Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.3.3.Differences between clausal complements and relative clauses

quickinfo

Clausal modifiers within the noun phrase can be divided into complement and relative clauses, for which we will occasionally use the abbreviations CC and RC. Despite the fact that the two types of clauses fulfill different functions, they may sometimes be difficult to distinguish. This is due to the fact that, although not entirely identical in form, both complement and relative clauses can take the form of a (restrictive) dat-clause. This is illustrated in (649): in (649a) we are dealing with a complement dat-clause that defines the contents of the proposition noun feit'fact', whereas in (649b) we are dealing with a relative dat-clause that serves to identify the particular fact in question and enables the addressee to pick out the intended referent from a potential set of facts.

649

a.	Het feit [CC	dat	de aarde	rond	is],	werd	door niemand	betwist.
	the fact	that	the earth	round	is	was	by no.one	contested
	'The fact that the earth was round was contested by no one.'

b.	Het feit [RC`	dat	door niemand	betwist	werd],	is	dat	de aarde	rond	is.
	the fact	that	by no.one	contested	was	is	that	the earth	round	is
	'The fact that was contested by no.one is that the earth is round.'

Although different types of analysis are available, we will assume for the sake of concreteness that the two types of clause occupy different positions within the noun phrase: complement clauses occur closest to the nominal head, whereas restrictive relative clauses adjoin at some higher level. The representations in (650) and (651) demonstrate the different positions within the noun phrase; the abbreviations comp and rel stand for, respectively, complementizer and relative pronoun (see Subsection II). The next two subsections will subsequently discuss the relevant differences in function and form between complement and relative clauses.

650

a.	D	[NP	N	[CC	comp			]]
b.	het	[NP	feit	[CC	dat	de aarde	rond	is]]
	the		fact		that	the earth	round	is
	'the fact that the earth is round'

651

a.	D	[NP	N ]i	[RC	reli	... ]
b.	de	[NP	fiets ]i	[RC	diei	Jan kocht]
	the		bike		that	Jan bought

I. Differences in function
II. Syntactic differences

[+] I. Differences in function

Section 1.2.2.2 has shown that complement clauses specify the contents of the noun, and can therefore only follow proposition or speech-act nouns. These complement clauses are normally obligatorily selected, or at least semantically implied, by these nouns. Some examples are given again in (652).

652

a.	de veronderstelling	[dat	er	leven	is op Mars]Theme	proposition noun
	the supposition	that	there	life	is on Mars
	'the supposition that there is life on Mars'

b.	de bewering	dat	de aarde	rond	is	speech-act noun
	the assertion	that	the earth	round	is
	'the assertion that the earth is round'

Restrictive relative clauses, on the other hand, can be used to modify any type of noun, whether basic or derived, abstract or concrete. Examples are given in (653).

653

a.	het boek	dat	ik	gisteren	gekocht	heb
	the book	that	I	yesterday	bought	have
	'the book that I bought yesterday'

b.	de gebeurtenis	die	vanmorgen	plaatsvond
	the event	that	this morning	took.place
	'the event that took place this morning'

c.	het feit	dat	door niemand	in twijfel	werd	getrokken
	the fact	that	by no.one	in doubt	was	drawn
	'the fact that was contested by no one'

d.	het verzoek	dat	door de werknemers	werd	gedaan
	the request	that	by the employees	was	done
	'the request that was made by the employees'

Like complement clauses, relative clauses may sometimes be required in order to arrive at a felicitous result. The reason for this is, however, different for the two types of construction. In the case of complement clauses, it is the semantics of the proposition/speech-act noun that requires the presence of a complement clause, which is clear from the fact that a complement clause in the primeless examples in (654) can only be left out if its content is retrievable from the context. This is also consistent with the fact illustrated by the primed examples that the noun phrases cannot be used as all-new statements, as indicated by the fact that the indefinite article cannot be used.

654

a.	#	Niemand	betwijfelde	het feit.
		no.one	doubted	the fact

a'.	*	Niemand	betwijfelde	een feit.
		no.one	doubted	a fact

b.	#	Jan begreep	de vraag.
		Jan understood	the question

b'.	*	Jan begreep	een vraag.
		Jan understood	a question

Restrictive relative clauses, on the other hand, are not thus required. The function of the relative clause is to provide information needed to identify the referent of the antecedent. If the antecedent is a definite noun phrase, leaving out the relative clause will typically result in a construction that provides insufficient information to uniquely identify the intended referent, and a request for more identifying information is likely to follow. Unlike the sentences in (654), however, use of an indefinite renders the sentence fully acceptable as an all-new statement.

655

a.	#	Niemand	kocht	het boek.
		no.one	bought	the book

a' .		Niemand	kocht	een boek.
		no.one	bought	a book

b.	#	Jan zag	het meisje.
		Jan saw	the girl

b'.		Jan zag	een meisje.
		Jan saw	a girl

A more extensive discussion of the function of finite clausal complements and restrictive relative clauses within the noun phrase can be found in, respectively, Section 2.3.1 and Section 3.3.2. The remainder of this section will be devoted to a discussion of the differences in form and syntactic behavior of the two types of clauses.

[+] II. Syntactic differences

The previous subsection has shown that complement clauses can only be used in combination with nouns that denote abstract content (proposition and speech act nouns), whereas relative clauses can be used to modify all common nouns. Next to this semantic difference, there are a number of syntactic differences between complement clauses and relative clauses. These involve the aspects given in Table 16, each of which will be discussed in more detail in the following subsections.

Table 16: Differences between complement and relative clauses

	complement clause	relative clause
Interpretative gap within clause	not present	present
Linker	complementizer	relative pronoun
Distribution	can also occur independently in argument or predicative position	can only be used with an antecedent
Modification of nominal head	does not combine freely with the superlative or comparative forms of the adjective	combines freely with the superlative and comparative forms of the adjective
Determiner selection	does not combine freely with the indefinite article	combines freely with the indefinite article

[+] A. The presence of an interpretative gap within the clause

Complement clauses differ from relative clauses in that only the latter contain an interpretative gap that is “filled” by the head of the nominal construction. This gap is the result of movement of the relative pronoun into the initial position of the clause, and will be referred to as trace (t). The relative pronoun takes the NP (the head noun and its optional modifiers) as its antecedent, which is therefore taken to fill the interpretative gap in the clause, and this enables the relative clause to provide additional information about the denotation of the NP. So, in (656) the relative pronoun dat'that' originates as the direct object of the relative clause and is moved into the initial position of the relative clause leaving the trace ti in its original position. The relative pronoun takes the NP feit as its antecedent, which is expressed by means of co-indexing. Consequently, feit is interpreted as the direct object of the relative clause, and as a result the modified NP denotes a subset of the set of facts, namely those accepted by everyone.

656

a.	D	[NP	N]i	[RC	reli	...	ti	... ]
b.	het	[NP	feit]i	[RC	dati	iedereen	ti	aanvaardde]
	the		fact		that	everyone		accepted
	'the fact that everyone accepted'

Complement clauses, on the other hand, simply specify the contents referred to by the noun phrase headed by a proposition or speech-act noun. There is no interpretative gap in the complement clause: no part of the complement clause is coreferential with the nominal head, which therefore does not play a role in the interpretation of the complement clause.

657

a.	D	[NP	N	[CC	comp	... ]]
b.	het	[NP	feit	[CC	dat	de aarde rond is]]
	the		fact		that	the earth round is
	'the fact that the earth is round'

For completeness’ sake, observe that the generalization that complement clauses do not contain an interpretative gap holds only for the declarative ones. Interrogative complement clauses introduced by a wh-word do, of course, contain a trace of the wh-word moved into initial position of the dependent clause, but they crucially differ from relative clauses in that the wh-word does not take the head noun as its antecedent.

658

		de vraag	[wati hij ti	feitelijk	gezegd	had]
		the question	what he	actually	said	had

[+] B. The form of the linker

Both complement and relative clauses contain an element linking them to the nominal head of the noun phrase: this linker takes the form of a complementizer in complement clauses, whereas in relative clauses the linker is a relative pronoun taking the NP (the head noun and its optional modifiers), as its antecedent. In many cases the form of the linker will reveal the status of the subordinate clause, but in some cases the complementizer and the relative element can take the same form.

[+] 1. The linker in complement clauses: complementizers and wh-words

Complement clauses can be introduced by a number of complementizers, depending on the semantic type of the noun they modify: proposition or speech-act noun, as well as the type of speech-act noun. If a complement clause construction is headed by a proposition noun, such as feit'fact', aanname'assumption' or geloof'belief', the complementizer dat must be used. This is shown in (659), as well as in (652) above.

659

a.	de aanname	dat	Jan komt
	the assumption	that	Jan comes
	'the assumption that Jan is coming'

b.	het geloof	dat	er	leven	is op Mars
	the belief	that	there	life	is on Mars
	'the belief that there is life on Mars'

If the head noun is a speech-act noun, the choice of complementizer depends on the illocutionary force of the speech-act noun. If the speech act concerned is a statement, promise, threat, or prediction, the declarative complementizer dat must be used, as illustrated by the constructions in (660a&b).

660

a.	de mededeling	dat	Jan komt
	the announcement	that	Jan comes
	'the announcement that Jan is coming'

b.	het bericht	dat	er	leven	is op Mars
	the news	comp	there	life	is on Mars
	'the news that there is life on Mars'

If the illocutionary force is that of a question, the form of the complementizer depends on the kind of question formulated in the complement clause: if the complement is the equivalent of a yes/no-question like (661a), the complementizer of will be used, as in (661a'); if the complement is the equivalent of a wh-question like (661b), the linker will take the form of a question word like wie'who', waarom'why' or hoe'how', as is shown in (661b').

661

a.	Komt	Jan morgen	ook?
	comes	Jan tomorrow	too
	'Is Jan also coming tomorrow?'

a'.	de vraag	of	Jan morgen	komt
	the question	comp	Jan tomorrow	comes
	'the question as to whether Jan is coming tomorrow'

b.	Wanneer/Waarom/Hoe	komt	Peter?
	when/why/how	comes	Peter
	'When/Why/How will Peter come?'

b'.	de vraag	wanneer/waarom/hoe	Peter komt
	the question	when/why/how	Peter comes
	'the question as to when/why/how Peter will come'

The examples in (662) show that if the speech act concerned is a request, order or suggestion, the complement typically takes the form of an infinitival clause (optionally preceded by the complementizer om); we have seen earlier that it is also marginally possible to use a finite clause introduced by of but we will not illustrate this here again; cf. (619d').

662

a.	het verzoek	(om) PRO	toegelaten	te worden
	the request	comp	admitted	to be
	'the request to be admitted'

b.	het bevel	(om) PRO	te vertrekken
	the order	comp	to leave
	'the order to leave'

[+] 2. The linker in restrictive relative clauses: relative pronouns

In relative clauses, the linker takes the form of a relative pronoun. These pronouns can take a number of forms. If the antecedent is an NP, the relative pronouns die and dat can be used, depending on the gender and the number features of the noun. Examples are given in (663).

663

	singular	plural
[-neuter]	de bal die daar ligt the ball that there lies ‘the ball that is lying there’	de ballen die daar liggen the balls that there lie ‘the balls that are lying there’
[+neuter]	het boek dat daar ligt the book that there lies ‘the book that is lying there’	de boeken die daar liggen the books that there lie ‘the books that are lying there’

But this does not exhaust the possibilities. For example, question words can function as relative pronouns, as in (664a), in which the antecedent NP refers to a place. The same thing holds for pronominal PPs, as in examples (664b&c), in which case the relativized element is the object of a PP. Where the antecedent has temporal reference, as in example (664d), the linker toen can be used, although the relative particle dat is usually preferred. There are more options but for these we refer the reader to Section 3.3.2.1; for our present purpose the examples in (663) and (664) suffice.

664

a.	de plaatsi	waari	ik	geboren ti	ben
	the place	rel	I	born	am
	'the place where I was born'

b.	de autoi	waarmeei	ik	op vakantie ti	ben	geweest
	the car	rel-with	I	on holiday	have	been
	'the car I went on holiday with'

c.	het boeki	waarini	ik	zit ti	te lezen
	the book	rel-in	I	sit	to read
	'the book Iʼm reading'

d.	de tijd	?toeni/dati	men	nog	per koets ti	reisde
	the time	when/that	one	still	by carriage	traveled
	'the days people traveled by carriage'

[+] 3. The linkers of the two constructions compared

The discussion above has shown that in many cases the nature of the subordinate clause is revealed by the form of the linker. For example, the linkers om and of can only be used as complementizers introducing complement clauses, whereas the linker die is a relative pronoun introducing relative clauses. The linker dat, however, can be used to introduce both complement and relative clauses. Here, we will show how the two cases can be distinguished.
The linker dat behaves syntactically in a different way in the two types of clauses. If dat functions as the complementizer in a complement clause, its form is invariable: in contrast to the relative pronouns in (663), it does not agree with the number and gender features of the head noun. Therefore, in cases of doubt all we have to do is to replace the singular head noun by a plural one and see whether the form of the linker changes: in the (a)-examples of (665) the form of the linker remains the same and we are therefore dealing with a complement clause; in the (b)-examples, the form of the linker changes from dat to die, which shows that we are dealing with a relative clause.

665

a.	het bericht	[dat	er	leven	op Mars	zou	zijn]	complement clause
	the report	that	there	life	on Mars	would	be
	'the news that there would be life on Mars'

a'.		de berichten	[dat	er	leven	op Mars	zou	zijn]
		the reports	that	there	life	on Mars	would	be

b.	het bericht	[dat	ons	bereikte]	relative clause
	the report	that	us	reached
	'the report that reached us'

b'.		de berichten	[die	ons	bereikten]
		the reports	that	us	reached

If the linker takes the form of a wh-word or a pronominal PP, the ambiguity still prevails, as these are insensitive to number and gender variation of the head noun. Of course, with proposition and declarative speech-act nouns the problem does not arise because such nouns can only be complemented by declarative clauses introduced by the complementizer dat; if such a noun is followed by a question word or a pronominal PP, as in (666), we must be dealing with a relative clause.

666

a.	Het feit waar	<aan>	niemand <aan>	twijfelde	was dat de aarde rond is.
	the fact where	on	no.one	doubted	was that the earth round is
	'The fact that no one contested was that the earth is round.'

b.	De veronderstelling	waar	<over>	veel discussie <over>	ontstond	was	of	er	leven	is op Mars.
	the supposition	where	about	much discussion	arose	was	whether	there	life	is on Mars
	'The supposition causing much discussion was whether there is life on Mars.'

However, if the speech-act noun involves a question, true ambiguity may occur. In example (667), for instance, the element waarover can introduce both a relative clause and an interrogative complement. In the former case, the pronominal part of the PP is coindexed with the NP vraag'question', which is therefore interpreted as the theme of the verb discussiëren'to discuss', and as a result, the clause provides information needed to identify the question referred to. In the latter case, the pronominal PP is interpreted independently of vraag and the following complement clause simply describes the contents of the question referred to.

667

a.	De vraagi	waariover	ze	discussieerden,	bleef	onbeantwoord.
	the question	where-about	they	discussed	remained	unanswered
	Relative clause: 'The question they discussed remained unanswered.'

b.	De vraag	waarover	ze	discussieerden,	bleef	onbeantwoord.
	the question	where-about	they	discussed	remained	unanswered
	Complement: 'The question of what they discussed remained unanswered.'

The difference is again exemplified by the sentences in (668). In the relative clause in (668a) the pronominal PP waarmee functions as a relative pronoun, coreferential with the antecedent vraag'question', which is therefore interpreted as the complement of the verb lastigvallen'to bother': as a result the relative clause provides information that is necessary to properly identify the intended question. In the complement clause in (668a) the pronominal part of the PP waarmee is interpreted independently of vraag; it refers to the instrument used to commit the murder, and the whole complement clause is simply specifying the contents of the question referred to.

668

a.	De vraagi	waarimee	hij	me bleef	lastigvallen	was zeer persoonlijk.
	the question	where-with	he	me kept	bother	was very personal
	'The question he kept harassing me with was very personal.'

b.	Hij	beantwoordde	de vraag	waarmee	hij	de moord	had gepleegd.
	he	answered.to	the question	where-with	he	the murder	had committed
	'He replied to the question about what he had committed the murder with.'

[+] C. Distribution of the complement and relative clause

There are also distributional differences between complement and relative clauses. These differences are due to the fact that relative clauses contain a relative pronoun that requires an antecedent, whereas complement clauses are not dependent on the noun in that same way. As a result, complement clauses are freer in their distribution: they may function, e.g., as the subject of the object of a verb, as in (669b).

669

a.	Niemand	geloofde	toen	[dat de aarde rond is].
	no.one	believed	then	that the earth round is
	'No one believed then that the earth is round.'

b.	[Dat de aarde rond is]	werd	toen	door niemand	geloofd.
	that the earth round is	was	then	by no.one	believed
	'That the earth is round was believed by no one then.'

They may even be used as the predicate in a copular construction, in which case they are predicated of a noun phrase headed by a proposition or speech-act noun, as in (670). This is, of course, hardly surprising, given that the nominal head denotes the same abstract entity as the clause.

670

a.	De nieuwste ontdekking	is [dat	de aarde	rond	is].
	the newest discovery	is that	the earth	round	is
	'The latest discovery is that the earth is round.'

b.	Het antwoord	was	[dat	de zaak	nog	onbeslist	was].
	the answer	was	that	the case	still	undecided	was
	'The answer was that the case was still undecided.'

c.	De vraag	is [of	we	dat	wel	willen].
	the question	is whether	we	that	prt	want
	'The question is whether we want that.'

Relative clauses, on the other hand, never occur independently; the clause contains a relative pronoun which needs an antecedent, and, consequently, the relative clause in (671a) can be used neither as an argument nor as a predicate of a copular construction. This is demonstrated by, respectively, (671b&c) and (671d).

671

a.	De veronderstellingi	diei	niet	aanvaard	werd,	was dat er leven is op Mars.
	the supposition	that	not	accepted	was	was that there life is on Mars
	'The supposition that wasnʼt accepted was that there is life on Mars.'

b.	*	Niemand	veronderstelde	diei	niet	aanvaard	werd.
		no.one	supposed	that	not	accepted	was

c.	*	Diei niet aanvaard werd,	werd	door niemand	verondersteld.
		that not accepted was	was	by no.one	supposed

d.	*	De veronderstelling	is diei	niet	aanvaard	werd.
		the supposition	is that	not	accepted	was

[+] D. Modification

Another difference between the complement and relative clauses stems from the different communicative functions they fulfill. Finite complement clauses express the contents of some proposition or speech-act noun. As such they can be said to be uniquely determining; there is only one fact, assumption, question, request, etc. with the particular contents specified in the complement clause. This can be supported by the fact that the adjectives interessant and triviaal in (672) can only be used on a nonrestrictive (purely property-assigning) reading.

672

a.		het interessante feit	dat	er	leven	is op Mars
		the interesting fact	that	there	life	is on Mars

b.		de triviale aanname	dat	de aarde	rond	is
		the trivial assumption	that	the earth	round	is

Another piece of evidence supporting this assumption is that NPs containing a complement clause cannot be modified by a superlative, since these presuppose a non-singleton set. Note in passing that Dutch lacks the non-superlative interpretation that is available for the English translations in (673), which amount to “extremely interesting fact/trivial assumption” or “the most interesting fact/trivial assumption possible”, and which does not involve selection from a presupposed set, but nonrestrictive assignment of a property.

673

a.	*	het interessantste feit	dat	er	leven	is op Mars
		the most interesting fact	that	there	life	is on Mars
		'the most interesting fact that there is life on Mars'

b.	*	de triviaalste aanname	dat	de aarde	rond	is
		the most trivial assumption	that	the earth	round	is
		'the most trivial assumption that the earth is round'

Use of the comparative form is possible, but only if the comparison involves some other fact altogether. In (674a), for instance, the fact referred to is compared to some other, possibly contextually evoked, fact, which is asserted to be less interesting; likewise, the sentence in (674b) is acceptable only in relation to some other, less trivial, assumption.

674

Het interessantere feit

dat er leven is op Mars

werd

geheim

gehouden

(*maar

niet

het

minder interessante

dat

water is).

the more interesting fact

that there life is on Mars

was

secret

kept

but

not

the

less interesting

that

there

water is

'The much more interesting fact that there is life on Mars was kept a secret (but not the less interesting fact that there is water).'

b.	De veel trivialere aanname	dat	de aarde	rond	is werd	door iedereen	aanvaard	(*maar	niet	de minder triviale).
	the much more trivial assumption	that	the earth	round	is was	by everyone	accepted	but	not	the less trivial
	'The much more trivial fact that the earth is round was accepted by everyone (but not the less trivial one).'

With relative clauses, such restrictions do not apply. Both the superlative and the comparative forms of the adjective can be used in their selective/comparative function, while adjectives can be used both restrictively and non-restrictively. Example (675a), for instance, implies that there is a larger set of facts, the most interesting of which was that there is life on Mars, and in (675b) a comparison is made between two facts, the more interesting of which is the one mentioned. In (675c), the adjective interessant is used contrastively: a set of two facts is implied, one interesting, the other uninteresting. Observe that a non-contrastive, nonrestrictive reading of the adjective is also possible; in that case the fact in question is simply assigned the property of being interesting.

675

a.		Het interessantste feit	dat	werd	aangetoond	was dat er leven is op Mars.
		the most interesting fact	that	was	proved	was that there life is on Mars

b.		Het interessantere feit	dat	werd	aangetoond	was dat er leven is op Mars.
		the more interesting fact	that	was	proved	was that there life is on Mars

c.		Het interessante feit	dat	werd	aangetoond	was dat er leven is op Mars.	(het oninteressante	dat	de aarde	rond	is).
		the interesting fact	that	was	proved	was that there life is on Mars	the uninteresting	that	the earth	round	is

[+] E. Determiner selection

A final difference between the two types of clauses can be accounted for along the same lines as the previous one: due to the fact that the contents of complement clauses serve to uniquely determine the entity referred to by the noun phrase, they can only be used in combination with the definite article (provided that the complement clause is the only modifying element); use of the indefinite article yields an unacceptable result. This is demonstrated in example (676).

676

a.		het/*een feit	dat	de aarde	rond	is
		the/a fact	that	the earth	round	is

b.		de/*een veronderstelling	dat	er	leven	is op Mars
		the/a supposition	that	there	life	is on Mars

c.		de/*een vraag	of	Jan komt
		the/a question	whether	Jan comes

Relative clauses, on the other hand, readily accept both the definite and the indefinite article, as shown by example (677).

677

a.	Het/Een feit	dat	niemand	in twijfel	trok	was dat de aarde rond was.
	the/a fact	that	no.one	in doubt	drew	was that the earth round was
	'The/A fact that no one doubted was that the earth was round.'

b.	De/Een veronderstelling	die niemand aanvaardde	was dat er leven is op Mars.
	the/a supposition	that no.one accepted	was that there life is on Mars
	'The/A supposition that no one accepted was that there is life on Mars.'

c.	De/Een vraag	die	niemand	kon beantwoorden	was of Jan was vertrokken.
	the/a question	that	no.one	could answer	was whether Jan had left
	'The/A question that nobody could answer was whether Jan had left.'

[+] F. A final note on infinitival complement clauses

Proposition nouns followed by infinitival complement clauses introduced by om differ from those followed by a finite complement clause in that they can be modified by an adjective and do accept the indefinite article. Some examples are given in (678).

678

a.	een dringend/het dringende verzoek	[om PRO	toegelaten	te worden]
	an urgent/the urgent request	comp	admitted	to be
	'an/the urgent request to be admitted'

b.		een plotseling/het plotselinge	bevel	[om PRO	te vertrekken]
		a sudden/the sudden	order	comp	to leave

c.	een/de grote angst [	om PRO	ontslagen	te worden]
	a/the great fear	comp	dismissed	to be
	'a/the great fear to be dismissed'

A possible explanation for this contrast with finite complement clauses can be found, first of all, in the fact that om-clauses do not, strictly speaking, specify the content of the head noun, but the purpose or cause of the action or emotion expressed by the proposition noun. As a result, the relation between the proposition noun and the complement clause need not be uniquely determined: there may be various ways of requesting to be admitted or of ordering a person to leave. In (678a), for instance, a particular type of request is referred to: the kind intended to achieve admission. The exact form of the request, however, is not specified.
An alternative explanation may focus on the fact that om-clauses are always non-factual, specifying requests, orders, wishes, possible situations and the like (see also Section 2.3.2). Again, this means that although the complement clause is certainly used to specify the proposition noun, noun phrase and clause do not share their reference. That something like this might be on the right track is also suggested by the fact that using the infinitival complements as the predicate of a copular clause is marked compared to the fully acceptable examples in (670), discussed in C, involving finite complement clauses.

679

a.	?	Het verzoek was	[om PRO	toegelaten	te worden].
		the request was	comp	admitted	to be
		'The request was to be admitted.'

b.	?	Het bevel	was	[om PRO	te vertrekken].
		the order	was	comp	to leave

c.	??	de grote angst	was [om PRO	ontslagen	te worden].
		a/the great fear	was comp	dismissed	to be
		'a/the great fear to be dismissed'

Note that the infinitival clause in (679a) can also be interpreted as a purpose clause. This is related to the fact that the om-clause in (680) can also be interpreted either as the complement of the noun or as an adverbial phrase indicating purpose. The fact that om-clauses in sentence-final position are typically interpreted as purpose clauses may well affect the judgments on (679). This concludes our discussion of complementation of nouns.

680

Hij	plaatste	het verzoek	[om PRO	toegelaten	te worden].
he	placed	the request	comp	admitted	to be
'He made the request (in order) to be admitted.'

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ComplementComplementizerConjunctionNounProposition NounRelativeRelative ClauseSpeech-act Noun

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

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

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles