Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

6.3.Quantitative er

quickinfo

We conclude this chapter with a discussion of so-called quantitative er, which is exemplified in the examples in (194). These examples show that quantitative er is associated with an interpretative gap [e] contained within a noun phrase. The reason why we discuss quantitative er in this chapter on numerals and quantifiers is that it normally requires that some quantificational element be present: the noun phrase in the second conjunct of example (194a), for example, contains the cardinal numeral drie'three' and the noun phrase in the second conjunct of example (194b) contains the quantifier veel'many'.

194

a.		Jan heeft	twee boeken	en	Piet heeft	er	[drie [e]].
		Jan has	two books	and	Piet has	er	three

b.		Jan heeft	weinig boeken	maar	Marie heeft	er	[veel [e]].
		Jan has	few books	but	Marie has	er	many

This section will discuss a number of properties of constructions with quantitative er. Since some of these properties have been illustrated earlier in this chapter, the discussion will sometimes be relatively brief.

I. The antecedent of the interpretative gap [e]
II. The quantification element
III. The syntactic nature of the interpretative gap

[+] I. The antecedent of the interpretative gap [e]

An important condition on the occurrence of expletive er is that the gap in the associate noun phrase can be assigned an interpretation on the basis of information made available by the domain of discourse or the context. This is ensured in the examples in (194) by providing this information in the first conjunct of a coordinate structure, so that the interpretative gap [e] in (194) is construed as boeken'books'; but in the examples below we will simply tacitly assume that this condition is met.
The examples in (195) show that, if the interpretative gap is interpreted on the basis of a previously mentioned noun phrase, the gap and its antecedent may exhibit a mismatch in number: in (195a) the antecedent is singular whereas the gap is plural, and in (195b) we are dealing with the reverse situation.

195

a.		Jan heeft	één boek	en	Piet heeft	er	[drie [e]].
		Jan has	one book	and	Piet has	er	three

b.		Jan heeft	twee boeken	en	Piet heeft	er	[één [e]].
		Jan has	two books	and	Piet has	er	one

The antecedent of the interpretative gap must be a count noun: example (194b) has shown that the quantifiers veel and weinig are compatible with quantitative er and example (196a) shows that these quantifiers can modify non-count nouns like wijn'wine', but nevertheless example (196b) is excluded (although it has been reported that some Flemish varieties do allow examples of this sort).

196

a.		Jan heeft	veel/weinig	wijn.
		Jan has	much/little	wine

b.	*	Jan heeft	veel wijn	maar	Piet heeft	er	[weinig [e]].
		Jan has	much wine	but	Piet has	er	little

In the examples discussed so far the antecedent of the gap corresponds to the head of a noun phrase. The antecedent can, however, also be a larger nominal projection; cf. Blom (1977). Example (197a), for instance, shows that complements of nouns must be omitted in the quantitative er construction; the example is ungrammatical if the complement clause dat de maan om de aarde draait is present. This shows that the antecedent is not just the head noun bewijs but the lexical projection bewijs dat de aarde rond is. Example (197b) shows that the same thing holds for attributively used adjectives: the example is ungrammatical if the attributive modifier witte'white' is present.

197

Jan gaf

[een bewijs

dat

de aarde rond

is]

Piet gaf

[drie [e]

(*dat

de maan

om de aarde

draait)].

Jan gave

a proof

that

the earth round

and

Piet gave

three

that

the moon

around the earth

circles

b.		Jan heeft	[twee zwarte katten]	en	Marie heeft	er	[drie (*witte) [e]].
		Jan has	two black cats	and	Marie has	er	three white

Although attributive modifiers may not occur if quantitative er is present, the examples in (198) show that it is possible to have prepositional modifiers or relative clauses in such contexts.

198

a.		Ik	heb	[twee poppen	met blond haar]	en	Jan heeft	er	[drie [e]	met donker haar].
		I	have	two dolls	with fair hair	and	Jan has	er	three	with dark hair

b.		Marie had	[veel studenten	die	wilden	meedoen],	maar	Els had er	[veel [e]	die	weigerden].
		Marie had	many students	who	wanted	join.in	but	Els had er	many	who	refused

We may therefore conclude from the examples in (197) and (198) that the interpretative gap [e] is a nominal constituent larger than a head but smaller than a full noun phrase.

[+] II. The quantification element

The examples above have already shown that the quantificational element is normally a cardinal number or a quantifier like veel/weinig, but other quantificational elements may also occur with quantitative er: example (199a), for instance, provides a binominal construction with the quantificational nouns een paar'a couple' and een boel'a lot', and (199a) provides an example with the quantificational element genoeg'enough'; see Section 4.1.1.3, sub IVA, and Section 6.2.4, sub II, for more examples of this sort.

199

a.	Ik	heb	nog	een paar/boel	boeken.
	I	have	still	a couple/lot	books
	'I still have a couple/lot of books.'

a'.	Ik	heb	er	nog	een paar/boel.
	I	have	er	still	a couple/lot
	'I still have a couple of them.'

b.	Ik	heb	nog	genoeg	boeken.
	I	have	still	enough	books
	'I still have enough books.'

b'.	Ik	heb	er	nog	genoeg.
	I	have	er	still	enough
	'I still have enough of them.'

Although a quantificational element is present in the prototypical case, many (but not all) speakers also accept examples such as (200b). Observe that the gap [e] in (200b) must be interpreted as plural; a singular interpretation requires that it be preceded by the numeral één'one', as in (200b').

200

a.	Ik	heb	nog	een stoel/stoelen	in de schuur	staan.
	I	have	still	a chair	in the barn	stand
	'I still have a chair/chairs in the barn.'

Ik heb er nog [e] in de schuur staan.

plural only

b'.

Ik heb er nog [één [e]] in de schuur staan.

singular

The presence of a numeral or quantifier is not sufficient to license the occurrence of quantitative er; there are several additional conditions that must be met. First, the associate noun phrase must be indefinite; (201a) shows that the definite counterpart of (194a) is unacceptable. Second, (201b) shows that strong quantifiers like alle are not compatible with quantitive er; see Section 6.2, sub II, for more examples. Weak quantifiers, on the other hand, normally give rise to a fully acceptable result; see Sections 6.2.3, sub II, and 6.2.4, sub II, for ample illustration.

201

a.	*	Jan heeft	de twee boeken	en	Piet heeft	er	[de drie [e]].
		Jan has	the two books	and	Piet has	er	the three

b.	*	Jan heeft	twee boeken van Gerard Reve	en	Piet heeft	er	[alle [e]].
		Jan has	two books by Gerard Reve	and	Piet has	er	all

The examples in (202) suggest that quantitative er may also occur in tandem with the so-called wat voor construction. This is somewhat surprising, given that this construction is not a quantificational, but a type-denoting expression. The construction is somewhat special, however, in that it requires that the spurious article een be stressed, which is normally not possible in the wat voor construction.

202

a.	Wat	heeft	Peter	voor	een/*één	auto?
	what	has	Peter	for	a	car
	'What kind of car does Peter have?'

b.	Wat	heeft	Peter	er	voor	één/*een [e]?
	what	has	Peter	er	for	a
	'What kind does Peter have?'

Furthermore, the primed examples in (203) show that the nominal gap in the wat voor construction must be singular, whereas it can readily be plural in the other examples discussed above. Note that (203a') is fully acceptable with er interpreted as quantitative er, but only if the interpretive gap is construed as singular; cf. (202b). The string Wat koopt Els er voor? is acceptable if er is construed as part of a discontinuous pronominal PP er ...voor'for it', but this is irrelevant for our present discussion.

203

a.	Wat	koopt	Els voor	een	boeken
	what	buys	Els for	a	books
	'What kind of books does Els buy?'

a'.	#	Wat	koopt	Els	er	voor	één [e]?
		what	buys	Els	er	for	a

b.	Wat	koopt	Els voor	boeken
	what	buys	Els for	books
	'What kind of books does Els buy?'

b'.	*	Wat	koopt	Els er	voor [e]?
		what	buys	Els er	for

[+] III. The syntactic nature of the interpretative gap

This subsection discusses the nature of the interpretative gap within the noun phrase associated with quantitative er. The three analyses in (204) come to mind and will be discussed in the next subsections.

