice to the fact that this example deteriorates enormously when the anticipatory pronoun het'it' is added (cf. *Wati betreurde Jan het [dat Marie ti gekocht had]?) and that it is less felicitous than examples such as (215b), which involve extraction of a D-linked wh-phrase. Examples such as (215b) are sometimes given as fully acceptable in the literature (e.g. Zwart 2011:209) but since at least some speakers feel uncomfortable with them, we have added a question mark.
The crucial thing for our present discussion is that the acceptability contrast between long wh-movement of non-D-linked and D-linked wh-phrases from factive complements is beyond doubt. This contrast shows that certain islands are not strong (absolute), but weak(selective) in that they block wh-extraction of certain elements but not others. It is often claimed that weak-island violations are sensitive to the referential properties of the wh-phrase in the sense that extraction is only possible if the descriptive part of the wh-phrase denotes a certain pre-established set of entities in the domain of discourse; see Szabolsci (2006; section 5) and the references cited there. D-linked wh-phrases such as welk boek'which book' satisfy this criterion, while non-D-linked pronouns wie'who' and wat'what' normally do not and at best presuppose the existence of some entity that satisfies the description of the predicative part of the question. Example (216b) shows that weak islands normally also block long wh-movement of non-arguments like adverbial adjuncts (but see Szabolsci 2006 for some exceptional cases).

216

a.	Jan dacht/wist	[dat	Marie	zijn boek	bij Amazon	gekocht	had].
	Jan thought/knew	that	Marie	his book	at Amazon	bought	had
	'Jan thought/knew that Marie had bought his book at Amazon.'

b.		Waari	dacht/*wist	Jan	[dat	Marie zijn boek ti	gekocht	had]?
		where	thought/knew	Jan	that	Marie his book	bought	had

[+] II. Embedded questions

Wh-extraction is not possible from embedded interrogative clauses: this holds for polar yes/no-questions as well as for wh-questions. That yes/no-questions are islands for question formation is illustrated in (217b); the fact that the wh-phrase welk boek'which book' is D-linked shows that such islands are strong.

217

a.	Jan vroeg	[of	Marie	het boek	gekocht	had].
	Jan asked	if	Marie	the book	bought	had
	'Jan asked whether Marie had bought the book.'

b.	*	Welk boeki	vroeg	Jan	[of	Marie ti	gekocht	had]?
		which book	asked	Jan	whether	Marie	bought	had

Although examples such as (217b) are not often explicitly discussed, its degraded status can readily be accounted for by assuming that the clause-initial position of the embedded clause is not accessible for the wh-phrase due to the presence of a phonetically empty polar question operator. This assumption may be needed anyway in order to exclude wh-movement in polar main clauses like (218a); wh-movement is possible only if the position preceding the finite verb is radically empty, which accounts for the fact that (218b) is a pure wh-question that does not leave room for a polar interpretation. For completeness' sake, we added example (218c) to show that the wh-element cannot remain in situ either.

218

a.	OP[+Q]	Koopt	Peter	het boek?
	OP[+Q]	buys	Peter	the book
	'Does Peter buy the book?'

b.	Welk boeki	koopt	Peter ti ?
	which book	buys	Peter
	'Which book does Peter buy?'

c.	*	OP[+Q]	Koopt	Peter welk boek?
	*	*OP[+Q]	buys	Peter which book

If the clause-initial position of embedded polar questions is indeed occupied by a phonetically empty question operator, the unacceptability of long wh-movement of (217b) follows from the standard analysis in generative grammar that wh-extraction cannot apply in a single movement step, but must proceed via the clause-initial position of the object clause. This analysis can be straightforwardly extended to account for the unacceptability of cases like (219), in which long wh-movement takes place from embedded wh-questions. Observe that (219c) is fully acceptable if the adverbial phrase modifies the matrix clause, but this is of course not the reading intended here (as is indicated by the trace tj).

219

a.	*	Watj	vroeg	je	[wieititj	gekocht	heeft]?	non-D-linked
		what	asked	you	who	bought	has
		'What did you ask who has bought?'

b.	*	Welk boekj	vroeg	je	[wieititj	gekocht	heeft]?	D-linked
		which book	asked	you	who	bought	has
		'Which book did you ask who has bought?'

c.	*	Wanneerj	vroeg	je	[wieititj	vertrokken	was]?	adverbial adjunct
		when	asked	you	who	left	had
		'When did you ask who had left?'

Wh-islands have been reported to be weak in many languages, including English. This does not seem to be the case in Dutch, as most speakers seem to consider all examples in (219) to be (equally) bad; see, e.g., Koster (1987:192ff.) and Zwart (2011:208). However, Koster (1987:22) claimed that long movement is more acceptable if the wh-phrase in the clause-initial position of the embedded clause is not a subject, as in the examples in (220), to which Koster assigns a mere question mark. It should further be noted that Koopman & Sportiche (1985) have claimed that long wh-movement of PPs in examples such as (220a') is more acceptable than long wh-movement of objects in examples such as (220b'), although Koster (1987) does not seem to agree with this. To our knowledge, wh-island violations of this sort have not been discussed elsewhere and since their precise status is not clear to us, we simply mark them with a percentage sign.

220

a.	Jan wil	weten	[welk boeki	jij ti	aan Marie	gegeven	hebt].
	Jan wants	know	which book	you	to Marie	given	have
	'Jan wants to know which book you have given to Marie.'

a'.	%	Aan wiej	wil	Jan weten	[welk boeki	jij titj	gegeven	hebt]?
		to whom	wants	Jan know	which book	you	given	have

b.	Jan wil	weten	[aan wiej	jij	dit boek tj	gegeven	hebt].
	Jan wants	know	to whom	you	this book	given	have
	'Jan wants to know to whom you have given this book.'

b'.	%	Welk boekj	wil	Jan weten	[aan wiej	jij titj	gegeven	hebt]?
		to whom	wants	Jan know	to whom	you	given	have

[+] III. Subject clauses

Long wh-movement typically involves extraction from direct object clauses. It is sometimes claimed that long wh-movement from subject clauses is excluded; cf. Huang (1982). Examples supplied to illustrate this normally involve subject clauses in non-extraposed position or subject clauses introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it'; see, e.g., Zwart (2011:202ff.). Section 11.3.1.2, sub III, has already shown, however, that there are subject clauses in extraposed position that allow long wh-movement if the anticipatory pronoun het is not present. We illustrate this again in (221b) by means of the passive counterpart of the construction in (221a) with an object clause. The fact that the extracted phrase is the non-D-linked pronoun wat'what' in fact shows that subject clauses are not even weak islands.

221

a.	Wati	had	de directeur	verwacht	[dat	hij	zou ti	krijgen]?	direct object
	what	had	the manager	expected	that	he	would	receive
	'What had the manager expected that he would receive?'

b.		Wati	werd	er	verwacht	[dat	hij	zou ti	krijgen]?	subject
		what	was	there	expected	that	he	would	receive

The fact that long wh-movement from subject clauses is nevertheless rare is due to the fact that such clauses are normally preceded by the anticipatory pronoun het if they occur in extraposed position; see Section 11.3.1.2, sub III, for more details.

[+] IV. Adjunct clauses

Adverbial clauses differ from argument clauses in that they always constitute islands for wh-formation; cf. Huang (1982). This is illustrated in (222) for adverbial clauses indicating time and reason. The fact that the primed examples involve the D-linked phrase Welke foto's'which pictures' shows that adjunct clauses are strong islands for wh-movement.

222

a.	Marie vertrok	[toen	Jan zijn vakantiefoto's	wou	laten	zien].
	Marie left	when	Jan his holiday.pictures	wanted	let	see
	'Marie left when Jan wanted to show his holiday pictures.'

a'.	*	Welke foto's	vertrok	Marie	[toen	Jan ti	wou	laten	zien]?
		which pictures	left	Marie	when	Jan	wanted	let	see

b.	Marie vertrok	[omdat	Jan zijn vakantiefotos	wou	laten	zien].
	Marie left	because	Jan his holiday.pictures	wanted	let	see
	'Marie left because Jan wanted to show his holiday pictures.'

b'.	*	Welke foto's	vertrok	Marie	[omdat	Jan ti	wou	laten	zien]?
		which pictures	left	Marie	because	Jan	wanted	let	see

[+] V. Complex noun phrases

Section 11.3.1.1, sub VB has shown that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, there are reasons for assuming that noun phrases are islands for postnominal wh-phrases. This was argued on the basis of examples such as (223), which show that both the stranding and the pied piping option are excluded.

223

a.	Els zal	morgen	[haar klacht	[tegen Peter]]	intrekken.
	Els will	tomorrow	her complaint	against Peter	withdraw
	'Els will withdraw her complaint against Peter tomorrow.'

b.	*	[Tegen wie]i	zal	Els	[haar klacht ti]	morgen	intrekken?
		against who	will	Els	her complaint	tomorrow	withdraw

c.	*	[Haar klacht	[tegen wie]]i	zal	Els morgen ti	intrekken?
		her complaint	against who	will	Els tomorrow	withdraw

The islandhood of noun phrases for wh-phrases embedded in postnominal clauses is uncontroversial. This holds regardless of the syntactic status of the postnominal clause: the (a)-examples show this for a clausal complement and the (b)-examples for a relative clause. The fact that the primed examples involve D-linked noun phrases shows that complex noun phrases are strong islands for wh-movement. For completeness' sake, it should be mentioned that extraposition of the relative clause does not improve the result.

224

a.	De directeur	heeft	[het gerucht	[dat	Jan deze baan	krijgt]]	bevestigd.
	the manager	has	the rumor	that	Jan this job	gets	confirmed
	'The manager has confirmed the rumor that Jan will get the job.'

a'.	*	Welke baani	heeft	de directeur	[het gerucht	[dat	Jan ti	krijgt]]	bevestigd?
		which job	has	the manager	the rumor	that	Jan	gets	confirmed

b.	Marie heeft	[de man	[die	haar boek	gerecenseerd	had]]	ontmoet.
	Marie has	the man	who	her book	reviewed	had	met
	'Marie has met the man who had reviewed her book.'

b'.	*	Welk boeki	heeft	Marie	[de man	[die ti	gerecenseerd	had]]	ontmoet?
		which book	has	Marie	the man	who	reviewed	had	met

[+] VI. Coordinate structures

Islands for question formation are normally clausal in nature due to the fact that non-sentential clausal constituents regularly allow either stranding or pied piping; see Section 11.3.1.1, sub V and Section 11.3.1.1, sub VI. Coordinate structures are, however, notable exceptions to this. The examples in (225) first show that the full coordinate structure can be easily questioned.

225

a.	Jan heeft	[[een boek]	en	[een CD]]	gekocht.
	Jan has	a book	and	a CD	bought
	'Jan has bought a book and a CD.'

b.	Wati	heeft	Jan ti	gekocht?	[[Een boek]	en	[een CD]].
	what	has	Jan	bought	a book	and	a CD
	'What has Jan bought? A book and a CD.'

It is, however, impossible to question one of the conjuncts: the (a)-examples in (226) show that wh-movement of one of the conjuncts while stranding the remainder of the coordinate structure is excluded; the (b)-examples show that pied piping of the complete coordinate structure is excluded as well.

226

a.	*	Wati	heeft	Jan	[[een boek]	en [ ti ]]	gekocht?
		what	has	Jan	a book	and	bought

a'.	*	Wati	heeft	Jan [[ ti ]	en	[een CD]]	gekocht?
		what	has	Jan	and	a CD	bought

b.	*	[[Een boek]	en	[wat]]i	heeft	Jan ti	gekocht?
		a book	and	what	has	Jan	bought

b'.	*	[[Wat]	en	[een CD]]i	heeft	Jan ti	gekocht?
		what	and	a CD	has	Jan	bought

Although it is not entirely clear what the correct representation of "split" coordinate structures like (227a) is, it might be interesting to note that such cases do not allow question formation either.

227

a.	Jan heeft	een boek	gekocht,	en	(ook) een CD.
	Jan has	a book	bought	and	also a CD
	'Jan has bought a book as well as a CD.'

b.	*	Wat	heeft	Jan ti	gekocht,	en	(ook)	een CD.
		what	has	Jan	bought	and	also	a CD

The examples above have shown that wh-extraction from coordinated structures is not possible. A potential exception is the so-called across-the-board movement, which may extract wh-phrases from coordinated structures provided that all the conjuncts are affected in a parallel way. Note that the strikethrough in (228b) is the result of backward conjunction reduction, which need not bother us here.

228

a.	Welk boeki	zal	[[Jan ti	bewonderen]	maar	[Marie ti	verafschuwen]].
	which book	will	Jan	admire	but	Marie	loathe
	'Which book will Jan admire and Marie loathe?'

b.	Aan wiei	zal	[[Jan	een boek ti	geven]	en	[Peter	een CD ti	geven]]?
	to whom	will	Jan	a book	give	and	Peter	a CD	give
	'To whom will Jan give a book and Peter give a CD.'

Observe that across-the-board movement always involves subextraction from a conjunct, that is, it must leave a remnant. This is shown by the unacceptability of examples like (229a). It is not clear, however, whether this is due to a syntactic constraint, as example (229b) shows that wh-movement of the full coordinate structure is also impossible. The use of the dollar sign indicates that we may be dealing with a simple economy effect because the answer to Wat heeft Jan gekocht? may involve a list: Een boek, een plaat, ...'A book, a record, ...'.

229

a.	*	Wati	heeft	Jan [[ti]	en [ ti ]]	gekocht?
		what	has	Jan	and	bought

b.	$	[Wat en wat]	heeft	Jan i	gekocht?
		what and what	has	Jan	bought

Given that the wh-phrase in across-the-board movement constructions is associated with two independent gaps, it is controversial whether the examples in (228) are derived by wh-movement in a run-of-the-mill fashion. We will not digress on this theoretical issue here but refer the reader to De Vries (2014) for extensive discussion.

[+] VII. A note on resumptive prolepsis

Standard German differs from Standard Dutch in that many speakers of German do not allow long wh-movement constructions such as (230a). Such speakers may employ various alternative strategies in order to overcome this problem, one of which is using the resumptive prolepsis construction illustrated in (230b), in which a proleptic phrase (here: von welchem Maler) obligatorily binds a resumptive pronoun within the embedded clause; see Salzmann (2006) for extensive discussion.

230

a.	%	Weni	glaubst	du	[dass Petra ti	liebt]?	German
		who	think	you	that Petra	loves
		'Who do you think that Petra likes?'

b.	Von welchem Maleri	glaubst	du	[dass	Petra	ihni	liebt].
	of which painter	think	you	that	Petra	him	loves
	'Which painter do you think that Petra likes?'

The resumptive prolepsis construction is not unique to speakers that do not allow long wh-movement, as is clear from the fact that in Standard Dutch, the two constructions in (231) are possible side by side.

231

a.	Wiei	denk	je	[dat	Marie/zij ti	bewondert]?	Dutch
	who	think	you	that	Marie/she	admires
	'Who do you think that Marie/she admires?'

b.		Van welke schilderi	denk	je	[dat	Marie	hemi	bewondert]?
		of which painter	think	you	that	Marie	him	admires

The long wh-movement and resumptive prolepsis construction exhibit a number of similarities, to which we will return in Section 11.3.6. These may make one think that they are both derived by means of wh-movement (in which case something special should be said about the use of the preposition von/van and the insertion of the resumptive pronoun). Salzmann (2006) argues, however, that there are various reasons not to adopt this line of thinking. One of the main reasons is that the resumptive prolepsis construction is not sensitive to islands. This is illustrated in (232) for factive islands: while (232a) shows that long wh-movement gives rise to a degraded result for many speakers, (232b) shows that the corresponding resumptive prolepsis construction is fully acceptable.

232

a.	%	Welk boeki	wist	Jan niet	[dat	Els ti	gekocht	had]?	wh-movement
		which book	knew	Jan not	that	Els	bought	had

b.	Van welk boeki	wist	Jan niet	[dat	Els	heti	gekocht	had]?	prolepsis
	of which book	knew	Jan not	that	Els	it	bought	it
	'Of which book didnʼt Jan know that Els had bought?'

Assuming that the resumptive prolepis construction is derived by wh-movement becomes even less plausible when we consider strong islands, like the embedded questions in (233). The contrast between the primeless and primed examples shows that while long wh-movement is impossible, the corresponding resumptive prolepsis constructions are again fully acceptable.

233

a.	*	Welk boeki	wist	Jan niet	[of	Els ti	gekocht	had]?	wh-movement
		which book	knew	Jan not	if	Els	bought	had

a'.	Van welk boeki	wist	Jan niet	[of	Els	heti	gekocht	had]?	prolepsis
	of which book	knew	Jan not	if	Els	it	bought	had
	'Of which book didnʼt Jan know if Els had bought it?'

b.	*	Welk boeki	wist	Jan niet	[wie ti	gekocht	had]?	wh-movement
		which book	knew	Jan not	who	bought	had

b'.	Van welk boeki	wist	Jan niet	[wie	heti	gekocht	had]?	prolepsis
	of which book	knew	Jan not	who	it	bought	had
	'Of which book didnʼt Jan know who had bought it?'

If wh-movement is not involved in the derivation of the resumptive prolepis construction, the proleptic phrase must find its origin within the matrix clause. Consequently, the (obligatory) coindexing in the examples above must be due to the normal conditions on binding of referential pronouns, which does not seem to pose any special problems as the pronoun is free in its local domain; cf. Section N5.2.1.5. An appeal to the normal mechanisms involved in binding would also immediately explain the fact illustrated in example (234) that the proleptic phrase may serve as the antecedent of two (or more) resumptive pronouns.

234

Van welk boeki

wist

Jan niet

[of

hij

heti

wilde

kopen]

[voordat

hij

heti

gelezen

had]?

of which book

knew

Jan not

wanted

buy

before

read

had

'Of which book didnʼt Jan know if he wanted to buy it before he had read it?'

A wh-movement approach, on the other hand, would certainly need various additional provisos to account for this option because wh-phrases in clause-initial position are normally associated with only a single argument position: the interrogative pronoun who in (235a), for example, functions as a subject, as is clear from the fact that (235b) is a felicitous answer to (235a), but it cannot simultaneously function as a subject and an object, as is clear from the fact that (235b') is not a felicitous answer to (235a).

235

Who will meet?

John and Mary (will meet).

appropriate answer

b'.

John (will meet) Mary.

inappropriate answer

That the proleptic phrase must be independently licensed within the matrix clause may also account for the fact that resumptive prolepsis is especially common with a limited number of predicates, including denken'to think', geloven'to believe', hopen'to hope', vermoeden'to suspect', vertellen'to tell', vrezen'to fear', (niet) weten'to know (not)' zeggen'to say', and zich afvragen'to wonder'. The unacceptability of example (236b) follows immediately if the predicate vertrekken'to leave' is not able to license a proleptic van-phrase. The wh-movement approach to resumptive prolepsis, on the other hand, would have to explain why adjuncts differ from embedded questions in this respect, which will be difficult in the light of the fact that they both behave as strong islands in other contexts.

236

a.	*	Welk berichti	vertrok	Peter	[nadat	hij ti	gelezen	had]?
		which message	left	Peter	after	he	read	had

b.	*	Van welk berichti	vertrok	Peter	[nadat	hij	heti	gelezen	had]?
		of which message	left	Peter	after	he	it	read	had

For completeness' sake, we conclude by noting that resumptive prolepsis is also possible in constructions such as (237b'), in which the proleptic phrase is associated with the adverbial proform er'there'.

237

a.	Jan wist	niet	dat/of	ik	in Amsterdam	gewoond	had.
	Jan knew	not	that.if	I	in Amsterdam	lived	had
	'Jan didnt know that/whether I had lived in Amsterdam.'

b.		In welke stad	wist	Jan niet ?dat/*of	ik	gewoond ti	had.
		in which town	knew	Jan not that/if	I	lived	had

b'.		Van welke stad	wist	Jan niet	?dat/*of	ik	er	gewoond	had.
		of which town	knew	Jan not	that/if	I	there	lived	had

References:

Barbiers, Sjef1998Gaps and remnantsBarbiers, Sjef, Rooryck, Johan & Weijer, Jeroen van der (eds.)Small words in the big picture. Squibs for Hans BennisLeidenHolland Institute of Generative Linguistcs
Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
Boeckx, Cedric2012Syntactic islandsCambridge (UK)/New YorkCanbridge University Press
Hoeksema, Jack2006<i>Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja</i>: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door <i>van</i>Tabu35135-158
Huang, Cheng-Teh James1982Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of GrammarCambridge, MAMITThesis
Huang, Cheng-Teh James1982Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of GrammarCambridge, MAMITThesis
Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique1985Theta-theory and extraction [abstract]GLOW Newsletter1457-8
Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
Müller, Gereon2011Constraints on displacement. A phase-based approachAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company
Ross, John1967Constraints on variables in syntaxBloomingtonIndiana university linguistics club
Salzmann, Martin2006Resumptive prolepis. A study in indirect A'-dependenciesUniversity of LeidenThesis
Salzmann, Martin2006Resumptive prolepis. A study in indirect A'-dependenciesUniversity of LeidenThesis
Szabolsci, Anna2006Strong vs. weak islandsEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwel companion to syntax4Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Szabolsci, Anna2006Strong vs. weak islandsEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwel companion to syntax4Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Szabolsci, Anna2006Strong vs. weak islandsEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwel companion to syntax4Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Vries, Mark de2014Across-the-Board Phenomena
Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press
Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press
Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Publication date: 22 November 2023

Keywords: AdjunctArgument PositionCoordinate StructureExtractionInterrogative ClauseMovementOperatorNoun PhrasePositionQuestionPolarity OperatorResumptive ProlepsisSubject ClauseWh-question

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles