Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.2.2.The form and function of the relative elements

quickinfo

The relative element linking a relative clause to a matrix clause can take many forms. Table 3 gives an overview of the various relative elements that will be discussed in this section. The list is not intended as exhaustive, but simply illustrates some typical cases. The mark <f> indicates that the form in question is part of the formal register of the language.

Table 3: Relative elements in Dutch

type	form	features of the antecedent	subsection
Pronouns	die	-neuter, singular or ±neuter, plural	I
	dat	+neuter, singular
	wie	+human
	wat	-human, +neuter, singular, AP, VP or CP
	welke<f>	-neuter, singular or ±neuter, plural
	hetgeen<f>	AP, VP or CP
Possessive pronouns	wiens<f>	+human, +masc, singular	II
	wier<f>	+human, +fem, singular or +human, plural
R-pronouns	waar (+P)	no restrictions	III
Adverbial phrases	waar waarop waarin zoals	+locative +temporal or +manner +temporal	IV
Particle	dat	+temporal	V

Table 3 shows that the choice normally depends on certain features of the antecedent, such as number and gender. In (87), for example, the relative pronoun dat can only occur if the antecedent is a singular, neuter noun like boek'book'; if the antecedent is plural or non-neuter, the relative noun die must be used.

a.	Het boek	dat	ik	gekocht	heb,	gaat	over de oorlog.
	the book	that	I	bought	have	goes	about the war
	'The book Iʼve bought is about the war.'

b.	De boeken	die	ik	gekocht	heb,	gaan	over de oorlog.
	the book	that	I	bought	have	goes	about the war
	'The book Iʼve bought is about the war.'

c.	De man	die	naast mij	woont,	speelt	goed	piano.
	the man	who	next.to me	lives	plays	well	piano
	'The man who lives next to me plays the piano well.'

In other cases, it is the function of the antecedent in the main clause that determines which element can or must be used. The relative pronouns dat and die in (87), for example, cannot occur as the complement of a preposition; in these cases we use the relative pronoun wie or the R-pronounwaar in (88a&b). Similarly, possessive relative pronouns can only be used if they function as the possessor of a noun phrase.

a.	De vriend	aan wie	ik	mijn fiets	heb	geleend,	woont	hiernaast.
	the friend	to whom	I	my bike	have	lent	lives	next.door
	'The friend I lent my bike to lives next door.'

b.	De auto	waarmee	ik	op vakantie	ben	geweest,	is gestolen.
	the car	where-with	I	on holiday	am	been	is stolen
	'The car that Iʼve been on holiday with has been stolen.'

c.	De vriend	wiens fiets	ik	heb	geleend,	woont	hiernaast.
	the friend	whose bike	I	have	borrowed	lives	next.door
	'The friend whose bike Iʼve borrowed lives next door.'

Relative elements that function as adverbial phrases come in various sorts. Some examples are given in (89): in (89a), for example, the relative element takes the form of the R-pronoun waar, and in (89b) the form of the relative particle dat.

a.	Ik herinner	me	nog	de dag	waarop	het	gebeurde.	relative adverb
	I remember	refl	still	the day	where-on	it	happened
	'I still remember the day on which it happened.'

b.	De week	dat	ik	op vakantie	was,	was	het	mooi weer.	relative particle
	the week	that	I	on holiday	was	was	it	nice weather
	'The week I was on holiday the weather was nice.'

The following subsections will discuss these relative elements. The discussion concludes in Subsection VI with an overview of the circumstances in which the elements in Table 3 can be used.

I. Relative pronouns
II. Possessive relative pronouns
III. The relative pronominal PP waar + P
- A. Features of the antecedent
- B. Syntactic function of the pronoun
IV. Relative adverbial phrases
V. The relative particle dat
- A. Form: the relative particle is invariable
- B. Function: the relative particle is an adverbial adjunct of time
VI. Conclusion

[+] I. Relative pronouns

This subsection discusses the relative elements from the first row in Table 3, that is, the colloquial relative pronouns die, dat, wie, and wat, as well as the more formal forms welke and hetgeen. As is indicated in Table 3, the relative pronoun wat can also be used with non-nominal antecedents, and the relative pronoun hetgeen is even used so exclusively. As our present concern is with postmodification of the noun phrase, a discussion of these pronouns in constructions such as (90) would, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of the present subsection. However, as such a strict approach would leave the discussion of relative elements in Dutch incomplete, and since the constructions in question have much in common with the other ones dealt with in this subsection, we will include these constructions in our discussion.

a.	[Jan was niet op tijd],	wat/hetgeen	erg vervelend	was.	CP
	Jan was not on.time	what	very annoying	was
	'Jan wasnʼt on time, which was very annoying.'

b.	Ik probeer	[(om) op tijd te komen],	wat/hetgeen	misschien	lukt.	CP/IP
	I try	comp on time to come	what	maybe	succeeds
	'Iʼll try to be on time, which I may succeed in.'

c.	Jan [kocht een nieuwe auto],	wat/hetgeen	Peter	ook	wel	wou.	VP
	Jan bought a new car	what	Peter	also	prt	wanted
	'Jan bought a new car, which Peter also would have liked to do.'

d.	Jan is [zeer intelligent],	wat/hetgeen	Peter niet	is.	AP
	Jan is very intelligent	what	Peter not	is
	'Jan is very intelligent, which Peter is not.'

Most relative pronouns can be used both in restrictive and in non-restrictive relative clauses. In what follows, restrictive relative clauses will be used as examples in those cases in which both types can be used. When a particular (use of) pronoun is restricted to one of the two types, this will be explicitly mentioned.

[+] A. Die/dat'that'

The relative pronouns die and dat can be seen as the standard pronouns in relative clauses with nominal antecedents. Relative clauses introduced by the pronouns die/dat can be given the global structural representations in the examples in (91); the concrete examples exemplify this for the case in which the relative pronoun functions as the subject of the clause. In this subsection, we will focus on the properties of the relative pronouns.

Restrictive relative clause: [DP D [NP [... N ...]i [RC RELi .... ti ....]]]

[DP	de [NP	studenti [RC	diei [DPti ]	mijn boek	heeft geleend]]]
[DP	the	student	who	my book	has borrowed
'the student who borrowed my book'

Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]i , [RC RELi .... ti ....]]

[DP	de [NP	student]i , [RC	diei [DPti ]	mijn boek	heeft geleend]]
[DP	the	student	who	my book	has borrowed
'the student, who borrowed my book'

[+] 1. Features of the antecedent

The pronouns die and dat can be used with antecedents referring to both human and non-human referents. Which of the two pronouns is used depends on the gender and number of the antecedent: die is used for -neuter, singular or ±neuter, plural antecedents, whereas dat can only be used in the case of a +neuter, singular antecedent. In other words, dat can only be used with antecedents that take the neuter definite article het, and die is used in all other cases. This is illustrated in Table 4. Note that we gloss die/dat as who when the antecedent is +human and as that when the antecedent is -human, in accordance with the preferred English rendering of the pronoun.

Table 4: Antecedents of the relative pronoun die/dat

		singular	plural
[-neuter]	[+human]	de man die daar loopt the man who there walks ‘the man who is walking there’	de mannen die daar lopen the men who there walk ‘the men who are walking there’
	[-human]	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]	[+human]	het kind dat daar speelt the child who there plays ‘the child who is playing there’	de kinderen die daar spelen the children who there play ‘the children who are playing there’
	[-human]	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’

Note, however, that in informal language the pronoun die is increasingly used with +neuter, singular antecedents if the antecedent has a +human or +animate referent. Thus, instead of the expressions in (92a&b), we may find the corresponding primed examples.

a.	het/een	meisje	dat daar woont
	the/a	girldim	that there lives
	'the girl who lives there'

a'.

het/een meisje die daar woont

b.	het/een	hondje	dat daar loopt
	the/a	dogdim	that there walks
	'the little dog that walks there'

b'.

het hondje die daar loopt

It is not entirely clear what the scope of this use is. Haeseryn et al. (1997: 330) provides a couple of examples that involve non-restrictive relative clauses with nouns referring to a person, including an example involving the diminutive of a proper noun; cf. http://taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/208.

a.	Kareltje,	die	gejokt	had,	kreeg	een standje.
	Kareltje	who	fibbed	had	got	a reproach
	'Kareltje, who had been telling a fib, got a reproach.'

b.	Zijn meisje,	die bij ons werkt,	is met vakantie.
	his girlfriend	who with us works	is on vacation
	'His girlfriend, who is working with us, is on vacation.'

c.	Het hoofd van de afdeling,	die hier al jaren werkt,	is ontslagen.
	the head of the department	who here already years works,	has.been fired
	'The head of the department, who has been working here for years, has been fired.'

Still, it is not the case that this use is restricted to non-restrictive relative clauses: it is easy to find examples involving restrictive relative clauses on the internet. Two clear cases are given in (94): the first is the title of a story on You tube and the second is part of a review of a theatrical performance.

a.	een verhaal	over een meisje	die	dacht	dat liefde echt was
	a story	about a girl	who	thought	that love true was
	'a story about a girl who thought that love was true'

b.	Hij	was het jongetje	die	in het oefenpartijtje	scoorde.
	he	was the boy	who	during the exercise	scored
	'He was the boy who scored during the exercise.'

It has been suggested that the examples such as (92a) are common due to the fact that the neuter gender of the nominal head clashes with the sex of the referent of the noun phrase; cf.http://onzetaal.nl/advies/diedat.php. This might indeed be relevant, but it cannot be the whole story given that examples such as (92b') can be found in contexts that provide no indication of the sex of the dog: in this case, it seems the grammatical gender of the stem of the diminutive form that is the determining factor. It seems clear that more research is needed before we can say anything definitive about this phenomenon.

[+] 2. Quantified antecedents

The relative pronouns die and dat can combine with various types of quantified antecedents. This is shown in (95) for existentially quantified noun phrases, and in (96) for universally quantified noun phrases.

a.	iemand/niemand	die	ik	ken
	somebody/nobody	who	I	know
	'somebody/nobody I know'

b.	iets/niets	dat	ik	gezien	heb
	something/nothing	that	I	seen	have
	'something/nothing I saw'

a.	alle jongens	die	ik	ken
	all boys	who	I	know
	'all boys I know'

b.	elke jongen	die	ik	ken
	each boy	who	I	know
	'each boy I know'

In archaic and literary (poetic) Dutch, the relative pronoun die can also take the quantified pronoun al'all' as its antecedent, resulting in such constructions as Al die dit leest is gek'all who read this are mad'. In (formal) Dutch, however, the relative pronoun wie is preferred in this context; cf. Subsection B2, below.

[+] 3. Free and semi-free relative constructions

The relative pronoun die can also be used in so-called semi-free relative constructions, that is, restrictive relative clauses with an antecedent that has little semantic content and no independent reference. In these constructions, die is used with the antecedents degene(n) and diegene(n)'the one(s)', both of which are used for +human referents only.

a.	Wil	d(i)egene	die zijn auto	voor de ingang	heeft geparkeerd	deze	a.u.b.	verwijderen?
	wants	the/that.one	who his car	in.front.of the entrance	has parked	this	please	remove
	'Would the person who parked his car in front of the entrance please remove it?'

b.	D(i)egenen	die	zich	hebben	ingeschreven	krijgen	spoedig	bericht.
	the/those.ones	who	refl	have	registered	receive	soon	news
	'The/those persons who have registered will soon be informed.'

The relative pronoun dat does not seem to be favored in these constructions: the -human antecedent dat must be followed by the relative pronoun wat, which is probably motivated by the fact that use of dat would lead to haplology. But with datgene as well the use of wat seems much favored, although numerous examples with dat can be found on the internet.

a.	Dat	wat/*dat	ik gisteren	gekocht	heb	is nu	alweer	kapot.
	that	which/which	I yesterday	bought	have	is now	already	broken
	'What I bought yesterday is already broken now.'

b.	Datgene	wat/%dat	ik gisteren	gekocht	heb	is nu	alweer	kapot.
	that	which/which	I yesterday	bought	have	is now	already	broken
	'What I bought yesterday is already broken now.'

Since the antecedent in semi-free relative constructions does not have independent reference, relative clauses of this type are always restrictive. For completeness’ sake, example (99) shows that neither die nor dat can be used in free relative constructions, that is, these relative pronouns always require an overtly realized antecedent.

a.	*	Die	dit	leest	is gek.
		who	this	reads	is mad

b.	*	Die	te laat	komt	wordt	gestraft.
		who	too late	comes	is	punished

[+] 4. Syntactic function of the relative pronoun

In (100), it is shown that the relative pronouns die and dat can have the same syntactic functions as a regular noun phrase, namely, as the subject or an object of the relative clause.

100

a.	de student	die	mijn boek	heeft	geleend	subject
	the student	who	my book	has	borrowed
	'the student who has borrowed my book'

b.	de student	die	ik	gisteren	heb	ontmoet	direct object
	the student	who	I	yesterday	have	met
	'the student I met yesterday'

c.	de student	die	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven	indirect object
	the/a student	who	I	yesterday	a book	have	given
	'the/a student I gave a book to yesterday'

The examples in (101) show that the relative pronouns die and dat cannot function as the complement of a preposition, regardless of whether the PP is an argument, as in (101a&b), or an adverbial phrase, as in (101c&d). In this respect these pronouns behave like personal pronouns that refer to inanimate entities; cf. Section P5.1.

101

a.	*	de student [PP	aan die]	ik	mijn boek	heb	gegeven
		the student	to whom	I	my book	have	given

b.	*	het boek [PP	van dat]	ik	de kaft	heb	gescheurd
		the book	of which	I	the cover	have	torn

c.	*	de vriend [PP	met die]	ik	op vakantie	ben	geweest
		the friend	with whom	I	on holiday	have	been

d.	*	het huis [PP	in dat]	ik	geboren	ben
		the house	in which	I	born	am

Note that stranding of the preposition, as in (102), does not improve matters, which is of course consistent with the fact that Dutch does not allow preposition stranding by extracting a noun phrase; cf. Section P5. Note in passing that mee in (102c) is the stranded form of the preposition met.

102

de student diei ik mijn boek [PP aan ti] heb gegeven

het boek dati ik de kaft [PP van ti] heb gescheurd

de vriend diei op vakantie [PP mee ti] ben geweest

het huis dati ik [PP in ti] geboren ben

This means that Dutch must appeal to other means to express the intended meanings. Subsection B below will show that, in the case of +human antecedents, this can be done by replacing die/dat by the pronoun wie. An alternative option, which is also available if the antecedent is -human and which will be discussed in Subsection III, is to use a (split) pronominal PP waar ... P.
The examples in (103) and (104) show that die/dat can also be used in restrictive relative clauses with an antecedent functioning as a complementive. This is possible regardless of whether the relative pronoun functions as an argument or a predicate in the relative clause. This is shown in the (a)- and (b)-examples, respectively. Relative clauses of this sort will be discussed more extensively in Section 3.3.2.3.3, sub IC.

103

a.	Ik	ben	niet	de dwaas	die men denkt dat ik ben.	complementive
	I	am	not	the fool	who one thinks that I am
	'Iʼm not the fool people think I am.'

b.	Ik	ben	niet	een dwaas	die altijd doet wat hem gezegd wordt.	argument
	I	am	not	a fool	who always does what him said is
	'Iʼm not a fool who always does as he is told.'

104

a.	Ik	vind	Jan niet	de dwaas	die men denkt dat hij is.	complementive
	I	find	Jan not	the fool	who one thinks that he is
	'I donʼt consider Jan the fool people think he is.'

b.	Ik	vind	Jan	een dwaas	die altijd doet wat hem gezegd wordt.	argument
	I	find	Jan	a fool	who always does what him said is
	'I consider Jan a fool who always does as he is told.'

[+] 5. Possessive use

In some varieties of spoken Dutch, the relative pronoun die is sometimes used in possessive constructions such as (105a), in which it is followed by the reduced possessive pronouns zʼn'his' or dʼr'her', which can also be found in possessive constructions like Jan zʼn boek'Janʼs book' and Marie dʼr boek'Marieʼs book'. Example (105a') shows that the resulting construction, which is considered substandard and is not acceptable to all speakers of Dutch, is restricted to the singular, which may be related to the fact that the third person plural possessive pronoun hun'their' does not have a reduced form; cf. the discussion in Section 5.2.2.5, sub I. Example (105b) shows that the relative pronoun dat markedly differs from die in that it can never be used in this way.

105

a.	%	de docent	die zʼn boek	ik	heb	geleend
		the teacher	who his book	I	have	borrowed
		'the teacher whose book Iʼve borrowed'

a'.	*	de studenten	die hun examens	ik	heb	nagekeken
		the students	who their exams	I	have	corrected
		'the students whose exams Iʼve corrected'

b.	*	het meisje	dat dʼr moeder	ik	ken
		the girl	who her mother	I	know

[+] B. Wie'who'

The relative pronoun wie differs sharply from die/dat in that it is typically used as the complement of a PP, as in the structures in (106). The indices indicate the relations with the structure: the index i indicates that the full PP has been moved into the initial position of the relative clause, and the index j indicates that the noun (phrase) modified by the relative clause acts as the antecedent of the relative pronoun. The relative pronoun can sometimes also be used as a nominal argument in the relative clause, that is, with the structure in (91), but its use is then more restricted than that of die/dat.

106

a.	Restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]j [RC [PP P wiej ]i ... ti ...]]]
	[DP	de [NP	studentj [RC	[aan wiej]i	ik [PPti ]	mijn boek	heb	gegeven]]]
	[DP	the	student	to who(m)	I	my book	have	given
	'the student to whom I gave the book'

b.	Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]i , [RC [PP P wiej ]i ... ti ...]]
	[DP	de [NP	student] j , [RC	[aan wiej]i	ik [PPti ]	mijn boek	heb	gegeven]]
	[DP	the	student	to who(m)	I	my book	have	given
	'the student, to whom I gave the book'

[+] 1. Features of the antecedent

The relative pronoun wie is restricted to +human referents and can be used regardless of the gender, number or definiteness of its antecedent. This is illustrated in examples (107).

107

a.	de/een studentnon-neuter	aan wie	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
	the/a student	to who	I	yesterday	a book	have	given
	'the/a student who I have given a book yesterday'

b.		het/een meisjeneuter	aan wie	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
		the/a girl	to whom	I	yesterday	a book	have	given

c.		de studenten/meisjes	aan wie	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
		the students/girls	to whom	I	yesterday	a book	have	given

[+] 2. Quantified antecedents

Example (108) shows that it is not easy for wie to take an existentially or universally quantified antecedent: the pronoun die is generally the strongly preferred option in that case. This is shown by (108).

108

a.	(n)iemand	die/*?wie	ik	ken
	no/somebody	who/who	I	know
	'no/somebody I know'

b.	iedereen	die/*wie	ik	ken
	everyone	who/who	I	know
	'everyone I know'

The examples in (109a&b) show, however, that the pronoun wie can be used to modify the universally quantified pronoun al'all' if this pronoun is used to refer to persons, although this particular use is characterized by a high degree of formality. Note that the antecedent and pronoun can both be interpreted either as singular or (perhaps somewhat marked) as plural, as shown by the form of the finite verbs of the main and relative clause.

109

a.		Al wie aanwezig was,	werd	ondervraagd.
		all who present was	was	interrogated

b.	?	Al wie aanwezig waren,	werden	ondervraagd.
		all who present were	were	interrogated

Example (110a) shows that the universally quantified pronoun al cannot be used without the relative clause introduced by wie. This also explains why it cannot be used with a non-restrictive relative clause, as shown in (110b). For more details on the quantifier al, see Section 7.1.2.1.

110

a.	*	Al	werd/werden	ondervraagd.
		all	was/were	interrogated

b.	*	Al, wie aanwezig waren,	werden	ondervraagd.
		all who present were	were	interrogated

[+] 3. Free and semi-free relative constructions

Relative clauses introduced by the pronoun wie can readily be used as free relatives, that is, without a phonetically expressed antecedent. Some examples are given in (111). Free relatives occur most frequently as the subject of a generic matrix clause like (111a&b), but (111c) shows that it is certainly not impossible to use a free relative subject to refer to a specific individual.

111

a.	[Wie	dit	leest]	is gek.
	who	this	reads	is mad
	'Whoever reads this is mad.'

b.	[Wie	te laat	komt]	wordt gestraft.
	who	too late	comes	is punished
	'Whoever comes late will be punished.'

c.	[Wie	daar	staat]	is erg knap.
	who	there	stands	is very handsome
	'The person standing there is very handsome.'

In (111) there is matching in syntactic function between the free relative in the main clause and the relative pronoun in the relative clause, but it is also possible to have a mismatch between these two functions. In (112a), for example, the free relative functions as the subject of the main clause, whereas the relative pronoun functions as the direct object of the relative clause. The acceptability of (112a) contrasts sharply with the ungrammaticality of the German example in (112b) (cf. Van Riemsdijk 2006: 353), which is generally attributed to the fact that, unlike Dutch, German has morphological case: the relative pronoun in the German example must be accusative in order to be able to perform its role within the relative clause, but nominative in order for the free relative clause to perform its role in the main clause: this morphological clash, which is absent in Dutch, causes the ungrammaticality of (112b).

112

a.	[Wie	hij	niet	kent]	is onbelangrijk.
	who	he	not	knows	is unimportant
	'Who he doesnʼt know is unimportant.'

b.	*	[Wen/wer	Got	schwach	geschaffen	hat],	muss	klug	sein.
		whoacc/whonom	God	weak	created	has	must	clever	be
		'Who God has created weak must be clever.'

The examples in (113) show that free relatives can also function as direct objects; again the free relative can have a generic or a specific interpretation. These examples show again that Dutch is not subject to a matching restriction: the free relative clauses in (113) function as direct objects of the main clauses whereas the relative pronouns function as subjects of the relative clauses. In German, examples such as (113) are reported to be ungrammatical or archaic; see Van Riemsdijk (2006: 355-6) for discussion.

113

a.	Ik	bewonder	wie	zoiets	kan.
	I	admire	who	such.thing	can
	'I admire whoever is able to do such a thing.'

b.	We	straften	[wie	dat	gedaan	had]	streng.
	we	punished	who	that	done	had	severely
	'We have punished the person who did it.'

Example (114a), taken from the internet, shows that a free relatives can also be used as the complement of a preposition, although it should be noted that using a free relative as part of an indirect object introduced by aan'to', as in (113b), seems less favored than using a nominal indirect object.

114

a.	Het is een hel	als	je wacht	op	[wie	er	het eerste	dood	gaat].
	it is a hell	if	one waits	for	who	there	the first	dead	goes
	'Itʼs hell if one waits for who will die first.'

b.	Ik zal	[(?aan)	wie	daar	om	gevraagd	heeft]	een exemplaar	toesturen.
	I will	to	who	there	for	asked	has	a copy	prt.-send
	'Weʼll send a copy to whoever asked for one.'

A free relative is normally analyzed as a noun phrase headed by a phonetically empty antecedent for the relative pronoun noun wie, and not as a clause (Van Riemsdijk 2006). Evidence in favor of this claim is that the free relatives with wie have the syntactic distribution of noun phrases, and not that of clauses: they must precede the verbs in clause-final position, even if an anticipatory pronoun is present. This is illustrated in (115) by means of free relatives functioning as the subject and the object of the clause, respectively.

115

a.	dat	[wie	dit	leest]	gek	is.
	that	who	this	reads	mad	is
	'that whoever will read this is mad.'

a'.	*	dat	(het/hij)	gek	is	[wie	dit	leest].
		that	it/he	mad	is	who	this	reads

b.	We	zullen	[wie	dit	gedaan	heeft]	streng	straffen.
	we	will	who	this	done	has	severely	punish
	'We will severely punish whoever has done this.'

b'.	*	We	zullen	(het/hem)	streng	straffen	[wie	dit	gedaan	heeft].
		we	will	it/him	severely	punish	who	this	done	has

The examples in (116) show that the semi-free relative constructions are marked, both compared to the corresponding free relatives in (111) and semi-free relatives like (97b&c) with the relative pronoun die.

116

a.	Degene/Diegene	die/??wie dit leest	is gek.
	the.one/that.one	who/who this reads	is mad
	'Anyone who will read this is mad.'

b.	Degene/Diegene	die/??wie	te laat komt	wordt gestraft.
	the.one/that.one	who/who	too late comes	is punished
	'Anyone whoʼs late will be punished.'

Although the more or less idiomatic constructions in (117a&b) resemble free relative constructions, they are different in a number of ways. First, the particle ook is obligatorily present and adds a concessive meaning of the construction (“no matter who you ask/see...”), as a result of which the construction as a whole is more or less equivalent to constructions with a universal quantifier: (117a) could be paraphrased as “Everyone is giving the same answer” and (117b) as “Everyone has a mobile telephone”. Second, the primed examples show that it is completely impossible for the construction to take an overt antecedent or to appear in the form of a semi-free relative construction.

117

a.	Wie	je	er	ook	naar	vraagt,	ze	zeggen	allemaal	hetzelfde.
	who	you	there	prt	prt.	asks	they	say	all	the.same
	'No matter who you ask, they all give the same answer.'

a'.

Degene wie je er ook naar vraagt, ze zeggen allemaal hetzelfde.

b.	Wie je ook ziet,	ze	hebben	allemaal	een mobiele telefoon.
	who you prt see	they	have	all	a mobile phone
	'Whoever you see, they all have a cellular phone.'

b'.

Degene wie je ook ziet, ze hebben allemaal een mobiele telefoon.

The wie-constructions in the primeless examples furthermore do not act as arguments, but more like clausal adjuncts. Since Dutch is a verb-second language, the finite verb in declarative main clauses is preceded by a single constituent, and since the subject occupies this position in the primeless examples in (117), the wie-phrase must be clause-external. This conclusion is also supported by the fact illustrated by (118) that, in contrast to regular constituents of the clause, the wie-phrase cannot occupy the first position of the clause itself.

118

a.	*	Wie	je	er	ook	naar	vraagt	zeggen	ze	allemaal	hetzelfde.
		who	you	there	prt	prt.	asks	say	they	all	the.same

b.	*	Wie je ook ziet	hebben	ze	allemaal	een mobiele telefoon.
		who you prt see	have	they	all	a mobile phone

For completeness’ sake, note that according to Haeseryn et al. (1997: 361) modifiers like onverschillig'indifferent' and om het even'irrespective' may perform the same function as the particle ook in (117). Here we quote one example; to our ear, the use of onverschillig sounds rather formal and somewhat forced.

119

Om het even/Onverschillig	wie	hij	tegenkomt,	hij	groet	niet.
om het even/indifferent	who	he	prt.-meet	he	greets	not
'No matter who he meets, he wonʼt greet them.'

Another highly idiomatic type of expression, typically found in proverbs, is illustrated by the constructions in (120); cf. Stoett (1923-5: #2503). Originally, the second part of the construction functioned syntactically as a relative clause introduced by the relative pronouns die and dat. Nowadays, however, it is more common to use the pronouns wie and wat, respectively, which is clear from the hits that resulted from a Google search (1/12/2015). In (121), we provide similar examples with wat/dat.

120

a.	Wie	niet	waagt,	wie	niet	wint.	330 hits
	who	not	ventures,	who	not	wins
	'Nothing ventured, nothing gained.'

Wie niet waagt, die niet wint.

311 hits

121

a.	Wat	niet	weet,	wat	niet	deert.	334 hits
	what	not	knows,	that	not	harms
	'What the eye doesnʼt see, the heart doesnʼt grieve over.'

Wat niet weet, dat niet deert.

237 hits

[+] 4. Syntactic function of the pronoun

The examples in (122) show that the pronoun wie cannot function as the subject or direct object of the relative clause in Standard Dutch, although it should be noted that in some varieties of Dutch (like the dialect spoken in Amsterdam) the relative pronoun wie can also be used as the direct object of the relative clause, hence the % mark in (122b&c).

122

a.	*	de student	wie	daar	loopt
		the student	who	there	walks

b.	%	de student	wie	we geschorst	hebben
		the student	who	we suspended	have

c.	%	Dit is de jongen	wie	ik	gisteren	gezien	heb.
		this is the boy	who	I	yesterday	seen	have

The relative pronoun wie normally functions instead as the object of a PP, where the PP as a whole may function either as a complement or as an adjunct of the relative clause: the examples in (123a&b) illustrate the former and involve, respectively, an indirect object and a PP-complement; example (123c) illustrates the latter.

123

a.	de student	aan wie	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
	the student	to whom	I	yesterday	a book	have	given
	'the student to whom Iʼve given a book yesterday'

b.	de vriend	op wie	ik	tevergeefs	heb	gewacht
	the friend	on whom	I	in.vain	have	waited
	'the friend I waited for in vain'

c.	de vriend	met wie	ik	op vakantie	ben	geweest
	the friend	with whom	I	on holiday	am	been
	'the friend with whom Iʼve been on holiday'

Since the pronoun wie functions as a regular noun phrase the preposition is obligatorily pied-piped, that is, stranding the preposition, as in (124), leads to ungrammaticality; in such constructions the relative pronoun must take the form of an R-pronoun; cf. Subsection III.

124

a.	*	de student	wiei	ik	gisteren	een boek	[aan ti]	heb	gegeven
		the student	whom	I	yesterday	a book	to	have	given

b.	*	de vriend	wiei	ik	tevergeefs	[op ti]	heb	gewacht
		the friend	whom	I	in.vain	on	have	waited

c.	*	de vriend	wiei	ik	op vakantie	[met/mee ti]	ben	geweest
		the friend	whom	I	on holiday	with	am	been

Although the examples in (122) have shown that the relative pronoun wie cannot function as the subject or the direct object, it can function as a nominal indirect object of a ditransitive relative clause. This means that the examples in (107) alternate with the examples in (125). The examples in (125) also show that bare wie (but not wie in the PP) can be replaced by the relative pronoun die/dat, which was discussed in Subsection A above.

125

a.	de student	wie/die	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
	the student	who/who	I	yesterday	a book	have	given
	'the student whom Iʼve given a book yesterday'

b.		het meisje	wie/dat	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
		the girl	who/who	I	yesterday	a book	have	given

c.		de studenten/meisjes	wie/die	ik	gisteren	een boek	heb	gegeven
		the students/girls	who/who	I	yesterday	a book	have	given

It seems that the relative pronoun wie can also be used for other types of dative noun phrase, although judgments are perhaps less clear. In (126a&b) we are dealing with nom-dat verbs, that is, unaccusative verbs with a dative argument (cf. V2.1.3), and it seems possible to relativize the dative argument by means of either wie or die. The two options are certainly available for examples such as (126c), in which the dative is not an argument of the copular verb zijn'to be' but of the adjective trouw'loyal'; cf. Section A2.2.

126

a.	De man	wie/die	de maaltijd	niet	beviel,	klaagde	bij de gerant.
	the man	who/who	the meal	not	pleased	complained	with the manager
	'The man, who wasnʼt pleased by the meal, complained to the manager.'

b.	De man,	wie/die	de maaltijd	goed smaakte,	zuchtte	tevreden.
	the man	who	the meal	well tasted,	sighed	contentedly
	'The man, who was pleased by the meal, sighed contentedly.'

c.	Zij	is	een meisje,	wie/dat	ik	altijd	trouw	zal	zijn.
	she	is	a girl	who	I	always	loyal	will	be
	'She is the girl to whom Iʼll always be true.'

[+] 5. Possessive use

In some varieties of spoken Dutch, the relative pronoun wie can be used in possessive constructions like (127a&b), where it is followed by the reduced possessive pronouns zʼn'his' or dʼr'her', which can also be found in possessive constructions like Jan zʼn boek'Janʼs book' and Marie dʼr boek'Marieʼs book'. Its use is restricted to the singular, which may be related to the fact that the third person plural possessive pronoun hun'their' does not have a reduced form; cf. the discussion in Section 5.2.2.5, sub I.

127

a.	%	de vriend	wie zʼn boek	ik	heb	geleend
		the friend	who his book	I	have	borrowed
		'the friend whose book Iʼve borrowed'

b.	%	het meisje	wie dʼr moeder	naast me	woont
		the girl	who her mother	next.to me	lives
		'the girl whose mother lives next to me'

c.	*	de vrienden	wie hun boeken	ik	heb	geleend
		the friends	who their books	I	have	borrowed

The constructions in (127a&b) are often considered substandard and are not acceptable to all speakers of Dutch. speakers that do not accept these examples normally use the genitive form wiens'whose' in possessive constructions like these; cf. Subsection II.

[+] C. Wat'which'

The relative pronoun wat can be used both in restrictive and in non-restrictive relative clauses, although the conditions under which these can be used differ considerably. The constructions in (128) are similar in all relevant respects to those given for die/dat in (91), although we will see that the use of wat is much more restricted than that of die/dat.

128

a.	Restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]i [RCwati .... ti ....]]]
	[DP	een [NP	ideei [RC	wati	me wel [DPti ]	aansprak]]]
	[DP	an	idea	which	me prt	appealed
	'an idea that appealed to me'

b.	Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]i , [RCwati .... ti ....]]
	[DP	een [NP	origineel idee]i , [RC	wati	me wel [DPti ]	aansprak]]
	[DP	an	original idea	which	me prt	appealed
	'an original idea, which appealed to me'

[+] 1. Features of the antecedent

Describing the use of the relative pronoun wat is complicated by the fact that a process of language change seems to be going on, in which the use of wat is on the rise (Van der Horst 1988, Schoonenboom 1997/2002); many of the uses of wat in the examples below seem to be relatively recent innovations in the language, and therefore meet normative opposition.
Nominal antecedents of the relative pronoun wat are +neuter and +singular. That the antecedent must be neuter can be seen in (129a&b): despite the fact that the two nouns voorstel'proposition' and suggestie'proposition' are near synonyms, only the neuter noun voorstel can enter the construction. That the antecedent must be singular can be seen in (129c). Note that all examples in (129) are grammatical with the relative pronoun dat or die.

129

a.	Hij	deed	een	voorstelneuter	wat/dat	we	nu	gaan	uitwerken.
	he	did	an	proposition	which	we	now	go	prt.-develop
	'He made a proposition which we will develop now.'

b.		Hij	deed	een	suggestienon-neuter	die/*wat	we	nu	gaan	uitwerken.
		he	did	an	proposition	which	we	now	go	prt.-develop

c.		Hij	deed	twee voorstellenpl	die/*wat	we	nu	gaan	uitwerken.
		he	did	two propositions	which	we	now	go	prt.-develop

Haeseryn et al. (1997: 338) claim that wat can only be used with an indefinite antecedent, but they immediately add that in informal speech wat can be used with every singular neuter noun and is actually preferred to dat in large parts of the language area; a cursory look on the internet shows that this is indeed the case. A Google search (4/17/2008) on the strings het aanbod wat/dat er is gave the results in (130). Nevertheless, it seems that wat is more generally accepted with an indefinite antecedent than with a definite one, hence the % mark in (130b).

130

a.	het aanbod	dat er is	45 hits
	the supply	that there is
	'the supply that is available'

het aanbod

wat er is

12 hits

The examples so far all involve abstract nouns. Most speakers of Dutch seem to be less willing to accept examples with concrete nouns, although examples can readily be found on the internet both with indefinite and with definite antecedents; two examples are given in (131). Note that (131b) shows again that wat can also occur with definite antecedents.

131

a.	Het	is een mobieltje	dat/%wat	er	leuk	uitziet’.
	it	is a cell phone	which	there	nice	prt.-looks
	'Itʼs a cell phone that looks nice.'

b.	Zoek	het mobieltje	dat/%wat	bij je	past.
	look.for	the cell.phone	which	with you	fits
	'Find the cell phone that suits you best.'

The examples in (131) involve restrictive relative clauses. Judgments are different with non-restrictive relative clauses, where the use of wat seems to be more generally accepted, and is even preferred by some speakers with indefinite antecedents. This is illustrated in the constructed examples in (132). First, example (132a) involves a restrictive clause, and dat is preferred to wat by most speakers of the standard variety, regardless of the definiteness of the antecedent. Example (132b) involves a non-restrictive relative clause with an indefinite antecedent: all speakers accept the relative pronoun wat, and some (but not all) speakers even prefer it to the relative pronoun dat. Finally, example (132c) involves a non-restrictive relative clause with a definite antecedent, and most speakers accept both wat and dat (although speakers’ preferences seem to vary from person to person). In short: although the precise status of the examples in (132b&c) is perhaps somewhat unclear, it seems safe to conclude that wat is accepted in non-restrictive clauses by most speakers.

132

a.	Wij	zoeken	naar een/het horloge	dat/%wat	opgewonden	kan	worden.
	we	gave	him a/the watch	which	wound.up	can	be
	'Weʼre looking for a/the watch that can be wound up.'

b.	Wij	gaven	hem	een nieuw horloge,	wat/%dat	hij	nu	dagelijks	draagt.
	we	gave	him	a new watch	which	he	now	daily	wears
	'We gave him a new watch, which he now wears every day.'

c.	Wij	gaven	hem	vaders horloge,	dat/wat	hij	nu	dagelijks	draagt.
	we	gave	him	daddyʼs watch	which/which	he	now	daily	wears
	'We gave him daddyʼs watch, which he now wears every day.'

The examples in (132) show that wat can also be used if the antecedent is animate or human, although many speakers will object to these examples even more than to those with inanimate nouns in (131). The examples with wat in (133) are taken from the internet.

133

a.	Het paard	dat/%wat	het hoogst	in rang	is,	is meestal	een oudere merrie.
	the horse	which	the highest	in rank	is	is generally	an older mare
	'The horse that is highest in rank is generally an older mare.'

b.	Daar	loopt	het meisje	dat/%wat	naast me	woont.
	there	walks	the girl	which	next.to me	lives
	'The girl who lives next to me is walking over there.'

The antecedent of non-restrictive relative clauses with the relative pronoun wat need not function as an argument, but can also function as a nominal predicate, and in this respect wat crucially differs from the relative pronouns die and dat, which normally cannot be used in this context. This is illustrated in (134). Note that the relative pronoun wat is not sensitive to the gender and number specification of the predicative noun phrase; this is related to the fact discussed in Subsection 5 below that wat can also take an AP predicate as its antecedent.

134

a.	Marie is een aardig meisje,	wat/*dat	Els zeker	niet	is.
	Marie is a nice girl	which	Els certainly	not	is
	'Marie is a nice girl, which certainly Els isnʼt.'

b.	Jan is een aardig jongen,	wat/*die	Peter zeker	niet	is.
	Jan is a nice boy	which	Peter certainly	not	is
	'Jan is a nice boy, which certainly Peter isnʼt.'

c.	Jan en Marie zijn aardige kinderen,	wat/*die	Els en Peter	zeker	niet zijn.
	Jan and Marie are nice kids	which	Els and Peter	certainly	not are
	'Jan and Marie are nice kids, which certainly Peter and Els are not.'

Finally, we can point to a typical use of the pronoun wat in constructions with a nominal antecedent in the form of an elliptical superlative expression followed by a restrictive relative clause. Examples are given in (135a&b), where wat can be seen as coreferential with the phonetically empty noun [e] modified by the superlatives mooiste'most beautiful' and meest belachelijke'most ridiculous'; example (135c) has a more or less idiomatic flavor. Note that dat can also be used in these cases.

135

a.	Dit	is het mooiste [e]	wat/dat	me had	kunnen	overkomen.
	this	is the most beautiful	which	me had	could	happen
	'This is the best thing that could happen to me.'

b.	Dat	is het meest belachelijke [e]	wat/dat	je	je	voor	kunt	stellen.
	that	is the most ridiculous	which	you	refl	prt.	can	imagine
	'That is the most ridiculous thing you can imagine.'

c.	Dat	is wel	het minste [e]	wat/dat	hij	kan	doen.
	that	is prt	the least	which	he	can	do
	'That is the least he can do.'

As is shown in (136), a similar construction occurs with expressions like enige'only' and eerste/laatste'first/last', which are similar to superlative phrases in that they are normally used in definite (uniquely referring) noun phrases.

136

a.	Dit	is het enige [e]	wat/dat	ik	kan	doen.
	this	is the only	which	I	can	do
	'This is the only thing I can do.'

b.	Ik	zei	het eerste [e]	wat/dat	in me	opkwam.
	I	said	the first	which	in me	prt.-rose
	'I said the first thing that occurred to me.'

[+] 2. Quantified antecedents

The relative pronoun wat is also used in combination with quantified pronominal antecedents. Some examples are given in (137). Although it is possible to use either wat or dat, in some cases one of the two pronouns is clearly preferred. This is especially clear with the examples in (137a&c): a cursory look on the internet shows that the string [alles wat] occurs about twenty times as often as [alles dat], whereas [zoveel dat] is about ten times as frequent as [zoveel wat]; the string [iets wat] in (137b) occurs about two times as often as [iets dat].

137

a.		Ik	gaf	hem	al(les)	wat/??dat	ik	bezat.
		I	gave	him	all	that/that	I	owned

b.	Dat	is	nou	iets	wat/dat	ik	nooit	begrepen	heb.
	that	is	now	something	that	I	never	understood	have
	'Now that is something Iʼve never understood.'

c.	Er	is zoveel	wat/dat	ik	niet	begrijp.
	there	is so much	that	I	not	understand
	'Thereʼs so much I donʼt understand.'

When the antecedent is niets, as in (138), both wat and dat are acceptable, although the former seems to be more popular: a Google search (1/12/2015) on the string [niets wat/dat ik] gave 294 hits for wat and 359 hits for dat, of which many involve the irrelevant construction Het is niet voor niets dat ik ...'It is for a good reason that I ...'. Nevertheless, there seem to be several interfering factors, which, to our knowledge, have not been investigated so far. Whereas in example (138a) wat is about six times as frequently as dat, our Google search also showed that in (138b) dat an wat occur with about the same frequency. The search strings are given in square brackets.

138

a.	[Niets	wat/dat	ik	doe]	helpt.	[93/13]
	nothing	which	I	do	helps
	'Nothing I do is helping.'

b.	Er	is [niets	dat/wat	ik	kan	doen].	[105/104]
	there	is nothing	which	I	can	do
	'There is nothing I can do.'

Finally, example (139a) shows that in some cases, both the use of wat and dat seem to give rise to a degraded result. The preferred way of expressing the intended thought is as given in (139b). In all likelihood we are dealing here with modification by means of a PP headed by the preposition van which takes a free relative as its complement; cf. niets van dat alles'nothing of that all' in which dat alles is likewise the complement of van.

139

a.		Niets	?dat/*?wat	hij	voorspelde	kwam	ooit	uit.
		nothing	that/that	he	predicted	came	ever	out

b.	Niets	van wat/*dat	hij	voorspelde	kwam	ooit	uit.
	nothing	of what/that	he	predicted	came	ever	out
	'Nothing of what he predicted ever came out.'

[+] 3. Free and semi-free relative constructions

The examples in (140) show that the relative pronoun wat can be used in so-called semi-free relative constructions, where it is coreferential with the antecedent dat(gene). Replacing wat in these examples by the relative pronoun dat leads to an ungrammatical result, which is probably motivated by the fact that this would lead to haplology. But with datgene the use of wat also seems much favored, although numerous examples with dat can be found on the internet.

140

a.	Dat	wat/*dat	er	niet	is	kun	je	ook	niet	zien.
	that	which	there	not	is	can	you	also	not	see
	'What isnʼt there you canʼt see either.'

b.	Ik	gaf	hem	al datgene	wat/%dat	ik	hem	beloofd	had.
	I	gave	him	all that	which	I	him	promised	had
	'I gave him all that Iʼd promised him.'

Wat can also be used in free relative constructions, that is, without an overt antecedent. In (141) an example is given involving a subject. These examples show that the result is best if the free relative is in clause-initial or extraposed position; example (141c), in which the subject occupies the regular subject position immediately after the finite verb in the second position of the clause, is marked. This suggests that, despite the fact that free relatives are normally claimed to be part of a noun phrase with a phonetically empty antecedent, the free relative in (141) has more or less the distribution of a subject clause. In fact, the similarity with a regular clause goes deeper, which is clear from the fact that example (141b) must contain an anticipatory pronounhet'it', just as it would when we are dealing with a regular subject clause (De Vries 2002: 281; Van Riemsdijk 2006: 345). Note that whereas example (141a) seems compatible with both a generic and a specific interpretation of the free relative, example (141b) clearly favors a specific interpretation.

141

a.	[Wat	hij	doet]	is lovenswaardig.
	what	he	does	is praiseworthy
	'What(ever) heʼs doing is praiseworthy.'

b.	Natuurlijk	is het	goed	[wat	hij	doet].
	of course,	is it	praiseworthy	what	he	does
	'Of course, itʼs praiseworthy what heʼs doing.'

Natuurlijk is [wat hij doet] goed.

The examples in (142) show more or less the same thing for embedded clauses: since topicalization is excluded in Dutch embedded clauses, the subject is preferably placed in extraposed position with the anticipatory pronoun het in subject position.

142

a.	Marie	vertelde	me	dat	het	lovenswaardig	is	[wat	hij	doet].
	Marie	told	me	that	it	praiseworthy	is	what	he	does
	'Marie told me that itʼs praiseworthy what heʼs doing.'

b.	?	Marie	vertelde	me	dat	[wat	hij	doet]	lovenswaardig	is.
		Marie	told	me	that	what	he	does	praiseworthy	is

A free relative functioning as a direct object also exhibits the syntactic behavior of a clause: (143a&b) shows that the free relative is preferably placed in clause-initial or extraposed position. In the latter case the anticipatory pronoun het'it' is optional, just as it would be with a regular object clause; example (143c), in which the free relative occupies the regular object position, is again marked.

143

a.	[Wat	jij	daar	zegt]	zal	zij	niet	waarderen.
	what	you	there	say	shall	she	not	appreciate
	'She wonʼt appreciate what youʼre saying there.'

b.	Zij	zal	(het)	niet	waarderen	[wat	je	daar	zegt].
	she	will	it	not	appreciate	what	you	there	say
	'She wonʼt appreciate what youʼre saying there.'

c.	?	Zij	zal	[wat	je	daar	zegt]	niet	waarderen.
		she	will	what	you	there	say	not	appreciate

It seems that the examples in (143) do not readily allow a generic interpretation, but that such an interpretation is not entirely impossible is clear from the constructions in (144a); example (144b) is a similar, more idiomatic expression.

144

a.	dat	hij	eet	wat	er	op tafel	komt.
	that	he	eats	what	there	on the.table	comes
	'that he eats whatever is served.'

b.	dat	hij	eet	wat	de pot	schaft.
	that	he	eats	what	the pot	gives
	'that heʼll take potluck.'

Example (145) provides the embedded clauses corresponding to (143): since topicalization is excluded in Dutch embedded clauses, the object is preferably placed in extraposed position with an optional anticipatory pronoun het in object position.

145

denk

dat

zij

(het)

niet

zal

waarderen

[wat

daar

zegt].

think

that

she

not

will

appreciate

what

you

there

say

'I think that she wonʼt appreciate what youʼre saying right now.'

denk

dat

zij

[wat

daar

zegt]

niet

zal

waarderen.

think

that

she

what

you

there

say

not

will

appreciate

That free relatives with wat behave like regular clauses is also clear from the examples in (146), in which the free relative is part of a PP-complement of the verb: the PP can be in extraposed position as a whole, as in (146a), or the free relative may be extraposed in isolation, in which case the clause must contain the anticipatory PP er + P. What seems impossible, however, is to place the full PP in a position preceding the clause-final verb. This is exactly the pattern that we also find with complement PPs containing a regular finite clause; cf. Section P2.4.

146

a.	dat	hij	mij	wees	[PP	op	[wat	er	in de kleine lettertjes	stond]].
	that	he	me	pointed	[PP	at	what	there	in the little print	stood
	'He drew my attention to what it said in the fine print.'

b.		dat	hij	mij	[PP erop]	wees	[wat	er	in de kleine lettertjes	stond].
		that	he	me	there-at	pointed	what	there	in the little print	stood

dat hij mij [PP op [wat er in de kleine lettertjes stond]] wees.

The distribution of free relatives with wat differs sharply from that of free relatives with wie, discussed in Subsection B3 above, which have the distribution of noun phrases, not clauses. It is not entirely clear what the correct analysis of the examples in (141) to (146) is. De Vries (2002: 281) suggests that we may be dealing with some sort of Heavy NP Shift or Right Dislocation, with het or a phonetically empty pronoun pro occupying the original position of the free relative, as indicated in (147a). There are three problems with this proposal, however. First, it leaves unexplained why we could not have the empty pronoun pro with heavy DPs like het beeldje in de etalage in examples such as (147b): it forces us to assume that pro is only possible with DPs that have the form of free relatives. Second, it leaves unexplained why free relatives with wie in examples such as (147c) cannot undergo the same type of movement as free relatives with wat. In short, it forces us to adopt the ad hoc solution that pro is only possible with DPs that have the form of a free relative that contain wat. Finally, it leaves unexplained why (147a) does not require the obligatory intonation break (indicated by an em-dash) that we find in (147b).

147

a.	dat	Marie	het/pro	mooi	vindt	[wat	daar	staat].
	that	Marie	it/pro	beautiful	considers	what	there	stands
	'that Marie considers it beautiful what is standing there.'

b.		dat	Marie	het/*pro	mooi	vindt —	[dat beeldje	in de etalage].
		that	Marie	it/pro	beautiful	considers	that statue	in the shop window

c.	*	dat	Marie	het/hem/pro	mooi	vindt	[wie	daar	staat].
		that	Marie	it/hem/pro	beautiful	considers	who	there	stands

Another possibility suggested by De Vries (2002: 281) is that we are dealing with an apposition. The main reason for assuming this is that sometimes an apposition marker like en wel'namely' can be used, which he illustrates with example (148a). There are, again, several problems with this suggestion. The first problem, noticed by De Vries himself, is that the marker en wel requires the pronoun het to be present; furthermore, it is very difficult to pronounce (148b) with the intonation contour typically associated with appositions, that is, with an intonation break before the free relative, when this marker is not present.

148

a.	Ze	heeft	het	vernield,	en wel	[wat	jij	gemaakt	hebt].
	she	has	it	destroyed	namely	what	you	made	have
	'She has it destroyed, (namely) what you have made.'

Ze heeft vernield, ??(*en wel) [wat jij gemaakt hebt].

Second, adding the marker to the earlier examples with postverbal free relatives seems entirely excluded, which is illustrated in the primeless examples in (149) for the examples in (141b) and (143b). The primed examples show that the free relatives can optionally be pronounced with the intonation contour associated with appositions, which shows that an apposition reading is possible. However, this intonation contour requires that the pronoun het'it' be present; this can only be illustrated if the free relative is an object, as in (149b''), given that the pronoun is always obligatory with free relative subjects in extraposed position.

149

a.	Natuurlijk	is het	goed(,)	(*en wel)	[wat	hij	doet].
	of course,	is it	praiseworthy	namely	what	he	does
	'Of course, itʼs praiseworthy what heʼs doing.'

a'.

Natuurlijk is het goed, [wat hij doet].

b.	Zij	zal	het	niet	waarderen,	(*en wel)	[wat	je	daar	zegt].
	she	will	it	not	appreciate	namely	what	you	there	say
	'She wonʼt appreciate what youʼre saying there.'

b'.

Zij zal het niet waarderen(,) [wat je daar zegt].

b''.

Zij zal niet waarderen(*,) [wat je daar zegt].

A third, and final problem for the suggestion that we are dealing with appositions is that this predicts that free relatives with wie can be used in the same way, and would thus be able to occur in postverbal position; we have already seen in (147) that this expectation is not borne out. Given these problems with the two proposals discussed above, we conclude that the examples in (141) to (146) constitute an as yet unsolved problem.
We now continue the discussion with a special type of free relative construction, which may function as the predicate of the clause. Some examples can be found in (150). The predicative free relatives are sometimes called transparent free relatives given that they themselves contain a predicate (given in italics) which is semantically the most prominent part of the construction. The examples in (150), for example, are more or less equivalent to the examples in (151); the free relative simply adds the information (due to the presence of noemen'to call') that we are dealing with an assessment by the speaker, which leaves open the possibility that other people have a different opinion.

150

a.	Deze auto	is	niet	[wat	ik	duur	zou	noemen].
	this car	is	not	what	I	expensive	may	call
	'This car isnʼt what I would call expensive.'

b.	Jan is [wat	ik	een schurk	zou	willen	noemen].
	Jan is what	I	a scoundrel	may	want	call
	'Jan is what I would like to call a scoundrel.'

151

a.		Deze auto	is	niet	duur.
		this car	is	not	expensive

b.		Jan is een schurk.
		Jan is a scoundrel

Transparent free relatives are always introduced by wat, which is remarkable given that wat seems to function as the argument of the embedded predicate, and might therefore be expected to be sensitive to features of the subject of the clause. Nevertheless, substituting wie for wat in (150b) leads to an unacceptable result, as shown by (152).

152

	*	Jan is wie	ik	een schurk	zou	willen	noemen.
		Jan is who	I	a scoundrel	may	want	call

That the free relatives in (150) are transparent in the sense that it is actually the embedded predicative phrase that is active in the main clause is especially clear in example (150a), in which the embedded predicate is adjectival: just like the regular set-denoting adjectives, the predicative free relative construction can be used in attributive prenominal position, as is illustrated by (153). There are at least two things that are remarkable about the structure in (153a). First, the adjective is inflected with the attributive -e ending, which we also find with the regular attributively used adjective in (153b), and not with the uninflected form duur, which we find with the predicatively used adjective in (151b). Second, the adjective follows the clause-final verb noemen in (153), which would never be possible in other cases: dat ik deze auto <duur> noem <*duur>.

153

a.	een	[wat	je	zou	kunnen	noemen	dure/*duur]	auto
	a	what	one	may	can	call	expensive	car
	'a what one could call expensive car'

b.		een	dure	auto
		an	expensive	car

Transparent free relatives also occur in argument positions. This is most natural when the free relative is the complement of a preposition, as in (154a), which is a slightly adapted example taken from the newspaper Het Parool (“Kraamkamer vol ideeën”; March, 29, 2008), or a direct object; if the free relative functions as subject the result seems somewhat marked. Note that the primeless examples are, again, more or less equivalent to the primed examples: the free relative construction in the primeless examples only adds the information (due to the use of the verb blijken'to turn out') that at the time that they were sold it was not known that the shares were worthless.

154

a.	Hij	verkocht	zijn bedrijf	voor	[wat	later waardeloze aandelen	bleken	te zijn].
	he	sold	his company	for	what	later worthless shares	appeared	to be
	'He sold his company for what turned out to be worthless shares.'

a'.

Hij verkocht zijn bedrijf voor waardeloze aandelen.

b.	Hij	verkocht	ons	[wat	later	waardeloze aandelen	bleken	te zijn].
	he	sold	us	what	later	worthless shares	appeared	to be
	'He sold us what turned out to be worthless shares.'

b'.

Hij verkocht waardeloze aandelen.

c.	(?)	Er werden	ons	[wat	later	waardeloze aandelen	bleken te zijn]	verkocht.
		there were	us	what	later	worthless shares	appeared to be	sold
		'What later turned out to be worthless shares were sold to us there.'

c'.

Er werden ons waardeloze aandelen verkocht.

The markedness of example (154c) may be caused by the fact that the transparent free relative precedes the verb in clause-final position, given that example (154b) also gets somewhat marked if it is embedded; cf. (155a). It should be noted, however, that extraposition of the transparent free relative does not improve matters; on the contrary, it worsens the result as can be seen from the fact that (155a') is only possible with an intonation break before the free relative. That extraposition of the transparent free relative worsens the result is also shown by the unacceptability of the extraposition counterpart of (154c) in (155b).

155

a.	(?)	dat	hij	[wat	later	waardeloze aandelen	bleken	te zijn]	verkocht.
		that	he	what	later	worthless shares	appeared	to be	sold

a'.

dat hij ons verkocht [wat later waardeloze aandelen bleken te zijn].

Er werden ons verkocht [wat later waardeloze aandelen bleken te zijn].

The fact that transparent free relatives cannot be in extraposed position shows that they have the distribution of noun phrases; they are therefore truly different from regular free relatives with wat, which, as we have seen, have the distribution of clauses; cf. the discussion of (141) to (146). Another difference involves the fact, illustrated in (154c) above, that transparent free relatives can be used in an expletive construction, which shows that they are indefinites; regular free relatives, on the other hand, are definite or generic and therefore never occur in an expletive construction. This is clear from the fact that (141a) does not have an expletive counterpart: *Er is [wat hij doet] lovenswaardig.
The fact that transparent free relatives behave like indefinite noun phrases might give rise to the idea that they contain some phonetically empty quantificational pronoun. Such an idea might be supported by the fact that all transparent free relative constructions in (154) alternate with semi-free relative constructions headed by the pronoun iets'something': iets wat later waardeloze aandelen bleken te zijn'something that turned out to be worthless shares'. Still, it does not seem possible to assume that the examples in (154) contain a silent iets, given that the semi-free relative construction with iets triggers singular agreement on the finite verb, and not plural agreement, as is the case with the transparent free relative in (154c): Er werd/*werden ons daar iets [wat later waardeloze aandelen bleken te zijn] verkocht.
Let us conclude with the more or less idiomatic constructions in examples (156a&b), which resemble free relative constructions but are different in a number of ways. First, it is not possible for the construction to take an overt antecedent or to appear in the form of a semi-free relative construction; cf. (156a'&b'). Second, the particle ook (or a modifier like onverschillig'indifferent' and om het even'irrespective') is obligatorily present, and adds a concessive meaning to the construction (no matter what you say/do...).

156

a.	Wat	je	ook	zegt,	hij	gelooft	het	toch	niet.
	what	you	prt	say	he	believes	it	prt	not
	'No matter what you say, he wonʼt believe it.'

a'.

Datgene wat je ook zegt, ik geloof het toch niet.

b.	Wat	je	ook	doet,	het	helpt	toch	niet.
	what	you	prt	do	it	helps	prt	not
	'No matter what you do, it wonʼt help.'

b'.

Datgene wat je ook doet, het helpt toch niet.

Third, the wat-constructions in the primeless examples do not act as arguments, but more like clausal adjuncts; since Dutch is a verb-second language, the finite verb in declarative main clauses is preceded by a single constituent, and since the subject occupies this position in the primeless examples in (156), the wat-phrase must be clause-external. This conclusion is also supported by the fact illustrated in (157) that, unlike regular constituents of the clause, the wat-phrase cannot occupy the first position of the clause itself; see also the discussion of (118).

157

a.	*	Wat	je	ook	zegt,	gelooft	hij	het	toch	niet.
		what	you	prt	say	believes	he	it	prt	not

b.	*	Wat	je	ook	doet,	helpt	het	toch	niet.
		what	you	prt	do	helps	it	prt	not

Finally, note that similar constructions are possible with wh-phrases in first position. Given that the examples in (158) are clearly not free relatives, and given that wat can also be used as an interrogative pronoun, we conclude that we are not dealing with free relatives in (156) either; see Van Riemsdijk (2006: 362-3) for more arguments.

158

a.	Welke argumenten	je	ook	aanvoert,	hij	gelooft	het	toch	niet.
	which arguments	je	prt	put.forward	he	believes	it	prt	not
	'No matter what you supply, he wonʼt believe it.'

b.	Welke moeite	je	ook	doet,	het	helpt	toch	niet.
	what trouble	you	prt	take	it	helps	prt	not
	'No matter what trouble you take, it wonʼt help.'

[+] 4. Syntactic function of the pronoun

Since the pronoun wat typically has a non-human, abstract reference, it occurs most naturally as the direct object of the relative clause. Examples of a restrictive and a non-restrictive construction can be found in (159a&b), respectively.

159

a.	Jan deed	een voorstel	wat	we hebben	aangenomen.
	Jan did	a proposal	that	we have	prt.-accepted
	'Jan made a proposal that we accepted.'

b.	Jan deed	een goed voorstel,	wat	we unaniem	hebben	aangenomen.
	Jan did	a good proposal	which	we unanimously	have	prt.-accepted
	'Jan made a good proposal, which we accepted unanimously.'

Wat can, however, also function as the subject of the relative clause in passive and unaccusative constructions, as in (160).

160

a.	Jan deed	een goed voorstel,	wat	unaniem	werd	aangenomen.
	Jan did	a good proposal	which	unanimously	was	prt.-accepted
	'Jan made a good proposal, which was accepted unanimously.'

b.	De eigenaar	vroeg	een miljoen euro,	wat	ons budget	te boven ging.
	the owner	asked	a million euros	which	our budget	exceeded
	'The owner asked a million euros, which exceeded our budget.'

The relative pronoun can also function as a nominal indirect object provided that the referent is -human, as in (161a). Example (161b) shows, however, that it cannot occur in a prepositional indirect object (or any other PP); (161c) shows that in cases like these, a (split or unsplit) pronominal PP must be used; cf. Subsection III.

161

a.	Jan deed	een voorstel,	wat	we onze steun	hebben	gegeven.
	Jan did	a proposal	which	we our support	have	given
	'Jan made a proposal, which we gave our full support.'

b.	*	Jan deed	een voorstel,	aan wat	we onze steun	hebben	gegeven.
		Jan did	a proposal	to what	we our support	have	given

c.		Jan deed	een voorstel,	waar<aan>	we onze steun <aan>	hebben	gegeven.
		Jan did	a proposal	where-to	we our support	have	given

Finally, the pronoun wat can be used as the predicate of a non-restrictive relative clause. In that case, the normal restriction that the antecedent refers to a +neuter+singular-human abstract entity does not hold. For example, in (162a) wat accepts a human, non-neuter antecedent, while example (162b) shows that the antecedent can also be plural.

162

a.	Ze	zoeken	een ervaren manager,	wat	ik	niet	ben.
	they	search	an experienced manager	which	I	not	am
	'They are looking for an experienced manager, which Iʼm not.'

b.	Ze	zoeken	ervaren managers,	wat	wij	niet	zijn.
	they	search	experienced managers	which	we	not	are
	'They are looking for experienced managers, which weʼre not.'

In (162), the antecedent and the relative pronoun agree in number. The examples in (163) show, however, that this is not required: in (163a), the antecedent appears in the singular, whereas the plurality of the subject (wij'we') and the verb (zijn'to be') in the relative clause normally requires a plural predicate, as shown in (163a'). The inverse case in (163b&b'), where the antecedent appears in the plural, while the relative clause requires a singular predicate, is less felicitous.

163

a.	Ze	zoeken	een ervaren manager,	wat	wij	niet	zijn.
	they	search	an experienced manager	which	we	not	are
	'They are looking for an experienced manager, which weʼre not.'

a'.		Wij	zijn	ervaren managers/*een ervaren manager.
		we	are	experienced managers/an experienced manager

b.	??	Ze	zoeken	ervaren managers,	wat	ik	niet	ben.
		they	search	experienced managers	which	I	not	am
		'They are looking for experienced managers, which Iʼm not.'

b'.		Ik	ben	een ervaren manager/*ervaren managers.
		I	am	an experienced manager/experienced managers

[+] 5. Non-nominal antecedents

The pronoun wat also accepts non-nominal antecedents. In the examples in (164), for example, the antecedent takes the form of a clause.

164

a.	Hij	arriveerde	vroeg,	wat	ik	erg	waardeerde.
	he	arrived	early,	which	I	very	appreciated
	'He arrived early, which I appreciated very much.'

b.	Hij	liep	plotseling	kwaad	weg,	wat	ik	erg goed	begreep.
	he	walked	suddenly	angry	away,	which	I	very well	understood
	'He suddenly walked away angry, which I could understand very well.'

Given that the relative pronoun can also take a singular, neuter nominal antecedent, this may sometimes lead to genuine ambiguity. An example is given in (165a): on the clausal antecedent reading, it is the making of the offer that is appreciated, whereas on the nominal antecedent reading it is the offer itself that is appreciated. If the potential antecedent is plural (or replaced by a non-neuter noun), the ambiguity is resolved: the use of wat now necessarily expresses the clausal antecedent reading, whereas the use of die expresses the nominal antecedent reading.

165

a.	Hij	deed	mij	een prachtig aanbodneuter,	wat	ik	erg	waardeerde.
	he	did	me	a splendid offer	which	I	very	appreciated
	'He made me a splendid offer, which I appreciated very much.'

b.	Hij	deed	mij	prachtig aanbiedingen,	die/wat	ik	erg	waardeerde.
	he	did	me	splendid offers	which	I	very	appreciated
	'He made me a splendid offers, which I appreciated very much.'

The antecedent of wat need not be a full clause, but may also be a smaller (extended) projection of the verb. Examples can be found in (166a), where it is the VP skiën'skiing' that forms the antecedent of the pronoun wat, and in (166b), where it is only the verb zwemmen'to swim' which functions as the antecedent.

166

deze winter

skiën,

wat

nog

nooit

eerder

heb

gedaan.

this winter

ski

which

yet

never

before

have

done

'This winter Iʼm going to ski in the Alps, which Iʼve never done before.'

b.	Mijn broer	kan	goed	zwemmen,	wat	ik	helemaal	niet	kan.
	my brother	can	well	swim	which	I	completely	not	can
	'My brother can swim very well, which is something I certainly canʼt.'

Finally, the examples in (167) show that the antecedent of wat can also be a predicative phrase in, e.g., a copular or a vinden-construction. The predicate can be an AP, a noun phrase or a PP, although in the last case there is a clear preference for the use of the locative relative element waar'where'.

167

a.	Mijn auto	is rood,	wat	ik	een mooie kleur	vind.
	my car	is red	which	I	a lovely color	find
	'My car is red, which I find a lovely color.'

b.	Ik vind	Jan een typische ambtenaar,	wat	ik	nooit	zou	willen	zijn.
	I consider	Jan is a typical civil servant,	which	I	never	would	want	be
	'I consider Jan a typical civil servant, which I never would like to be.'

c.	Jan is al	in Griekenland,	waar/?wat	ik	ook	wel	zou	willen	zijn.
	Jan is already	in Greece	where/which	I	also	prt	would	want	be
	'Jan is already in Greece, where I would also like to be.'

[+] D. Welke'which'

The relative pronoun welke is only found in formal written contexts. Even in such contexts, however, replacement by die is always possible and generally preferred. Constructions with the relative pronoun welke can be represented as in (168).

168

a.	Restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]i [RCwelkei .... ti ....]]]
	[DP	de [NP	stakingi [RC	welkei [DPti ]	vanmorgen	aanving]]]
	[DP	the	strike	which	this morning	commenced
	'the strike which started this morning'

b.	Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]i , [RCwelkei .... ti ....]]
	[DP	de [NP	staking]i, [RC	welkei [DPti ]	vanmorgen	aanving]]
	[DP	the	strike	which	this morning	commenced
	'the strike, which started this morning'

[+] 1. Features of the antecedent

The relative pronoun welke is syntactically similar to the pronoun die: like die, it is used for singular -neuter and plural ±neuter antecedents, both with human and with non-human referents. Some examples are given in (169).

169

a.	Hij protesteert	tegen de procedure	welke/die	de commissie	heeft gevolgd.
	he protests	against the procedure	which	the committee	has followed
	'Heʼs protesting against the procedure that the committee has followed.'

b.		Hij protesteert	tegen de procedures	welke/die	de commissie	heeft gevolgd.
		he protests	against the procedures	which	the committee	has followed

c.	De brief was gericht	aan personen	welke/die	zich	hadden	ingeschreven.
	the letter was addressed	to persons	which	refl	had	registered
	'The letter was addressed to persons who had registered.'

The relative pronoun welke has a singular +neuter counterpart, hetwelk, which is generally considered archaic (advies.net/taal/advies/vraag/887); even in formal written texts, it is normally the pronoun dat which is used. Given that there are only few +human neuter nouns, the use of hetwelk is mainly restricted to -human antecedents. An example is given in (170). In the remainder of our present discussion, hetwelk will not be discussed.

170

Het verdrag	hetwelk/dat	beide partijen	sloten	werd	snel	geschonden.
the treaty	which	both parties	concluded	was	soon	violated
'The treaty which both parties agreed on was soon violated.'

[+] 2. Syntactic function of the pronoun

Like die, the relative pronoun welke can fulfill various syntactic functions. In the examples in (169) above, welke functions as the subject of the relative clause. The examples in (171) show that it can also function as the direct object or as the indirect object of the relative clause.

171

a.	Hij	protesteerde	tegen de procedure	welke	de commissie	had gevolgd.
	he	protested	against the procedure	that	the committee	had followed
	'He protested against the procedure that the committee had followed.'

b.	De stichting	welke	wij	geld	hadden	geschonken,	bleek	malafide.
	the foundation	that	we	money	had	donated	proved	unreliable
	'The foundation to which we had donated money turned out to be unreliable.'

The relative pronoun welke can also be used as the object of a preposition. The examples in (172) show, however, that the degree of acceptability of welke as a prepositional object may vary with the preposition. All these examples with welke are restricted to formal contexts: in other contexts, the use of wie (for +human antecedents) or a pronominal PP waar + P is preferred.

172

a.	Personen	tegen wie/?welke	een proces	wordt	aangespannen	hebben	recht op een advocaat.
	persons	against who/who	a process	is	instituted	have	right on a lawyer
	'Persons against whom proceedings are instituted have the right to a lawyer.'

b.	De mensen	voor wie/*?welke	de regeling	geldt	zijn	zeer tevreden.
	the people	for whom/whom	the measure	holds	are	very satisfied
	'The people to whom the measure applies are quite satisfied.'

c.	De arbeiders	namens wie/welke	wij	optreden	zijn	ongeschoold.
	the workers	on.behalf.of whom	we	act	are	unskilled
	'The workers on whose behalf we act are unskilled.'

d.	De stichting	waarmee/??met welke	wij	onderhandelen	blijkt	malafide.
	the foundation	where-with/with which	we	negotiate	proves	unreliable
	'The foundation with which are negotiating proves to be unreliable.'

Although the examples in (172) are all more or less marked, there is one context where the pronoun welke must be used, viz., when the antecedent is -human and the relative element is the complement of a preposition that cannot undergo R-pronominalization, that is, cannot be used in combination with an R-pronoun. Examples of such prepositions are tijdens'during' or volgens'according to' in (173).

173

a.		tijdens het overleg
		during the deliberation

a'.	*	tijdens het
		during it

a''.	*	ertijdens
		during.it

b.		volgens de regels
		according.to the rules

b'.	*	volgens ze
		according.to them

b''.	*	ervolgens
		according.to.them

The fact that welke must be used in such contexts is related to the fact that the relative pronouns die/dat or wat are just like the -animate pronoun het'it' and ze'them' in (173) in that they cannot occur as the complement of a preposition; see Section P5.1 and also example (161b) above. Apparently, welke can be used as a last resort; see Haeseryn et al. (1997: 336/7) for more examples.

174

a.	De vergadering	tijdens welke/die/wat	het besluit	werd	genomen	was niet	openbaar.
	the meeting	during which	the decision	was	taken	was not	public
	'The meeting during which the decision was made wasnʼt public.'

b.	De reglementen	volgens welke/die/wat	wij	optraden	waren	verouderd.
	the regulations	according.to which	we	acted	were	outdated
	'The regulations upon which we acted were out.of.date.'

[+] 3. A special case

To conclude our discussion of the relative pronoun welke, we like to note that welk(e) can also be used attributively, in which case the pronoun heads a DP, which in turn acts as the complement of a PP, and which as a whole is coreferential with the antecedent. This kind of construction is only allowed in non-restrictive contexts like (175a), and we may be dealing in these cases not with a relative clause but with an apposition. The meaning of sentence (175a) is comparable to that of sentence (175b), in which the relative element takes the form of the pronominal PP waarmee. Note that in this latter sentence, the relative form waarmee can also be coreferential with the complete clause Jan kreeg een horloge'Jan was given a watch'; repetition of the antecedent, as in (175a), excludes this interpretation.

175

a.	Jan kreeg een horloge,	met welk cadeau	hij	blij	was.	NP antecedent
	Jan received a watch	with which present	he	glad	was
	'Jan received a watch, which present made him very happy.'

b.	Jan kreeg een horloge,	waarmee	hij	blij	was.	NP or CP antecedent
	Jan received a watch	where-with	he	glad	was
	'Jan received a watch, which made him very happy.'

Occasionally, dependent clauses like (176) occur, in which the noun phrase containing welke does not act as the complement of a preposition. This construction seems archaic and certainly does not seem to belong to the spoken language.

176

		Een staking,	welk middel	we	niet graag	gebruiken,	is nu het enige alternatief.
		a strike	which means	we	not gladly	use	is now the only alternative

[+] E. Hetgeen'which'

The relative pronoun hetgeen can in many contexts be used as a formal equivalent of the pronoun wat, although it is more restricted in its use: whereas hetgeen can always be replaced by wat, the reverse does not hold. For example, unlike wat, hetgeen can only be used in non-restrictive relative clauses and it is claimed that it typically takes clausal antecedents. If so, constructions with hetgeen must be represented as in (177). We will see, however, that the claim underlying this representation is in need of various modifications.

177

Non-restrictive use of hetgeen: clausei , [RChetgeeni.... ti ....]
[Jan komt morgen thuis]i , [RC	hetgeeniti	ons zeer verheugt].
Jan comes tomorrow home	which	us very pleases
'Jan is coming home tomorrow, which pleases us very much.'

[+] 1. Features of the antecedent

Haeseryn et al. (1997: 342) claim that the antecedent of hetgeen can only be a clause, as in (178b), and perhaps this is indeed the most typical use of hetgeen. However, it seems to us that the antecedent of hetgeen may also be a smaller (extended) projection of the verb or the predicate in a copular or vinden-construction. If so, hetgeen behaves exactly like wat in this respect, which will become clear by comparing the examples in (178)-(180) to those in (165)-(167).

178

a.		Hij	deed	mij	een prachtig aanbod,	hetgeen	ik	niet	had	verwacht.
		he	did	me	a splendid offer	which	I	not	had	expected

b.		Hij	deed	mij	een prachtig aanbod,	hetgeen	ik	erg	waardeerde.
		he	did	me	a splendid offer	which	I	very	appreciated

179

a.		Ik	ga deze winter	skiën,	hetgeen	ik	nog	nooit	eerder	heb	gedaan.
		I	go this winter	ski	which	I	yet	never	before	have	done

b.		Mijn broer	kan	goed	zwemmen,	hetgeen	ik	helemaal	niet	kan.
		my brother	can	well	swim	which	I	completely	not	can

180

a.	Mijn auto	is rood,	hetgeen	ik	een mooie kleur	vind.
	my car	is red	which	I	a lovely color	find
	'My car is red, which I find a lovely color.'

b.	Ik vind	Jan een echte ambtenaar,	hetgeen	ik	nooit	zou	willen	zijn.
	I consider	Jan a typical civil.servant,	which	I	never	would	want	be
	'I consider Jan a typical civil servant, which I never would like to be.'

In fact, we believe that hetgeen can also take nominal antecedents, provided that the relative clause is non-restrictive. Like wat, hetgeen only accepts +neuter and singular antecedents. Some examples of relative clauses introduced by the pronoun hetgeen that were judged acceptable by our informants are given in (181).

181

a.	Hij	deed	mij	[een prachtig aanbod]i,	hetgeeni	ik	niet	kon	weigeren.
	he	did	me	a splendid offer	which	I	not	could	refuse
	'He made me a splendid offer, which I couldnʼt refuse.'

b.	Hij	kwam	met	[een prachtig idee]i,	hetgeeni	we	nu	uit	gaan	werken.
	he	came	with	a great idea	which	we	now	prt.	go	develop
	'He came up with a great idea, which we are now going to develop further.'

It is also possible to use hetgeen with concrete antecedents, provided it has nonspecific reference. As soon as the relative pronoun refers to a specific object, use of dat or wat seems preferred, although it should be noted that some of our informants did accept example (182b) with hetgeen.

182

a.	Wij	gaven	hem	een horloge,	wat/hetgeen/%dat	hij	nu	dagelijks	draagt.
	we	gave	him	a watch	which	he	now	daily	wears
	'We gave him a watch, which he now wears every day.'

b.	Wij	gaven	hem	vaders horloge,	dat/wat/%hetgeen	hij	nu	dagelijks	draagt.
	we	gave	him	daddyʼs watch	which	he	now	daily	wears
	'We gave him daddyʼs watch, which he now wears every day.'

Some informants also accepted an animate antecedent for hetgeen; the only thing that was categorically rejected for hetgeen was a +human antecedent.

183

a.	%	Ik	keek	naar zijn paard,	hetgeen	erg ziek	was.
		I	looked	at his horse	which	very ill	was
		'I looked at his horse, which was very ill.'

b.	*	Ik	ontmoette	het meisje van hiernaast,	hetgeen	in Leiden studeert.
		I	met	the girl from next.door	which	in Leiden studies
		'I met the girl next door, who is studying in Leiden.'

It seems therefore that, in non-restrictive relative clauses, hetgeen has more or less the same distribution as wat. The latter is, however, preferred to the former, which only occurs in very formal contexts.

[+] 2. Quantified antecedents

The relative pronoun hetgeen commonly seems to be used with al; this is clear from the fact that a Google search on the string [al hetgeen] resulted in over 500 hits. The examples in (184), which are slightly adapted versions of examples found on the internet, can be found as subject, object, and the complement of a preposition.

184

a.	Al	hetgeen	ik	hier	neerschrijf	is pure fictie.
	all	which	I	here	write.down	is pure fiction
	'All that Iʼm writing here is pure fiction.'

b.	Al	hetgeen	hij	hier	zegt	kan	hij	staven	met bewijsstukken.
	all	which	he	here	says	can	he	substantiate	with proofs
	'All that he claims here, he can substantiate with proofs.'

c.	Ik	dank	Jan	voor al hetgeen	hij	van het jaar	heeft gedaan.
	I	thank	Jan	for all which	he	last year	has done
	'I would like to thank Jan for all that he has done last year.'

Examples involving quantified antecedents like alles'all', iets'something', or niets'nothing' feel severely degraded (although a few examples can be found on the internet). This suggests that we are actually not dealing in (184) with constructions in which hetgeen functions as a relative pronoun but in which the phrase al hetgeen functions as the antecedent of a relative clause with a phonetically empty relative pronoun. An argument in favor of this suggestion is that besides the examples in (184), we can find examples such as (185), in which dat/wat seems to act as a relative pronoun that takes al hetgeen as its antecedent. Constructions of the form in (185) are less common, but still common enough to be taken seriously (the strings [al hetgeen dat] and [al hetgeen wat] resulted in about 5,500 hits).

185

a.	Al	hetgeen	dat/wat	ik	hier	neerschrijf	is pure fictie.
	all	that	which	I	here	write.down	is pure fiction
	'All Iʼm writing here is pure fiction.'

b.	Al	hetgeen	dat/wat	hij	hier	zegt	kan	hij	staven	met bewijsstukken.
	all	that	which	he	here	says	can	he	substantiate	with proofs
	'All that he claims here, he can substantiate with proofs.'

c.	Ik	dank	Jan	voor al hetgeen	wat/dat	hij	van het jaar	heeft gedaan.
	I	thank	Jan	for all that	which	he	last year	has done
	'I would like to thank Jan for all that he has done last year.'

An argument against this suggestion is that there is no independent evidence for the existence of the phonetically empty relative pronoun that must be postulated. We will therefore not speculate on the constructions in (184) and (185) any further, and leave the issue for future research.

[+] 3. (Semi-)free relative constructions

Hetgeen does not seem to be used in semi-free relatives, but a Google search on the string [hetgeen hij] suggests that it is frequently found in free relative constructions, that is, without an overt antecedent. Some (adapted) examples are given in (186).

186

a.	Hetgeen	hij	daar	zegt	klopt	niet.
	which	he	there	says	is.right	not
	'What heʼs saying there isnʼt right.'

b.	Hij	doet	hetgeen	hij geleerd	heeft.
	he	does	which	he learned	has
	'He does what he has been taught.'

c.	Hij	wees	mij	op hetgeen	er	in de kleine lettertjes	stond.
	he	pointed	me	on that	there	in the little print	stood
	'He drew my attention to what it said in the fine print.'

However, it should be noted that the examples in (186) alternate with those in (187), in which hetgeen functions as the antecedent of the relative pronouns wat and dat: a Google search (12/1/2015) on the strings [hetgeen wat/dat hij] resulted in more than 600 (291/245) hits, most of which instantiated the relevant construction.

187

a.	Hetgeen	wat	hij	daar	zegt	klopt	niet.
	that	which	he	there	says	is.right	not
	'What heʼs saying there isnʼt right.'

b.	Hij	doet	hetgeen	wat	hij	geleerd	heeft.
	he	does	that	which	he	learned	has
	'He does what he has been taught.'

c.	??	Hij	wees	mij	op hetgeen	wat	er	in de kleine lettertjes	stond.
		he	pointed	me	on that	which	there	in the little print	stood
		'He drew my attention to what it said in the fine print.'

This suggests that, just like in the case with quantified antecedents, hetgeen does not function as a relative pronoun in (186), but as the antecedent of a phonetically empty relative pronoun. Note that this would also immediately account for the fact noted earlier that hetgeen does not seem to enter semi-free relative constructions, that is, it cannot take a semantically light antecedent; this would then be due to the fact that it is hetgeen itself that functions as such an antecedent, and not as a relative pronoun. Given that there is no independent evidence for the existence of the phonetically empty relative pronoun that must be postulated, we will not speculate on the constructions in (186) and (187) any further, and again leave this issue for future research.

[+] 4. Syntactic function of the pronoun

Since the pronoun hetgeen has non-human, abstract reference, it occurs most naturally as the direct object of the relative clause. An example can be found in (188a). It can, however, also function as the subject of the relative clause when we are dealing with a passive or unaccusative construction, as in (188b&c).

188

a.	Jan deed	[een voorstel]i,	hetgeeni	we unaniem	hebben	aangenomen.
	Jan did	a proposal	which	we unanimously	have	accepted
	'Jan made a proposal, which we accepted unanimously.'

b.	Jan deed	[een voorstel] i,	hetgeeni	unaniem	werd	aangenomen.
	Jan did	a proposal	which	unanimously	was	accepted
	'Jan made a proposal, which was accepted unanimously.'

c.	De eigenaar	vroeg	[duizend euro]i,	hetgeeni	ons budget	te boven ging.
	the owner	asked	a thousand euros	which	our budget	exceeded
	'The owner asked a thousand euros, which exceeded our budget.'

The relative pronoun hetgeen can also function as a nominal indirect object provided that the referent is -human, as in (189a). Example (189b) shows, however, that it cannot occur in a prepositional indirect object (or any other PP), which is in accordance with the general observation that prepositions do not accept -human pronouns as their complement; (189c) shows that in cases like these, a (split or unsplit) pronominal PP must be used; cf. Subsection III.

189

a.	Jan deed	[een voorstel]i,	hetgeeni	we onze	volle steun	hebben	gegeven.
	Jan did	a proposal	which	we our	full support	have	given
	'Jan made a proposal, which we gave our full support.'

b.	*	Jan deed	een voorstel,	aan hetgeen	we onze volle steun	hebben	gegeven.
		Jan did	a proposal	to which	we our full support	have	given

c.		Jan deed	een voorstel,	waaraan	we onze volle steun	hebben	gegeven.
		Jan did	a proposal	to.which	we our full support	have	given

In addition, the pronoun hetgeen can be used as the predicate of a non-restrictive relative clause. In this respect, hetgeen again behaves like wat, so that we can refer to the discussion of the examples in (162) and (163); just note that the (a)-examples in (190) show that the antecedent of predicative hetgeen can be a plural, non-neuter or +human antecedent, and that the examples in (190b&b') show that antecedent and pronoun need not agree in number.

190

a.	Ze	zoeken	een ervaren manager,	hetgeen	ik	niet	ben.
	they	search	an experienced manager	which	I	not	am
	'They are looking for an experienced manager, which Iʼm not.'

a'.	Ze	zoeken	ervaren managers,	hetgeen	wij	niet	zijn.
	they	search	experienced managers	which	we	not	are
	'They are looking for experienced managers, which we are not.'

b.	Ze	zoeken	een ervaren manager,	hetgeen	wij	niet	zijn.
	they	search	an experienced manager	which	we	not	are
	'They are looking for an experienced manager, which we are not.'

b'.	??	Ze	zoeken	ervaren managers,	hetgeen	ik	niet	ben.
		they	search	experienced managers	which	I	not	am
		'They are looking for experienced managers, which Iʼm not.'

[+] II. Possessive relative pronouns

Dutch has two possessive relative pronouns: the genitive forms wiens and wier. Constructions containing one of these forms can be represented as in (191). The indices indicate the relations within this structure. The index i indicates that the full DP is moved from the position of the trace into the initial position of the relative clause. The index j indicates that the noun (phrase) modified by the relative clause acts as the antecedent of the possessive relative pronoun.

191

a.	Restr. rel. clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]j [RC [DPwiens/wierj NP]i ... [DPti ] ...]]]
	[DP	de [NP	jongenj [RC [DP	wiensj hond]i [DPti ]	is overreden]]]
	[DP	the	boy	whose dog	is run.over
	'the boy whose dog has been overrun'

b.	Non-restr. rel. clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]j , [RC [DPwiens/wierj NP]i... [DPti ] ...]]
	[DP	de [NP	jongen]j , [RC [DP	wiensj hond]i [DPti ]	is overreden]]
	[DP	the	boy	whose dog	is run.over
	'the boy, whose dog has been overrun'

Being possessive forms, wiens and wier are always embedded within a larger noun phrase. The two forms combine with +human antecedents only (and perhaps nouns referring to certain domesticated animals). The examples in (192) show that wiens is used for singular masculine referents, whereas wier is used for singular feminine referents as well as for all plural referents.

192

a.	Dat	is de studentmasc	wiens werk	niet	in orde	was.
	that	is the student	whose work	not	in order	was
	'That is the student whose work wasnʼt all right.'

b.	Dat	is de studentefem	wier werk	niet	in orde	was.
	that	is the student	whose work	not	in order	was
	'That is the female student whose work wasnʼt all right.'

c.	Dat	zijn	de studentenpl.	wier werk	niet	in orde	was.
	that	are	the students	whose work	not	in order	was
	'Those are the students whose work was not all right.'

If the antecedent is neuter, it is normally the pronoun wiens that is used. However, if the referent is female, it is not uncommon to find the pronoun wier. A Google search (1/12/2008) for the strings [meisje wiens] and [meisje wier] resulted in, respectively, 408 and 342 hits. A similar search for the neuter noun wijf'woman' resulted in, respectively, 49 and 31 cases (which include cases from older literature). We may therefore conclude that for some speakers the choice is determined by grammatical gender, and for some by sex.

193

a.	Dat	is de jongen/het jongetje	wiens hond	is overreden.
	that	is the boy/the boydim	whose dog	is run.over
	'That is the boy whose dog has been run over.'

b.	Dat	is het meisje	wiens/wier vader	minister is.
	that	is the girl	whose father	minister is
	'That is the girl whose father is a minister.'

Generally speaking, the use of wiens and, in particular, wier is rather formal and largely confined to written language. In speech, as well as in most written texts, the complex forms van wie and waarvan in (194) are used. In more informal, colloquial Dutch, a combination of the pronoun wie and the reduced form of a possessive pronoun, as in (195), can also be found.

194

a.		Dat	is de jongen	van wie/waarvan	de hond	is overreden.
		that	is the boy	of whom/of.whom	the dog	is run.over

b.		Dat	is het meisje	van wie/waarvan	de vader	minister is.
		that	is the girl	of whom/of.whom	the father	minister is

c.		Dat	zijn	de studenten	van wie/waarvan	het werk	niet	in orde	was.
		that	are	the students	of who/of.whom	the work	not	in order	was

195

a.	%	Dat	is	de jongen	wie zʼn hond	is overreden.
		that	is	the boy	who his dog	is run.over

b.	%	Dat	is het meisje	wie dʼr vader	minister is.
		that	is the girl	who her father	minister is

c.	??	Dat	zijn	de studenten	wie hun werk	niet	in orde	was.
		that	are	the students	who their work	not	in order	was

Finally, note that besides the possessive forms wiens and wier, which take +human antecedents, there are two archaic forms that take a -human antecedent and that can occasionally be found in very formal samples of written language: welks and welker. The examples in (196) show that the pronoun welks is used for singular +masculine or +neuter antecedents, whereas welker is used for singular +feminine and plural referents.

196

a.	een briefmasc	welks taal	al te dreigend	is
	a letter	whose language	all too threatening	is
	'a letter the language of which is too threatening'

b.	het bedrijfneuter	welks directeur	hij	van fraude	beschuldigde
	the company	whose director	he	of fraud	accused
	'the company the director of which is accused of fraud'

c.	de natiefem	welker economische groei	het groot	is
	the nation	whose economic growth	the biggest	is
	'the nation whose economic growth is largest'

d.	museumspl.	welker collecties	de meeste bezoekers	trekken
	museums	whose collections	the most visitors	attract
	'museums whose collections attract the largest number of visitors'

The examples in (197) give the colloquial forms of the examples in (196), which involve extraction of the possessive pronominal PP waarvan'of which' from the noun phrase.

197

a.		een briefmasc	waarvani	[de taal ti ]	al te dreigend	is
		a letter	of.which	the language	all too threatening	is

b.		het bedrijfneuter	waarvani	hij	[de directeur ti ]	van fraude	beschuldigde
		the company	of.which	he	the director	of fraud	accused

c.		een natiefem	waarvani	[de economische groei ti ]	het grootst	is
		a nation	of.which	the economic growth	the biggest	is

d.		museumspl.	waarvani	[de collecties ti ]	de meeste bezoekers	trekken
		museums	of.which	the collections	the most visitors	attract

[+] III. The relative pronominal PP waar + P

Relative pronominal PPs always have the form waar + P, but there are two slightly different patterns. The first is the so-called split pattern of the pronominal PP in (198), in which the R-pronounwaar is extracted from the PP, so that the preposition is stranded in the original position of the PP; see Chapter P5, from which we will adopt the convention of giving the discontinuous PP waar ... P in italics. The index i expresses both that the R-pronoun has been extracted from the PP and that the noun (phrase) modified by the relative clause acts as the antecedent of this R-pronoun.

198

a.	Restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]i [RCwaari ... [PP P ti ] ... ]]]
	[DP	de [NP	treini [RC	waari	hij [PP	meeti ]	reist ]]]
	[DP	the	train	where	he	with	travels
	'the train heʼs traveling on'

b.	Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]j , [RCwaari ... [PP P ti ] ... ]]
	[DP	deze [NP	trein]i , [RC	waari	hij [PP	meeti ]	reist ]]
	[DP	this	train	where	he	with	travels
	'this train, which heʼs traveling on'

The second is the unsplit pattern of the pronominal PP, in which the preposition is pied-piped by the pronominal part waar into the initial position of the relative clause. In these examples, the index i indicates that the full PP has been moved from the position of the trace into the initial position of the relative clause, and the index j indicates that the noun (phrase) modified by the relative clause acts as the antecedent of the R-pronoun waar.

199

a.	Restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]j [RC [PPwaarj-P]i ... ti ] ... ]]
	[DP	de [NP	treinj [RC [PP	waarj-mee]i	hij ti	reist]]]
	[DP	the	train	where-with	he	travels
	'the train heʼs traveling on'

b.	Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]j , [RC [PPwaarj-P]i ... ti ... ]]]
	[DP	deze [NP	trein]j , [RC [PP	waarj-mee]i	hij ti	reist]]
	[DP	this	train	where-with	he	travels
	'this train, which heʼs traveling on'

[+] A. Features of the antecedent

Subsection IB, has shown that if the antecedent is +human and the relative pronoun is part of a prepositional phrase in the relative clause, the pronoun wie can be used, as in (200b). However, this construction alternates with those in (200c&c'), where the pronominal PP waar + P is used.

200

a.	Ik	ben	al jaren	met die jongen	bevriend.
	I	am	already years	with that boy	friendly
	'Iʼve been friends with that boy for years.'

b.	Dit	is de jongen	met wie	ik	al jaren	bevriend	ben.
	this	is the boy	with whom	I	already years	friendly	am
	'This is the boy with whom Iʼve been friends for years.'

c.	Dit	is	de jongen	waar	ik	al jaren	mee	bevriend	ben.
	this	is	the boy	where	I	already years	with	friendly	am
	'This is the boy Iʼve been friends with for years.'

c'.		Dit	is de jongen	waarmee	ik	al jaren	bevriend	ben.
		this	is the boy	where-with	I	already years	friendly	am

There seems to be a mild normative pressure that favors the use of the form P + wie (cf. http://taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/887), which may be due to the fact that pronominal PPs are normally not used to refer to +human entities in other contexts. However, the actual use of relative pronominal PP does not seem to be less frequent than that of the relative form P + wie. This will be clear from the fact that a Google search (12/1/2015) on the strings [jongen met wie]and[jongen waarmee]resulted in, respectively, 261 and 341 hits. In fact, the relative pronominal PP waar + P may turn out to be more popular than the numbers above suggest, given that the pronominal PP also occurs in the split pattern: a search on the combination of [jongen waar] and [mee] gave an additional 298 hits, a substantial part of which instantiated the split pattern in (200c).
The examples in (201b) show that the R-pronoun waar is not sensitive to the gender of the antecedent. Neither is it sensitive to the number of the antecedent, as is shown by (201c).

201

a.	Hij	werkt	al jaren	met dit systeemneuter/deze softwarenon-neuter.
	he	works	already years	with this system/this software
	'He has been working with this system/software for years.'

b.	Dat	is het systeem/de software	waar<mee>	hij	al jaren <mee>	werkt.
	that	is the system/the software	where-with	he	already years	works
	'That is the system/software he has been working with for years.'

c.	Dat	zijn de systemen	waar<mee>	hij	al jaren <mee>	werkt.
	these are	the systems	where-with	he	already years	works
	'These are the systems he has been working with for years.'

[+] B. Syntactic function of the pronoun

The examples in (202) show that the relative R-pronoun waar in (201b) cannot be replaced by the relative pronouns die or dat. Observe that we do not give the counterpart of the split pattern in (201), since preposition stranding is only possible with R-pronouns.

202

a.	*	Dat	is het systeemi	met dati	hij	al jaren	werkt.
		that	is the system	with that	he	already years	works

b.	*	Dat	is de softwarei	met diei	hij	al jaren	werkt.
		that	is the software	with that	he	already years	works

The examples in (202) and (201b) show that the relative pronouns die and dat resemble the pronoun het in requiring R-pronominalization to take place (see Chapter P5); the relative pronoun wie, on the other hand, does not undergo this process. Descriptively speaking, we have the rules in (203). After R-pronominalization has taken place the pronominal PP can be put in the initial position of the relative clause, or be split so that only the R-pronoun is placed in clause-initial position.

203

a.		P + het ⇒ er + P
		'with it'

a'.

*met het

a''.

ermee

b.		P + die/dat ⇒ waar+P
		'with which'

b'.

*met die

b''.

waarmee

c.		P + wie
		'with whom'

c'.

met wie

c''.

n.a.

In the following two subsections we will show that the relative pronominal PP waarmee may function as an argument or a complement of the relative clause. In the third subsection we will discuss a complicating factor in describing the distribution of relative waarmee.

[+] 1. Extractability

Normally, the relative pronominal PP waar + P can only be used if the PP can undergo R-pronominalization in other contexts as well. An example is given in (204): example (204b) shows that the locational PP op een stoel in (204a) can be readily pronominalized, and correspondingly, the pronominal PP waarop can also be used in (204c), either in its split or unsplit form.

204

a.	Ik	zit	op een stoel.
	I	sit	on a chair
	'Iʼm sitting on a chair.'

b.	Ik	zit	erop.
	I	sit	there-on
	'Iʼm sitting on it.'

c.	De stoel	waar<op>	ik <op>	zit	is erg oud.
	the chair	where-on	I	sit	is very old
	'The chair Iʼm sitting on is very old.'

The examples in (205) are, however, exceptional: example (205b) shows that R-pronominalization of temporal PPs is normally not possible, whereas example (205c) shows that the relative pronominal PP waarop can have a temporal function. The main difference with the examples in (204) is that the temporal PP cannot be split. More examples of relative adverbial phrases that behave in this way will be given in Subsection IV on relative adverbs.

205

a.	Ik	trouwde	op de dag dat ...
	I	married	on the day that ...
	'I got married on that day.'

b.	*?	Ik	trouwde	erop.
		I	married	there-on

c.	De dag	waar <op>	ik <*op>	trouwde	vergeet	ik	nooit.
	the day	where-on	I	married	forget	I	never
	'The day I got married Iʼll never forget.'

[+] 2. Complements and adjuncts

The examples below show that the relative pronominal PP waar + P can be used for both complements and adjunct PPs: the examples in (206) contain the PP-complement op een walvis'on a whale' and the examples in (207) contain the PP-adjunct met de trein'with the train'. In both cases waar can be used, either together with the preposition or with the preposition stranded.

206

a.	Hij	jaagt	op	een witte walvis.
	he	hunts	on	a white whale
	'Heʼs hunting a white whale.'

b.	De walvis	waar	<op>	hij <op>	jaagt	is wit.
	the whale	where	on	he	hunts	is white
	'The whale he is hunting is white.'

207

a.	Hij	komt	met de trein.
	he	comes	with the train
	'Heʼs coming by train.'

b.	De trein	waar	<mee>	hij <mee>	reist	is vertraagd.
	the train	where	with	he	travels	is delayed
	'The train heʼs traveling on has been delayed.'

A caveat is perhaps in order here. The examples in (208) show that, as expected, the relative pronoun die cannot replace waar in the (b)-examples. It should be noted, however, that (208a) is acceptable if the adposition and the verb are interpreted as the particle verb opjagen'to rout'; in that case, the relative pronoun die is an accusative noun phrase, not the complement of the adposition op. The two cases differ not only in meaning but also in intonation pattern: the particle op normally bears stress (dat we de walvis op jagen'that we rout the whale'), whereas stress is normally assigned to the verb (or some other element) if we are dealing with a stranded preposition (dat we er al tijden op jagen'that we have hunted it for ages').

208

a.	#	De walvis	die	hij	op jaagt	is wit.
		the whale	that	he	on hunts	is white

b.	*	De trein	die	hij	mee	reist	is vertraagd.
		the train	that	he	with	travels	is delayed

[+] 3. A problematic case

Describing the distributional properties of the relative pronominal PP is complicated by the fact that some adpositions can be used either as a preposition or as a postposition, and in these cases die/dat and waar seem to alternate. In order to set the stage for the discussion, first consider example (209), in which we find the stranded preposition mee. The relevant observation is that this stranded preposition mee must precede the clause-final verbal sequence, and cannot permeate it; cf. Van Riemsdijk (1978: 162/163).

209

a.	Dat	is de software	waar	hij	jaren	mee	heeft	gewerkt.
	that	is the software	where	he	years	with	has	worked
	'That is the software he has been working with for years.'

Dat is de software waar hij jaren heeft mee gewerkt.

Postpositions behave differently in this respect: the examples in (210) show that postpositions can readily permeate the clause-final verb cluster. From the data in (209) and (210), we may conclude that, whenever we find an adposition within the verb cluster, we are dealing with a postposition (or a particle), not with a stranded preposition.

210

a.	omdat	hij	die boom	<in>	is <in>	geklommen.
	because	he	that tree	into	is	climbed
	'because he has climbed into that tree.'

b.	omdat	de kapitein/boot	de haven	<in>	is <in>	gevaren.
	because	the captain/boat	the harbor	into	is	sailed
	'because the captain/boat has sailed into the harbor.'

Now, consider the primeless examples in (211), in which the complement of the adposition in can be realized either as the relative pronoun die or as the R-pronoun waar. Given that the adposition in can permeate the verb cluster, we conclude that we are dealing with a postposition in both cases. These examples therefore suggest that the complement of a postposition can be realized either as a regular relative pronoun or as the relative R-pronoun waar.

211

a.	de boom	die/waar	hij	<in>	is <in>	geklommen
	the tree	that/where	he	into	is	climbed
	'the tree he has climbed into'

b.	de haven	die/waar	de kapitein/boot	<in>	is <in>	gevaren
	the harbor	that/where	the captain/boat	into	is	sailed
	'the harbor the captain has sailed into'

This conclusion seems to be contradicted by example (212b); in this example the complement of the postposition in cannot be realized as the relative pronoun die, but must be realized as an R-pronoun (although even this option does not seem to be fully acceptable).

212

a.	omdat	de kapitein	het schip	de haven	<in>	heeft <in>	gevaren.
	because	the captain	the ship	the harbor	into	has	sailed
	'because the captain has sailed the ship into the harbor.'

b.		de haven	?waar/*die	de kapitein	het schip	<in>	heeft <in>	gevaren
		the harbor	where/that	the captain	the ship	into	has	sailed

The crucial difference between the examples in (211b) and (212) seems to be related to the status of the verb varen'to sail': it acts as an unaccusative verb in (211), and the logical subject of the directional PP (de kapitein/het schip'the captain/ship') surfaces as the subject of the clause; the verb in (212), on the other hand, is not unaccusative, so that the external argument of the PP (het schip'the ship') surfaces as an object. It will be clear that this problem merits more discussion, which will be given in Section P5.2.2 (where we will actually not reach a definite conclusion either).

[+] IV. Relative adverbial phrases

Dutch has a number of pronominal relative elements, which may function as a specific type of prepositional complement or adverbial phrase in the relative clause. For short, we will refer to these elements as relative adverbs; relative clauses with these adverbs can be given the structural representation in (213). The relative adverb may take various forms, depending on the semantic function (location, reason, manner, time, type) of the prepositional adjunct in question. We will discuss the various forms in the following subsections.

213

Restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP [... N ...]i [RC [adverb]i...[PPti ] ... ]]]

[DP	de [NP	dagi [RC	waaropi	ik	geboren [PPti ]	ben]]]
[DP	the	day	where-on	I	born	am
'the day I was born'

Non-restrictive relative clauses: [DP D [NP ... N ...]i, [RC [adverb]i... [PPti ] ... ]]

[DP	deze [NP	dag]i , [RC	waaropi	ik	geboren [PPti ]	ben]]
[DP	this	day	where-on	I	born	am
'this day, when I was born'

[+] A. The R-pronoun waar

The relative adverb waar corresponds to a locational PP, just like the demonstrative R-pronouns daar'there' or hier'here'. In (214) it functions as an adverbial phrase, and in (215) as the obligatory complement of the verb wonen'to live'. As shown in (214b&c), relative clauses introduced by waar can be either restrictive or non-restrictive.

214

a.	Ik	ben	geboren	in dat huis/daar.
	I	am	born	in that house/there
	'I was born in this house.'

b.	Dat	is het huisi	waari	ik	geboren	ben.
	that	is the house	where	I	born	am
	'That is the house where I was born.'

c.	Dit huis,	waar	ik	geboren	ben,	wordt	binnenkort	afgebroken.
	this house	where	I	born	am	is	soon	demolished
	'This house, where I was born, will soon be demolished.'

215

a.		Ik	woon	in deze stad/hier.
		I	live	in this city

b.		Dit	is de stadi	waari	ik	woon.
		this	is the city	where	I	live

Note that the categorial status of the relative adverb waar differs from the categorial status of its antecedent: the (a)-examples show that waar is a pro-form of a locational PP, whereas the antecedent is an NP (in the case of a restrictive relative clause) or a DP (in the case of a non-restrictive relative clause). This poses a problem for the assumption adopted earlier, according to which the relative pronoun is referentially dependent on its antecedent. This problem can be solved by assuming that pro-forms like daar/hier'there/here' and waar are actually PPs containing a covert preposition (cf., e.g., Van Bart et al. 1998): the analysis of examples in (214b&c) and (215b) would then be completely on a par with relative constructions in which the relative pronoun pied-pipes a preposition. Here, we will not discuss whether such an analysis is tenable, but leave this to others to decide.
Relative clauses introduced by waar can also be used as free relatives, in which the head is not overtly expressed (cf. de plaats waar hij woont'the place where he lives'). Examples can be found in (216).

216

a.	Waar	hij	woont,	is niet	bekend.
	where	he	lives	is not	known
	'Where he lives is unknown.'

b.	Ik	weet	niet	waar	ik	geboren	ben.
	I	know	not	where	I	born	am
	'I donʼt know where I was born.'

Although the more or less idiomatic construction in (217a) can possibly also be regarded as a free relative, it is different in a number of ways. First, the particle ook is obligatorily present, which seems to add a concessive meaning to the construction (no matter where you come ...). Second, (217b) shows that it is impossible for the waar-construction to take an antecedent.

217

a.	Waar	je	ook	komt,	ze	kennen	hem.
	where	you	prt	come	they	know	him
	'Wherever you come, they know him.'

b.	*	(Op)	de plaats	waar	je	ook	komt,	ze	kennen	hem.
		at	the place	where	you	prt	come	they	know	him

Finally, the waar-phrase does not act as an argument or adjunct in the main clause, but is external to it. Given that Dutch is a verb-second language, the finite verb in declarative main clauses is preceded by a single constituent. Given that the subject occupies this position in (217a), the waar-phrase must be clause-external. This conclusion is also supported by the fact illustrated by (218a) that the waar-phrase cannot occupy the first position of the clause itself. In this respect it differs from constituents of the clause, as is shown by the minimally different example in (218b), in which the relative adverb waar takes as its antecedent the universally quantified overal'everywhere', which functions as a spatial adverbial phrase.

218

a.	*	Waar	je	ook	komt	kennen	ze	hem.
		where	you	prt	come	know	they	him

b.	Overal	waar	je	komt,	kennen	ze	hem.
	everywhere	where	you	come	know	they	him
	'Wherever you come they know him.'

[+] B. waar + P (temporal/manner adverbs)

This subsection discusses two relative adverbs that have the form of a pronominal PP, like waarop and waarin. These pronominal PPs do not have a non-relative counterpart and cannot be split, that is, the preposition must be pied-piped to the initial position of the relative clause, contrary to what is the case with other types of pronominal PPs. This has already been illustrated for waarop in (205). The relative adverb waarop can be used in two ways: its antecedent may be an NP with a temporal referent (denoting a relatively short period of time) or an NP with a manner referent. In the relative clause, this relative adverb functions as a prepositional adjunct of time and manner, respectively. Examples can be found in (219).

219

a.	Dit	was het momenti [RC	waaropi	hij	besloot	in	te grijpen].	time
	this	was the moment	where-on	he	decided	prt.	to intervene
	'This was the moment he decided to intervene.'

a'.	Zaterdag	is de dagi [RC	waaropi	ik	uitga].	time
	Saturday	is the day	where-on	I	go.out
	'Saturday is the day I go out.'

b.	Dat	is de manieri [RC	waaropi	ik	het	zou	hebben	gedaan].	manner
	that	is the way	where-on	I	it	would	have	done
	'That is the way I would have done it.'

b'.	De wijzei [RC	waaropi	hij	zich	gedraagt]	keur	ik	af.	manner
	the way	where-on	he	refl	behaves	disapprove	I	prt.
	'I disapprove of the way he is behaving.'

Note that many, but not all, speakers can replace waarop in (219b&b') by the interrogative manner adverb hoe'how': a Google search (May 2008) gave 388 hits for the string [de manier waarop] and nearly 430 hits for the string [de manier hoe]. Interestingly, the manner adverb hoe, but not the relative adverb waarop, can also be used in a free relative construction (Haslinger 2007).

220

a.	Ik	bewonder	de manier [RC	waarop/%hoe	jij	het	gedaan	hebt].
	I	admire	the way	where-on/how	you	it	done	have
	'I admire the way you have done it.'

b.		Ik	bewonder [RC	hoe/*waarop	jij	het	gedaan	hebt].
		I	admire	how/where-on	you	it	done	have

The relative adverb waarin is used in a similar fashion with temporal nouns denoting longer periods of time, such as maand'month', week'week', periode'period', winter'winter' etc. This is illustrated in the primed examples in (221), which also show that the split pattern is excluded. The primeless examples show that there is no non-relative form of the pronominal PP.

221

a.	Ik	ben	in januari/*erin	geboren.
	I	am	in January/in it	borne
	'I was born in January.'

a'.	De maand	waarin	ik	geboren	ben	was	het	erg koud.
	the month	where-in	I	born	am	was	it	very cold
	'The month I was born it was very cold.'

b.	Ik	was in maart/*erin	op vakantie.
	I	was in March/in it	on holiday
	'Iʼve been on holiday in March.'

b'.	De week	waarin	ik	op vakantie	was,	is er	erg veel	gebeurd.
	the week	where-in	I	on holiday	was	is there	very much	happened
	'The week I was on holiday a lot happened.'

Although the relative adverbs waarop and waarin are the most frequent ones, other forms like do occur, which is clear from the results of a Google search (1/12/2015) on the strings shown in (222): note that the result for the string [de dag waarvoor] is flaterringm as most results involve cases in which the pronominal PP waarvoor has a non-temporal meaning.

222

de dag waarop'the day on which'

326 hits

het jaar waarin'the year in which'

362 hits

de dag waarna'the day after which'

292 hits

de dag waarvoor'the day before which'

344 hits

To conclude, we want to stress that the inability to take the form of a non-relative pronominal PP or to occur in the split pattern is not common to all adverbial phrases. Instrumental PPs, for example, are generally considered adverbial phrases, but still they allow the formation of a pronominal PP, which in addition can be split. This is demonstrated again in example (223); see Subsection III for more discussion.

223

a.	Hij	heeft	met dat systeem/ermee	gewerkt.
	he	has	with that system/there-with	worked
	'He has worked with that system/it.'

b.	Dit	is het systeem	waar<mee>	hij <mee>	gewerkt	heeft.
	this	is the system	where-with	he	worked	has
	'This is the system he has worked with.'

[+] C. Toen/wanneer'when'

Temporal phrases can be relativized not only by means of the relative adverbs waarop/waarin, but also (at least marginally) by means of the elements toen and wanneer. The difference between the latter two elements is that toen refers to a moment in the past, as a result of which it can only introduce a relative clause containing a finite verb in the past tense, whereas wanneer can only be used in present or future tense relative clauses. Some examples are given in (224) and (225).

224

a.	(?)	De tijd	toen	men	nog	per koets	reisde	ligt	ver achter ons.
		the time	when	one	still	by carriage	traveled	lies	far behind us
		'The days when people traveled by carriage are far behind us.'

b.	?	De lente	toen	ik	geboren	werd	was	het	ontzettend koud.
		the spring	when	I	born	was	was	it	extremely cold
		'The spring I was born it was extremely cold.'

c.	??	De dag	toen	ik	geboren	werd	was het	ontzettend koud.
		the day	when	I	born	was	was it	extremely cold

d.	??	Het moment	toen	ik	naar	buiten	ging	begon	het	te regenen.
		the moment	when	I	to	outside	went	began	it	to rain
		'The moment I went out it started to rain.'

225

a.	?	Het jaar	wanneer	ik	tachtig	word,	vergaat	de wereld.
		the year	when	I	eighty	become	perishes	the world
		'The year I turn eighty the world will perish.'

b.	??	De tijd	wanneer	iedereen	een computer	heeft	is nog	ver weg.
		the time	when	everyone	a computer	has	is still	far away
		'The time when everyone has a computer is still far away.'

c.	??	De dag	wanneer	ik	de loterij	win	stop ik	met werken.
		the day	when	I	the lottery	win	stop I	with work
		'The day I win the lottery Iʼll stop working.'

d.	??	Het moment	wanneer	ik	terugkom	bel	ik	je	op.
		the moment	when	I	return	call	I	you	prt.
		'The moment I return Iʼll call you.'

Although the examples above can readily be found on the internet, we have judged them as marked to questionable. The reason for this is that the relative adverbs can always be replaced by the relative particle dat, which will be discussed in Subsection V, which is more frequent and always gives rise to a fully acceptable result.

[+] D. Waarom'why'

At first sight, the relative adverbs waarop and waarin seem similar to the form waarom'why' in (226a). However, the latter form differs from the former in that it can be used as part of a free relative (without an antecedent). This will become clear by comparing (226a) to (226b&c).

226

a.	(De reden)	waarom	ik	het	gedaan	heb,	vertel	ik	liever	niet.
	the reason	why	I	it	done	have	tell	I	rather	not
	'(The reason) why I did it Iʼd rather not tell.'

b.	*	(De manier)	waarop	ik	het	gedaan	heb,	was niet efficiënt.
		the way	where-on	I	it	done	have	was not efficient

c.	*	(De week)	waarin	ik	op vakantie	was,	is er	erg veel	gebeurd.
		the week	where-in	I	on holiday	was	is there	very much	happened

We should, however, keep in mind that there might be an analysis of (226a) that does not involve a relative but a complement clause, in which case the noun reden would not be construed as the antecedent of waarom but as a proposition noun. An argument in favor of such an analysis is that, as shown in (227), the part of the clause excluding the adverb waarom can be deleted.

227

De reden	waarom	ik	het	gedaan	heb,	vertel	ik	liever	niet.
the reason	why	I	it	done	have	tell	I	rather	not
'The reason why (I did it) Iʼd rather not tell.'

This phenomenon, which is know as sluicing, is a typical property of clausal complements of verbs of saying and nouns derived from them; cf. (228). Since the examples in (229) show that relative clauses do not allow sluicing, the acceptability of (227) strongly suggests that we are dealing here with a clausal complement as well. If so, we have to conclude that waarom is not a relative adverb.

228

a.	Jan vroeg	waarom	(hij	niet	kwam).
	Jan asked	why	he	not	came
	'Jan asked why (he didnʼt come)'

b.	de vraag	waarom	(hij	niet	kwam)
	the question	why	he	not	came
	'the question why (he didnʼt come)'

229

a.		Het moment	waarop	*?(hij	besloot	in	te grijpen)	was goed gekozen.
		the moment	where-on	he	decided	prt.	to intervene	was well chosen

b.		De week	waarin	*(ik	op vakantie	was,)	is er	erg veel	gebeurd.
		the week	where-in	I	on holiday	was	is there	very much	happened

The argument may be weakened, however, in light of the fact that relative manner adverbs can be used without the remainder of the clause. It might be the case that we are dealing with a more or less idiomatic case here, but it will be clear that this is not the place to interpret the data in this subsection any further.

230

De manier	waarop	(ik	het	gedaan	heb,)	was niet	efficiënt.
the way	where-on	I	it	done	have	was not	efficient
'The way I did it wasnʼt very efficient.'

[+] E. Zoals

Clauses introduced by the element zoals differ from the relative clauses discussed so far in that it does not restrict the token-set of the antecedent, but its type. In the relative clause, the conjunction zoals functions as a kind of adjunct specifying the type of entity referred to by the head of the construction (and in this respect it functions much as it does in een man (zo)als hij'a man like him'). In order for this to be possible, the antecedent itself must also be realized in pronominal form in the relative clause. In (231a), the type of the antecedent kerken'churches' (that is, zulke kerken'such churches') seems to be relativized by the element zoals, which seems to function as an adjunct to the obligatorily present demonstrative pronoun die'those' within the relative clause, which is coreferential with the antecedent of zoals. The same thing holds for the sentence in (231b), where the personal pronoun ze'they' is used to refer back to the antecedent boeken. In (231c), quantitative er is used to refer back to the non-referential (predicative) noun phrase een man'a man' in the main clause.

231

Kerken

zoals

men

*(die)

vroeger

bouwde,

zie

niet

veel

meer.

churches

they

those

earlier

built

see

you

not

much

'Churches like the ones they built earlier, one doesnʼt see much anymore.'

b.	Boeken	zoals Mulisch	*(ze)	schrijft,	zijn	mij	te literair.
	books	like Mulisch	them	writes	are	me	too literary
	'Books like the ones Mulisch writes are too literary for me.'

c.	Jan is een man	zoals	je	*(er)	niet	veel	tegenkomt.
	Jan is a man	like	you	er	not	much	prt.-meet
	'Jan is the kind of man one doesnʼt meet very often.'

It is clear that we are dealing here with restrictive clauses; the question as to whether we are dealing here with relative clauses in the proper sense of the word, however, we leave open for future research, while noting that Heringa & De Vries (2008) claim that we are dealing with appositions in these examples.

[+] V. The relative particle dat

The relative particle dat differs from all other relative elements in a number of ways. In what follows its most important features will be discussed.

[+] A. Form: the relative particle is invariable

The relative particle differs from the regular relative pronoun (cf. Table 4) in that its form does not depend on the gender and number of the antecedent: it invariably surfaces as dat, and in this respect it resembles the declarative complementizer dat'that': in (232a), dat is used despite the fact that the antecedent is headed by the non-neuter noun week'week', and in (232b) we use dat regardless of whether the neuter noun moment'moment' is singular or plural.

232

a.	De week	dat we op vakantie waren,	regende	het	voortdurend.
	the week	that we on holiday were	rained	it	constantly
	'The week we were on holiday it rained constantly.'

b.	Op het moment/de momenten	dat het niet regende,	gingen	we	naar buiten.
	on the moment/the moments	that it not rained	went	we	to outside
	'At the moment(s) it didnʼt rain we went inside.'

[+] B. Function: the relative particle is an adverbial adjunct of time

Within the relative clause, the relative particle dat (or its corresponding gap) can only function as an adverbial time adjunct; its antecedent is always a temporal noun. This can be seen from the examples in (233).

233

a.	Wij	trouwden	[de dag na Pasen]TEMP-ADJ.
	we	married	the day after Easter
	'We got married the day after Easter.'

a'.	Dat	was	de dag [RC	datTEMP-ADJ	wij trouwden].
	that	was	the day	that	we married
	'That was the day we got married.'

b.	[Die week]TEMP-ADJ	waren	wij	op vakantie.
	that week	were	we	on holiday
	'That week we were on holiday.'

b'.	De week [RC	datTEMP-ADJ	we	op vakantie	waren]	is hij overleden.
	the week	that	we	on holiday	were	is he died
	'The week we were on holiday he died.'

Apart from such obvious cases as dag'day', week'week', maand'month', jaar'year', moment'moment' etc., the temporal antecedent may also take the form of nouns which can, but need not, be used to refer to a period of time, such as vakantie'vacation', maaltijd'meal', etc.

234

a.	Dat	was de vakantie	dat	onze spullen	gestolen	werden.
	that	was the holiday	that	our things	stolen	were
	'That was the holiday our things were stolen.'

b.	?	De maaltijd	dat	hij	me	ten huwelijk	vroeg	zal	ik	nooit	vergeten.
		the meal	that	he	me	to marriage	asked	will	I	never	forget
		'The meal during which he proposed to me Iʼll never forget.'

Since the relative pronoun for singular, neuter antecedents has the same form as the relative particle, confusion may sometimes arise as to which form we are dealing with. This is illustrated by the primeless examples in (235): although the form dat is used in both cases, pluralization reveals that we are dealing with the regular pronoun dat in (235b), since its form changes into die, whereas we are dealing with the invariant particle dat in (235a).

235

a.	Het enige weekend	dat	het	mooi weer	was,	hebben	we	gewandeld.
	the only weekend	that	it	beautiful weather	was	have	we	walked
	'The only weekend the wheather was good we took a walk.'

a'.		De weekenden	dat	het	mooi weer	was	hebben	we gewandeld.
		the weekends	that	it	beautiful weather	was	have	we walked

b.	Het weekend	dat	we samen	doorbrachten	zal	ik	nooit	vergeten.
	the weekend	that	we together	prt.-spent	will	I	never	forget
	'The weekend we spent together Iʼll never forget.'

b'.		De weekenden	die	we samen	doorbrachten	zal	ik	nooit	vergeten.
		the weekends	that	we together	prt.-spent	will	I	never	forget

The difference between the two sets of examples is related to the syntactic function of the relative element. In (235a) the relative particle clearly functions as an adverbial modifier of time, whereas in (235b) the relative pronoun functions as the object of the particle verb doorbrengen'to spend'. Sometimes the form dat is ambiguous. This is the case in (236a): apparently, the relative clause can be interpreted either with dat as a temporal adjunct or with dat as an object of the complex verb samen zijn'to be together'.

236

a.	Het weekend	dat	we	samen	waren	zal	ik	nooit	vergeten.
	the weekend	that	we	together	were	will	I	never	forget
	'The weekend we were together Iʼll never forget.'

b.	De weekenden	die/dat	we	samen	waren	zal	ik	nooit	vergeten.
	the weekends	that	we	together	were	will	I	never	forget
	'The weekends we were together Iʼll never forget.'

Since the relative particle dat functions as a temporal adjunct in the relative clause, it is not surprising that in many cases it can be replaced by the temporal relative adverbs waarop and waarin (cf. op die dag'on that day', in die maand'in that month'). Some examples are found in (237), in which the two types of relative elements can be used without a perceivable change in acceptability or meaning.

237

a.	Dat	was	de dag	dat/waarop	ik	mijn eerste auto	kocht.
	that	was	the day	that/where-on	I	my first car	bought
	'That was the day I bought my first car.'

b.	Het moment	dat/waarop	ik	hem	voor het eerst	zag	vergeet	ik	nooit.
	the moment	that/where-on	I	him	for the first	saw	forget	I	never
	'The moment I first saw him Iʼll never forget.'

c.	De maand	dat/waarin	ik	jarig	ben	valt	in de zomer.
	the month	that/where-in	I	having.my.birthday.	am	falls	in the summer
	'My birthday is in summer.'

d.	De momenten	dat/waarop	we mooi weer	hadden	waren	schaars.
	the moments	that/where-on	we beautiful weather	had	were	scarce
	'The moments we had good weather were scarce.'

The examples in (238) show, however, that in some cases, one of the two forms may be preferred: in (238a), use of the relative adverb waarop seems to be the only option, whereas in (238b&c) the use of the relative adverb dat is clearly preferred to that of the relative adverb waarop, which gives rise to a somewhat marked result.

238

a.	Woensdag	is de dag	waarop/*?dat	ik	geboren	ben.
	Wednesday	is the day	where-on/that	I	born	am
	'Wednesday is the day on which I was born.'

b.	Sinds	de dag	dat/??waarop	ik	geboren	ben	woon	ik	in deze straat.
	since	the day	that/where-on	I	born	am	live	I	in this street
	'Since the day I was born, Iʼve lived in this street.'

c.	De dagen	dat/??waarop	het	hier	regent,	kun	je	op één hand	tellen.
	the days	that/where-on	it	here	rains	can	you	on one hand	count
	'The days on which it rains here one can count on the fingers of one hand.'

Although it may be difficult to detect a clear difference in meaning between these examples, the attested preferences seem related to that between the examples in (239), which clearly do have a difference in meaning: the temporal adjunct in (239a) takes the form of a bare nominal, and is taken to refer to a particular day in the past (in this case last Wednesday), whereas the temporal adjunct in (239b) takes the form of a PP and is taken to convey that the baby was born on a particular day of the week, namely on a Wednesday (but not necessarily last Wednesday).

239

a.	De baby	is	woensdag	geboren.	= last Wednesday
	the baby	is	Wednesday	born
	'The baby was born Wednesday.'

b.	De baby	is	op	(een) woensdag	geboren.	= on a Wednesday
	the baby	is	on	a Wednesday	born
	'The baby was born on a Wednesday.'

This explains the oddness of example (238a) with the particle dat: the most likely interpretation of this example is that in which reference is made to a particular day of the week, in which case the use of a PP is preferred. In example (238b), on the other hand, reference is made to a particular time in the past; hence the preference for the relative particle dat over the relative adverb waarop. Similarly, in example (238c) reference is made to the set of days that it rains in a particular place, not to any particular days of the week that it rains.
Another interesting difference can be found in constructions allowing both the relative adverb waarin and the relative particle dat. Consider the examples in (240). The two primeless sentences in (240) can both be taken to mean that the speaker is away on holiday throughout the week referred to, or only for part of the week. However, the preferred reading differs for the two examples: in (240a) the preference seems to be for the former, and in (240b) for the latter interpretation. As soon as a relative construction is used, the difference in meaning becomes more pronounced. Thus the construction in (240a') implies that it is the whole week that is referred to, whereas (240b') indicates that the vacation takes up only part of the week.

240

a.	Die week	ben	ik	op vakantie.
	that week	am	I	on holiday
	'That week Iʼll be away on holiday.'

a'.	Dat	is de week	dat	ik	op vakantie	ben.
	that	is the week	that	I	on holiday	am
	'That is the week Iʼll be away on holiday.'

b.	In die week	ben	ik	op vakantie.
	in that week	am	I	on holiday
	'In that week Iʼll be away on holiday.'

b'.	Dat	is de week	waarin	ik	op vakantie	ben.
	that	is the week	where-in	I	on holiday	am
	'That is the week in which Iʼll be away on holiday.'

A final property of the relative particle that needs to be mentioned is that it cannot function as a prepositional object; in this respect it behaves like an inanimate pronoun. This is illustrated in example (241).

241

a.	*	Dat	was de dag	op dat	ik	mijn eerste auto	kocht.
		that	was the day	on that	I	my first car	bought

b.	*	Het moment	op dat	ik	hem	voor	het eerst	zag	vergeet	ik	nooit.
		the moment	on that	I	him	for	the first	saw	forget	I	never

c.	*	De maand	in dat	ik	jarig	ben	valt	in de zomer.
		the month	in that	I	having.my.birthday	am	fall	in the summer

[+] VI. Conclusion

By way of conclusion, Table 5 presents the relative elements discussed in the previous subsections and the circumstances in which they can be used; <f> marks the forms that are part of the formal register.

Table 5: Relative elements in Dutch

type	form of pronoun	features of antecedent	synt. function in relative clause
			restrictive	non-restrictive
Pronoun	die	-neuter, sg or ±neuter, pl	SU, DO, IO, Pred.	SU, DO, IO
	dat	+neuter, sg	SU, DO, IO, Pred.	SU, DO, IO
	wie	+human	IO, complement of PP
	wat	-human, +neuter, sg AP, VP, CP	SU, DO —	SU, DO, Pred. SU, DO
	welke<f>	-neuter, sg or ±neuter, pl	SU, DO, IO, complement of PP
	hetgeen<f>	AP, VP, CP	—	SU, DO, Pred.
Possessive pronoun	wiens<f>	+human, +masc, sg	possessor
	wier<f>	+human, +fem, sg or +human, pl
R-pronoun	waar (+P)	no restrictions	complement of PP (extracted)
Relative adverb	waar waarop waarin zoals	+locative +temporal]/[+manner +temporal	location adjunct/complement temporal/manner adjunct time adjunct type adjunct
Particle	dat	+temporal	temporal adjunct

References:

Bart, Peter van, Kerstens, Johan & Sturm, Arie1998Grammatica van het Nederlands. Een InleidingAmsterdamAmsterdam University Press
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Haslinger, Irene2007The syntactic location of events. Aspects of verbal complementation in DutchUniversity of TilburgThesis
Heringa, Herman & Vries, Mark de2008Een semantische classificatie van appositiesNederlandse Taalkunde1360-87
Horst, Joop van der1988Over relatief dat en watDe Nieuwe Taalgids81194-205
Riemsdijk, Henk C. van1978A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrasesPeter de Ridder Press
Riemsdijk, Henk van2006Free relativesEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Riemsdijk, Henk van2006Free relativesEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Riemsdijk, Henk van2006Free relativesEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Riemsdijk, Henk van2006Free relativesEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Riemsdijk, Henk van2006Free relativesEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax2Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
Schoonenboom, Judith1997De geschiedenis van dat, wat en hetgeenin bijbelvertalingenNederlandse Taalkunde2343-369
Schoonenboom, Judith2002Analyse, norm en gebruik als factoren van taalverandering: een studie naar veranderingen in het Nederlands onzijdig relativumAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Stoett, F.A1923-5Nederlandsche spreekwoorden, spreekwijzen, uitdrukkingen en gezegdenZutphenW.J. Thieme & Cie, 4th impression
Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Vries, Mark de2002The syntax of relativizationAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Nom-Dat VerbAdjectiveAgreementAnticipatory PronounAttributiveCaseClauseComplementiveDativeDefinitenessDefiniteness EffectDemonstrative PronounExpletive ConstructionModificationNominal ComplementNounParticle VerbPossessive PronounPronounProper NounProposition NounQuantifierQuantitativeerR-extractionR-pronominalizationR-pronounRelativeRelative ClauseRelative Possessive PronounRelative PronounSluicingSubject-verb AgreementTransparent free Relative ClauseUniversal QuantifierVerbVerb ClusterVerb-Second

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