204

The interpretative gap is the result of deletion: [... er ... [Num/Q [... N]]]

The interpretative gap is base-generated as a pronominal element, which must be licensed/bound by quantitive er: [... eri ... [Num/Q [proi]]]The interpretative gap is base-generated as a pronominal element, which must be licensed/bound by quantitive er: [... eri ... [Num/Q [proi]]]

The interpretative gap is the result of movement: [... eri ... [Num/Q [ti ]]]

[+] A. The interpretative gap is the result of deletion

A problem for a deletion analysis is that it does not explain why quantitative er must be present, given that example (156) in Section 6.2.4, sub I, has already shown that N-ellipsis is possible without quantitative er; see also Section A5.4. In fact, the contrast between the two examples in (205) shows that quantitative er is blocked in N-ellipsis contexts; (205b) is only acceptable if er is assigned a locative interpretation. For this reason, we can immediately dismiss this analysis.

205

a.	Hij	heeft [DP	een blauwe	[auto]]	gekocht.
	he	has	a blue	car	bought
	'He has bought a blue one(s).'

Hij

heeft er [DP

een blauwe [auto]]

gekocht.

Barbiers (2009) has put forth a second argument against the deletion analysis. First observe that the examples in (206) show that elided nouns in N-ellipsis constructions maintain their gender and number features: the article het and the relative pronoun dat in (206a) show that the elided noun is neuter and singular; (206b) shows that changing the number of the elided noun (which is of course determined by the context) triggers changes in both the article and the relative pronoun.

206

a.		Jan heeft	[hetneuter,sg	blauwe	boekneuter,sg]	datneuter,sg	Peter wil	hebben.
		Jan has	the	blue	book	which	Peter wants	have

b.		Jan heeft	[depl	blauwe	boekenneuter,pl]	dieneuter,pl	Peter wil	hebben.
		Jan has	the	blue	books	which	Peter wants	have

Barbiers claims that speakers of the northern varieties of Dutch fail to make a similar distinction in constructions with quantitative er: the (a)-examples in (207) show that such speakers can use the relative pronoun die both if the interpretive gap is interpreted as huis'house', which is neuter in Dutch, and if it is interpreted as auto'car', which is non-neuter. Note that we have placed Northern between quotation marks to indicate that some of our northern informants have the southern judgments, which suggests that the stratification of the distinction is in need of further research.

207

a.		Jan heeft	er	[één huis]	die	je gezien moet hebben.	“Northern” speakers
		Jan has	er	one house	which	you seen must have

a'.

Jan heeft er [één auto] die je gezien moet hebben.

b.		Jan heeft	er	[één huis]	dat	je gezien moet hebben.	Southern speakers
		Jan has	er	one house	which	you seen must have

b'.

Jan heeft er [één auto] die je gezien moet hebben.

[+] B. The interpretative gap is base-generated as a pronominal element

According to this analysis, proposed in Kester (1996), the presence of quantitative er is required to license some phonetically empty, base-generated pronominal-like element pro: eri ... [Num/Q [ proi ]]. If we assume that the licensing relation involves binding, the analysis can be used to account for at least some of the basic properties of the relation between quantitative er and its nominal associate. For example, given that binding requires that the binder c-command the pronominal element, we correctly predict that er must precede its associate noun phrase (if they are situated in the middle field of the clause).

208

a.	Jan heeft	eri	[één [ proi ]]	meegenomen.
	Jan has	er	one	with-taken
	'Jan has taken one of them with him.'

Jan heeft [één [ proi ]] eri meegenomen.

Example (209a) further shows that the noun phrase can be placed in clause-initial position, and this also follows under the present analysis, given that the same thing is possible in the case of reflexive pronouns; the topicalized phrase is “reconstructed” into its original position (indicated by the trace tj) as far as its binding properties are concerned.

209

a.		[Eén [ proi ]]j	heeft	Jan eritj	meegenomen.
		one	has	Jan er	with-taken

b.	[Voor zichzelf i]j	heeft	Jan ti	een boek tj	gekocht.
	for himself	has	Jan	a book	bought
	'John bought a book for himself.'

Finally, if we assume that the binding relation between quantitative er and its nominal associate is local in the same sense as the binding relation between a reflexive pronoun and its antecedent, we also correctly predict that er and its nominal associate must be part of the same clause: example (210) shows that placing er in some higher clause leads to ungrammaticality.

210

Jan vertelde	<*eri>	mij	dat	hij <eri>	[één [ proi ]]	meegenomen	had
Jan told	er	me	that	he	one	with-taken	had
'Jan told me that heʼd taken one of them with him.'

Despite this descriptive success, the suggested analysis has at least two flaws. First, it is not clear why the antecedent of pro must be er and cannot be some more meaningful element that could also indentify the semantic content of pro. Second, it is not clear how quantitative er itself is licensed; normally all elements in the clause are licensed by being in a selection or modification relation with some other elements in the clause, but this does not seem to hold for er, as it neither seems to be assigned a thematic role nor to have an obvious modification function.

[+] C. The interpretative gap is the result of movement

The two problems mentioned for the analyses discussed in the previous subsections are immediately solved in the movement analysis, as proposed by Coppen (1991) and Barbiers (2009), where quantitative er is claimed to pronominalize a certain part of the nominal structure. This means that er is base-generated as part of the noun phrase and subsequently moved into some NP-external position: eri ... [Num/Q [ ti ]]. That the movement is obligatory can be attributed to the more general properties of discourse linked pronouns: the examples in (211), for example, show that definite pronouns like ’m are obligatorily scrambled to the left of clausal adverbs like waarschijnlijk'probably'. See Section 8.1.3 for more discussion.

211

a.	Jan heeft	waarschijnlijk	die blauwe auto/*’m	gekocht.
	Jan has	probably	that blue car/him	bought
	'Jan has probably bought the blue car/it.'

Jan heeft die blauwe auto/’m waarschijnlijk gekocht.

The movement analysis also accounts for the fact that quantitative er normally precedes the noun phrase it is associated with: given that er is extracted from the noun phrase, the unacceptability of example (212b) is simply the result of freezing, the fact that a phrase from which some element is extracted is frozen in place.

212

a.	Jan heeft	eri	[één [ ti ]]	meegenomen.
	Jan has	er	one	with-taken
	'Jan has taken one of them with him.'

Jan heeft [één [ ti ]]j eritj meegenomen.

Of course, some proviso must be made for the observation that in (209) topicalization of the remnant of the noun phrase is possible, by taking recourse to some notion of reconstruction. The clause-boundedness of the relation between quantitative er and its nominal associate, illustrated in (210), follows from the fact that scrambling is likewise clause-bound.
The claim that quantitative er is pronominal and thus has referential properties is supported by the examples in (213). Example (213a) simply shows that quantitative er associated with a direct object can readily precede an indefinite indirect object. Example (213b) shows that this is not possible if the indirect object contains a noun phrase denoting the same entities as the quantified noun phrase; cf. Coppen (1991). This would immediately follow from binding condition C if er is co-referential with (that is, binds) the referential noun phrase embedded in the indirect object. The ungrammaticality of (213b) thus supports the claim that quantitative er is referential.

213

a.	Hij	vertelde	eri	iemand	[drie [ ti ]].
	he	told	er	someone	three
	'He told three [= jokes] to someone.'

b.	*	Hij	vertelde	eri	iemand	die	geen grapi	kan	waarderen	[drie [ ti ]].
		he	told	er	someone	who	no joke	can	appreciate	three
		Intended reading: 'He told three jokes to someone who cannot appreciate a joke.'

A powerful argument in favor of the movement analysis is that the restrictions on the relation between quantitative er and its nominal associate resemble those between a moved element and its trace. First, the examples in (214b&c) show that quantitative er cannot be associated with a single noun phrase in a coordinate structure, whereas (214d) shows that it can occur if it is associated with both noun phrases. Similar facts have been described for movement; cf. Coordinate Structure Constraint and across-the-board movement.

214

a.		Jan heeft	[[twee postzegels uit Thailand]	en	[drie postzegels uit China]].
		Jan has	two stamps from Thailand	and	three stamps from China

b.	*	Jan heeft	eri	[[twee postzegels uit Thailand]	en	[drie [ ti ]	uit China]].
		Jan has	er	two stamps from Thailand	and	three	from China

c.	*	Jan heeft	eri	[[twee [ ti ]	uit Thailand]	en	[drie postzegels uit China]].
		Jan has	er	two	from Thailand	and	three stamps from China

d.		Jan heeft	eri	[[twee [ ti ]	uit Thailand]	en	[drie [ ti ]	uit China]].
		Jan has	er	two	from Thailand	and	three	from China

Second, the relation between quantitative er and its nominal associate seems to be sensitive to the same islands for extraction. Consider the examples in (215) and assume that R-extraction involves movement of an R-word from the complement position of the PP. These examples show that R-extraction is possible from complement-PPs but not from time adverbials.

215

a.	Ik heb lang over mijn ontslag	gepiekerd.
	I have long about my dismissal	worried
	'Iʼve worried long about my dismissal.'

a'.	Ik heb eri	lang	[over [ ti ]]	gepiekerd.
	I have there	long	about	worried
	'Iʼve worried long about it.'

b.	Ik heb	dat boek	tijdens mijn vakantie	gelezen.
	I have	that book	during my vacation	read
	'Iʼve read that book during my vacation.'

b'.	*	Ik heb	dat boek	erj	[tijdens [ ti ]]	gelezen.
		I have	that book	there	during	read
		Intended reading: 'Iʼve read that book during it.'

The examples in (216) show that we find the same thing with quantitative er; er can be associated with a noun phrase in a complement-PP but not in a time adverbial.

216

a.	Ik heb lang over twee problemen	gepiekerd.
	I have long about two problems	worried
	'Iʼve worried long about two problems.'

a'.		Ik heb eri	lang	[over	[twee [ ti ]]]	gepiekerd.
		I have er	long	about	two	worried

b.	Ik heb	dat boek	tijdens twee vergaderingen	gelezen.
	I have	that book	during two meetings	read
	'Iʼve read that book during two meetings.'

b'.	*	Ik heb	dat boek	eri	[tijdens	[twee [ ti ]]]	gelezen.
		I have	that book	er	during	two	read

The examples in (217) further show that both R-extraction and the association of quantitative er require that the complement-PP precede the verb in clause-final position. Note that Ik heb er lang gepiekerd over twee is perhaps marginally acceptable with a locational reading of er, but this is of course irrelevant for our present discussion.

217

a.	*	Ik	heb	eri	lang	gepiekerd	[over [ ti ]].
		I	have	there	long	worried	about

b.	*	Ik	heb	eri	lang	gepiekerd	[over	[twee [ ti ]]].
		I	have	er	long	worried	about	two

The discussion above has shown that the movement analysis has much to commend itself, but it should be noted that there are also problems. The most important one is related to example (216a'), which presupposes that quantitative er can be extracted from the complement of a PP. However, there are reasons for assuming that this is normally not possible. First, consider the examples in (218), which just intend to show that R-extraction is possible from the voor-PP.

218

a.	Dat brood	is toch	voor de lunch	bedoeld.
	that bread	is prt	for lunch	intended
	'That bread is intended for lunch, isnʼt it?'

b.	Dat brood	is eri	toch	[voor [ ti ]]	bedoeld.
	that bread	is there	prt	for	intended
	'That bread is intended for it, isnʼt it?'

Now consider example (219a), which differs from (218a) in that the preposition voor takes the PP-complement bij the koffie instead of the nominal phrase de lunch. Example (219b) shows that R-extraction from the voor-PP is not possible.

219

a.	Die koekjes	zijn	toch	voor	bij de koffie	bedoeld.
	those cookies	are	prt	for	with the coffee	intended
	'Those cookies are intended to be eaten with the coffee, arenʼt they?'

b.	*	Die koekjes	zijn	eri	[voor	[bij [ ti ]]]	bedoeld.
		those cookies	are	there	for	with	intended

Note that R-extraction from the voor-PP gives rise to a configuration similar to the one proposed for the quantitative er construction in (217b) in the sense that a moved element is related to a trace within a complement of a preposition. The difference in acceptability of (219b) and (216a') therefore raises some doubt on the movement analysis of quantitative er, unless it can be reduced to some independent reason. One solution that comes immediately to mind is that the ungrammaticality of (219b) is due to the fact that the embedded bij-phrase is an island for extraction, but this is clearly not the case given that example (220) shows that R-extraction from the bij-phrase is possible as long as the R-word remains within the voor-PP. Since we have no further insights to offer here, we will leave this problem for future research.

220

		Die koekjes	zijn	[voor	eri	[bij [ ti ]]]	bedoeld.
		those cookies	are	for	there	with	intended

References:

Barbiers, Sjef2009Kwantitief er en ze
Barbiers, Sjef2009Kwantitief er en ze
Blom, Alied1977Het kwantitatieve erSpektator6387-395
Coppen, Peter-Arno1991Specifying the noun phraseAmsterdamThesis Publishers
Coppen, Peter-Arno1991Specifying the noun phraseAmsterdamThesis Publishers
Kester, Ellen-Petra1996The nature of adjectival inflectionUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Across-the-board movementBindingCoordinate Structure ConstraintN(P)-EllipsisPronominalizationQuantitative erR-extraction

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

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

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles