/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
    Referentiality versus quantification
    quickinfo

    Syntax allows of the expression of bound variable binding just in case the antecedent and the bound pronoun involved occur within the same main clause. In case two elements occur in two different main clauses, they can only entertain a relation of referentiality. UCV2s turn out to be sensitive to this distinction, because no quantificational relation can be established between an element inside a UCV2 and something outside it. Furthermore, it turns out that the main clause structure in which the UCV2 is embedded must be referential as well.

    UCV2s cannot be embedded in a Verb-Final construction, as we saw. In addition, it is the case that the construction in which the UCV2 is embedded must be referential. Put differently, the matrix may not conflict with the asserted truth and declarative illocutionary force of the meaning of the UCV2. As a result, quantification is generally ruled out, except in rare cases in which the asserted truth of the UCV2 is left untouched.

    readmore

    Question formation is a specific instance of quantification. So a UCV2 is not allowed if it is embedded in a superordinate structure which has been questioned:

    1
    a. *Troch wa waard der ferteld dat it skip wie juster fergien?
    by whom was there told that the ship was yesterday perished
    By whom was it told that the ship had sunk yesterday?
    b. *Wa hie Jouke in boadskip stjoerd dat hy koe moarn net komme?
    who had Jouke a message sent that he could tomorrow not come
    Who had Jouke sent a message that he could not come tomorrow?
    c. *Is er sa siik dat hy kin dy hjoed net helpe?
    is he so ill that he can you today not help
    Is he so ill that he cannot help you today?

    Equivalent sentences without question formation are grammatical:

    2
    a. Der waard ferteld dat it skip wie juster fergien
    there was told that the ship was yesterday perished
    It was told that the ship had sunk yesterday
    b. Jouke hie my in boadskip stjoerd dat hy koe moarn net komme
    Jouke had me a message sent that he could tomorrow not come
    Jouke had sent me a message that he could not come tomorrow
    c. Hy is sa siik dat hy kin dy hjoed net helpe
    he is so ill that he can you today not help
    He is so ill that he cannot help you today

    This indicates that the question formation, an instance of quantification, can be a cause of ungrammaticality.

    Equivalent sentences in which the UCV2 is replaced with a Verb-Final clause are likewise grammatical, indicating that the sensitivity of UCV2 to the distinction between quantification and referentiality is a cause of ungrammaticality. Examples are provided below:

    3
    a. Troch wa waard der ferteld dat it skip juster fergien wie?
    by whom was there told that the ship yesterday perished was
    By whom was it told that the ship had sunk yesterday?
    b. Wa hie Jouke in boadskip stjoerd dat hy moarn net komme koe?
    who had Jouke a message sent that he tomorrow not come could
    Who had Jouke sent a message that he could not come tomorrow?
    c. Is er sa siik dat hy dy hjoed net helpe kin?
    is he so ill that he you today not help can
    Is he so ill that he cannot help you today?

    Similarly, just as question formation is excluded in the presence of a UCV2, the matrix construction cannot be negative nor may it contain modals:

    4
    a. *Der waard net ferteld dat it skip wie juster fergien
    there was not told that the ship was yesterday perished
    It was not told that the ship had sunk yesterday
    b. *Jouke soe my in boadskip stjoere dat hy koe moarn net komme
    Jouke would me a message send that he could tomorrow not come
    Jouke was going to send me a message that he could not come tomorrow

    The UCV2 must semantically represent a proposition that is true in a referential sense, that is, it is not accessible to quantificational modification by the matrix clause in which it is contained. This would tie in with an analysis which holds that the UCV2 and the matrix semantically containing it are two independent, successive expressions as far as syntax is concerned. The relation between the two is handled by the same principles which, though hardly studied, are also responsible for integrating strings of successive main clauses into a coherent whole.

    In rare cases, the asserted truth of the UCV2 is left untouched by a quantification in the matrix clause. In that case, the result is grammatical, as in the following example:

    5
    Hy woe net komme omdat hy moast Teake helpe
    he wanted not come because he must Teake helpe
    He could not come,because he had to help Teake

    So UCV2s are main clauses as far as syntax is concerned. They are interpreted as semantic objects in a superordinate structure through what may be termed the syntax of discourse, that is, they are interpreted as something that is reported, for example. This would seem to entail that the thematic role of direct object can also be assigned outside a main clause, to a string or sequence of main clauses, as in a story which is reported. This is not surprising since it is not just a sentence but a string of sentences which may be assigned the role of direct object to a verb of saying, as in the following example: He said, okay, I'll do it, I will visit the tribe, I will bring them fire.

    References
      About this article
      Author(s): Eric Hoekstra
      Category: Frisian Syntax
      Keywords: referentialityquantificationUCV2
      Version: 1.0, December 2015
      Version history:
      version editor(s) date remarks
      1.0 Eric Hoekstra December 2015
      printreport errorcite
      Jump to:
      X