Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.4.1.Finite clauses

quickinfo

It is generally taken for granted that adpositions do not take clausal complements. The main reason for this is that PP-complements of verbs or adjectives normally do not contain a clause as their complement; see the primeless examples in (48). Instead, they normally form an anticipatory pronominal PP with the R-word er'there', which introduces (or refers to) a clause that is placed in clause-final position; see the primed examples in (48). Note that the pronominal PP is sometimes optional; an example such as (48a') can also surface as dat Jan verlangt dat Peter komt.

a.	*	dat	Jan [naar	[dat	Peter komt]]	verlangt.
		that	Jan for	that	Peter comes	longs

a'.	dat	Jan er	naar	verlangt	[dat	Peter komt].
	that	Jan there	for	longs	that	Peter comes
	'that Jan is longing for Peter to come.'

b.	*	dat	Jan trots	[op	[dat	hij	goed	zingen	kan]]	is.
		that	Jan proud	of	that	he	well	sing	can	is

b'.	dat	Jan er	trots	op	is	[dat	hij	goed	zingen	kan].
	that	Jan there	proud	of	is	that	he	well	sing	can
	'that Jan is proud of it that he can sing well.'

Subsection I will show, however, that it is not completely true that PP-complements cannot have a clause as their complement. The generalization that emerges is that adpositions can at least marginally take a clause as their complement whenever they occupy a position in which R-extraction is not allowed. This conclusion is important, since it bears on the question as to whether elements like voordat'before', nadat'after', and doordat'because' must be analyzed as complex subordinating conjunctions (complementizers), as is normally claimed in traditional grammar, or whether we are actually dealing with regular prepositions that take a finite clause as their complement. This issue is discussed in Subsection II. The discussion will further show that, insofar as complementation by a clause is possible, this always involves declarative clauses.

I. Clausal complements of object-PPs
II. Adverbial clauses
- A. Temporal phrases
- B. Non-temporal phrases

[+] I. Clausal complements of object-PPs

As a general rule, adpositions do not take clausal complements. This is quite clear from the fact, illustrated in (49a&b), that the noun phrase het vuurwerk in the PP-complement of the verb wachten'to wait' cannot be replaced by a clause. In order to express the intended meaning in (49b), we have to make use of the anticipatory pronominal PP er ... op'on it' and place the clause in clause-final, postverbal position, as in (49c).

a.	dat	Jan op het vuurwerk	wacht.
	that	Jan for the firework	waits
	'that Jan is waiting for the fireworks.'

b.	*	dat	Jan	[op	[dat het vuurwerk	afgestoken	wordt]]	wacht.
		that	Jan	for	that the firework	prt.-lit	is	waits

c.	dat	Jan	er	niet langer	op	wacht	[dat het vuurwerk	wordt	afgestoken].
	that	Jan	there	no longer	for	waits	that the firework	is	prt.-lit
	'that Jan wonʼt wait any longer for the moment that the fireworks are lit.'

However, it seems too strong to assume a general prohibition on clausal complements of prepositions, since PP-constructions such as (49b) appear to improve considerably if the PP is moved into some other position; cf. Haslinger (2007:ch.3). In (50), we give examples involving topicalization, scrambling and PP-over-V; although many speakers still consider these examples marked, most agree that they are considerably better than example (49b).

a.	?	[Op	[dat	het vuurwerk	afgestoken	wordt]],	wacht	ik	niet.
		for	that	the firework	prt.-lit	is	wait	I	not
		'I wonʼt wait for the moment that the fireworks are lit.'

b.	?	dat	ik	[op	[dat	het vuurwerk	afgestoken	wordt]]	niet langer	wacht.
		that	I	for	that	the firework	prt.-lit	is	no longer	wait
		'that I wonʼt wait any longer for the moment that the fireworks are lit.'

c.	?	dat	Jan niet langer	wacht	[op	[dat	het vuurwerk	afgestoken	wordt]].
		that	Jan no longer	wait	for	that	the firework	prt.-lit	is
		'that Jan wonʼt wait any longer for the moment that the fireworks are lit.'

Given the fact that PP-over-V gives rise to a reasonably acceptable result, it does not come as a surprise that in clauses without a verb in clause-final position the R-word er is apparently optional; this follows if we assume that the version of (51) with er corresponds with the embedded clause in (49c), and the one without er with the embedded clause in (50c).

Jan wacht	?(er)	niet langer	op	[dat	het vuurwerk	afgestoken	wordt].
Jan waits	there	no longer	for	that	the firework	prt.-lit	is
'Jan wonʼt wait any longer for the moment that the fireworks are lit.'

Provided that the contrast between (49b) and the examples in (50) is real, the answer to the question what accounts for this contrast that presents itself is that the PP in the former case is occupying a position in which R-extraction is normally possible, whereas the PPs in the latter cases are occupying positions in which R-extraction is blocked. Given that (52) shows that the anticipatory pronominal PP cannot be placed as a whole in the relevant positions either, there is no other alternative than using the constructions in (50).

Erop wacht ik niet [dat het vuurwerk afgestoken wordt].

dat ik erop niet langer wacht [dat het vuurwerk afgestoken wordt].

dat ik niet langer wacht erop [dat het vuurwerk afgestoken wordt].

For completeness' sake, note that the examples in (52) become more or less acceptable if the demonstrative pronominal PP daarop substitutes for erop, and the clause dat het vuurwerk wordt afgestoken is preceded by a comma intonation. The construction involving the anticipatory pronominal PP er .. op does not require such an intonation break, so we can put the cases with daarop, which probably involve Right Dislocation, aside in the present discussion.

[+] II. Adverbial clauses

Although the data in (50) are perhaps not as robust as one would like them to be, they cast serious doubt on the assumption that there is a general ban on clausal complements of prepositions. This is important since it may bear on the issue of whether the adverbial phrase in (53a) must be analyzed as involving the complex subordinating conjunction (complementizer) voordat, as in (53b), or as the preposition voor which takes a clausal complement, as in (53c); cf. Hoekstra (1984b).

a.		Jan kuste	zijn vader	voordat	hij	vertrok.
		Jan kissed	his father	before	he	left

[clause [complementizer voordat] hij vertrok]

[PP [preposition voor] [clause dat hij vertrok]]

A third analysis would involve the postulation of an empty noun phrase, as in (54a). In other words, (53a) would then receive an analysis similar to that of the (slightly awkward) relative construction in (54b). Under the analysis in (54a), the dat-clause acts as a relative clause that takes the empty noun phrase as its antecedent.

voor [NP ∅ [relative clause dat hij vertrok]]

b.		voor [NP	het moment [relative clause	dat	hij	vertrok]]
		before	the moment	that	he	left

The following subsections investigate whether one of the three analyses in (53) and (54) is to be preferred. Our conclusion will be that at this moment the available potential arguments are not conclusive. In this connection, it should be mentioned that in the literature generally not much effort is devoted to defending the position that is taken, so that much of what follows can be considered an elaboration of arguments that seem to be implicitly assumed in the literature. We will first discuss cases involving temporal phrases in Subsection A, which will be followed by a briefer discussion of non-temporal cases in Subsection B.

[+] A. Temporal phrases

Before we can discuss the question of which analysis in (53) and (54) is to be preferred we have to discuss the main facts. Example (55) provides some finite adverbial temporal clauses that illustrate the anteriority relation before: the event expressed by the main clause precedes the event expressed by the adverbial clause. Examples (55a) and (55b) differ in that the event time of the main clause is preferably construed as a specific point on the time line in the former and as an interval in the latter case. Example (55c) has an “irrealis/future tense” flavor, which may account for the fact that the verb cannot readily be in the past tense. The primed examples show that the complementizer-like element dat can be dropped in (55a&b), but not in (55c).

a.	voordat	hij vertrekt/vertrok
	before.that	he leaves/left
	'before he leaves/left'

a'.

voor hij vertrekt/vertrok

b.	totdat	hij	vertrekt/vertrok
	until.that	he	leaves/left
	'until he leaves/left'

b'.

tot hij vertrekt/vertrok

c.	tegen	dat	hij vertrekt/?vertrok
	close.to	that	he left/leaves
	'close to the moment that he leaves'

c'.

tegen hij vertrekt/vertrok

The examples in (56) illustrate the simultaneousness relation. The contrast between the primeless and primed examples shows that in this case the complementizer-like element dat cannot be realized. Examples (56a) and (56b) again seem to differ in that the event time of the main clause is preferably construed as a specific point on the time line in the former and as an interval in the latter case. The unacceptability of (56a') with the verb in the present tense is due to the fact that toen can only refer to a position on the time line preceding the speech time. Example (56c) clearly has an “irrealis/future tense” interpretation, which straightforwardly accounts for the fact that the verb cannot be in the past tense.

a.	*	toen	dat	hij vertrok/vertrekt
		when	that	he left/leaves

a'.		toen	hij	vertrok/*vertrekt
		when	he	left/leaves

b.	??	terwijl	dat	hij	vertrekt/vertrok
		while	that	he	leaves/left

b'.		terwijl	hij	vertrekt/vertrok
		while	he	leaves/left

c.	*	als	dat	hij	vertrekt/vertrok
		when	that	he	leaves/left

c'.		als	hij	vertrekt/*vertrok
		when	he	leaves/left

The examples in (57) illustrate the posteriority relation after: the event expressed by the main clause follows the event expressed by the adverbial clause. Examples (57a) and (57b) differ again in that the event time of the main clause is preferably construed as a specific point on the time line in the former and as an interval in the latter case. The ungrammaticality of (57b) with the verb in the present tense is due to the fact that sinds requires the starting point of the interval to precede the speech time; cf. Section 1.3.2, sub IB. Although (57c) can have an “irrealis/future tense” interpretation, this example is also acceptable with a past tense, which is due to the fact that, under Section 1.3.2, sub IB. The primed examples show that the complementizer-like element dat cannot be dropped in these examples.

a.		nadat	hij	vertrekt/vertrok
		after.that	he	leaves/left

a'.

na hij vertrekt/vertrok

b.		sinds dat	hij	vertrok/*vertrekt
		since that	he	left/leaves

b'.

sinds hij vertrok/*vertrekt

c.		vanaf	dat	hij	vertrekt/vertrok
		from	that	he	leaves/left

c'.

vanaf hij vertrok/vertrekt

Now that we have reviewed the relevant data, we may consider the question as to which of the analyses in (53) and (54) is best able to account for the data. This will be the main topic of the following subsections.

[+] 1. Arguments in favor of the complex complementizer analysis

We will start with two arguments in favor of the complex complementizer analysis. The first argument in favor of a complex complementizer analysis for voordat, etc. is that the paradigm is not complete. If temporal adpositions are able to take a clause as their complement, there is no obvious reason why we use morphologically simple words like toen and terwijl instead of the clumsy sounding sequences tijdens dat'during that' and gedurende dat'during that'. If formations like voordat are listed in the lexicon as complex complementizers, the clumsiness of tijdens dat and gedurende dat could just be considered accidental morphological gaps.
The distribution of the element dat seems largely unpredictable: in (55a&b) and (57b) the presence of dat seems optional, in (55c) and (57a&c) dat is obligatory, and in the examples in (56) dat can never be realized. Since in embedded declarative complement clauses the complementizer dat is normally present, the fact that dat sometimes can or must be omitted is a problem for the analysis in (53c), according to which the clause is a complement of the preposition and thus supports the analysis in (53b), which would be compatible with the claim that we are dealing with complex complementizers that are listed in the lexicon, some of which have shorter allomorphs.

[+] 2. Arguments in favor of the complementation and relative clause analysis

Although the arguments in Subsection 1 provide strong support in favor of the complex complementizer analysis, there are also arguments in favor of the competing analysis in (53c).
An obvious argument in favor of the analysis according to which we are dealing with a preposition that takes a clause as its complement is that the adverbial clause has the appearance of a regular PP, where the nominal complement is replaced by the clause. Also the semantics seems to be completely regular. An example such as (53a), repeated here as (58a), expresses that the “kissing” event denoted by the main clause precedes the “leaving” event denoted by the adverbial clause. In this respect, there is no difference with example (58b). This also holds for the other sequences P+dat ... in (55).

a.		Jan kuste	zijn vader	voordat	hij	vertrok.
		Jan kissed	his father	before	he	left

b.		Jan kuste	zijn vader	voor zijn vertrek.
		Jan kissed	his father	before his departure

The counterargument from subsection 1 that not all temporal prepositions take a clause as their complement can be countered by claiming that, despite their clumsiness, sequences like tijdens/gedurende dat are in fact grammatical. Further, the proponents of the regular PP analysis could point out that, whereas voordat, nadat, and totdat are explicitly treated as subordinators in the traditional grammars and dictionaries, this is not the case with tegen dat, sinds dat, and vanaf dat. This might support the claim that, in general, temporal prepositions are able to take clauses as their complement. The clumsiness of tijdens/gedurende dat might just be due to lexical blocking, that is, to the fact that the lexicon contains the complementizers toen and terwijl.
Even though the proponents of the complementationanalysis in (53c) might acknowledge the problem of the distribution of dat, they may point out that it should make us suspicious that the presumed “complex complementizers” with dat can only occur with prepositional elements. This could be used as an argument in favor of the idea that in (55) and (57) we are actually dealing with prepositions taking a finite clause as their complement.
That we are dealing with a regular preposition is also suggested by the fact that there are some correspondences between the prepositions and the presumed complex complementizers with respect to modification. As is shown in (59) the temporal prepositions voor and na can be modified by the same elements as the sequences voor dat and na dat. This supports the hypothesis that we are actually dealing with regular PPs in the primed examples.

a.		kort/een tijdje	voor de oorlog
		shortly/a while	before the war

a'.		kort/een tijdje	voor dat	de oorlog	uitbrak
		shortly/a while	before	the war	started

b.		vlak/drie jaar	na	het begin van de oorlog
		just/three years	after	the start of the war

b'.		vlak/drie jaar	na dat	de oorlog	uitbrak
		just/three years	after	the war	started

[+] 3. Argument in favor of the relative clause analysis

A conclusive argument in favor of a complementation analysis would be an example in which an element intervenes between the preposition and the finite clause, that is, constructions of the type tot vlak voor de deur'until just in front of the door' or voor daar bij'for with it' discussed in Section 2.2. Unfortunately, however, such examples cannot be constructed because clauses allow neither modification nor R-extraction. Still there are semantic facts that suggest that certain phonetically empty elements can be place in between the preposition and the complementizer but these seem to support the relative clause analysis rather than complex complementizer analysis.
Consider example (60a), which is ambiguous between two readings, cf. Larson (1990) and Haslinger (2007). Under the first reading, the temporal expression na'after' takes scope over the complete string that it precedes (dat hij beweerde dat hij vertrokken was): this gives rise to the paraphrase in (60b). Under the second reading the scope of the temporal expression is restricted to the more deeply embedded clause (dat hij vertrokken was): this gives rise to paraphrase in (60c), which aims at expressing that the killer has committed perjury.

a.	De dader was op het feest gezien	nadat	hij beweerde	dat	hij vertrokken	was.
	the culprit was at the party seen	after	he claimed	that	he left	was
	'The culprit was seen at the party after he claimed that heʼd left.'

The culprit was seen at the party after he made a claim, viz., that heʼd left.

The culprit was seen at the party after the time he claimed that heʼd left (it).

The crucial fact is that the slightly awkward construction in (61a) has the same scope properties as example (60a).

a.	De dader was op het feest	gezien	na	het moment dat	hij beweerde	dat	hij	vertrokken	was.
	the culprit was at the party	seen	after	the moment that	he claimed	that	he	left	was
	'The culprit was seen at the party after the moment he claimed that heʼd left.'

Jan was seen at the party after the moment he made the claim that heʼd left.

Jan was seen at the party after the moment he claimed that heʼd left (it).

This suggests that we may account for the ambiguity of (60a) by assuming that the temporal expression is related to its scope position by means of a phonetically empty relative element rel with the function of an adverbial phrase of time. This empty element is moved into the position preceding the complementizer dat and takes an empty noun as its antecedent, that is, into the position that is occupied by overt relative pronouns. This would mean that the reading in (60b) corresponds to the structure in (62a), in which rel originates in the matrix clause, and the reading in (60c) to that in (62b), in which rel originates in the embedded clause. For completeness' sake, the structures related to the two readings of (61a) are given in the primed examples.

De moordenaar was op het feest gezien ...

na [NP ∅ [rel. clausereli dat hij beweerde ti [dat hij vertrokken was]]]

a'.

na [NP het moment [rel. clausereli dat hij beweerde ti [dat hij vertrokken was]]]

na [NP ∅ [rel. clausereli dat hij beweerde [dat hij vertrokken was ti]]]

b'.

na [NP het moment [rel. clausereli dat hij beweerde [dat hij vertrokken was ti]]]

[+] 4. Conclusion

The discussion in the previous subsections makes it clear that it is hard to give explicit criteria that could definitely settle the issue concerning the proper analysis of the sequences P + dat on the basis of the currently available evidence.

[+] B. Non-temporal phrases

Many sequences of the form P+dat ... can also be found in the non-temporal domain, and the same analyses as discussed in Subsection A present themselves. Example (63) provides a short list.

doordat

'because'

in plaats (van) dat

'instead of'

niettegenstaande dat

'in spite of'

omdat

'because'

ondanks dat

'despite'

opdat

'so that'

zonder dat

'without'

The formations in (63) pose a potential problem for the complementation analysis, because the meaning of the formation is not always fully compositional. For example, the (somewhat archaic) sequence opdat introduces an adverbial clause which expresses a goal, whereas a PP headed by op normally does not express a goal (a possible exception is the standard formula Op je gezondheid!'Your health!'). The proponents of the complex complementizer analysis should be willing to accept that some of the complementizers in the lexicon are phrasal in nature; examples (63b&c) are cases for which this is generally assumed.

References:

Haslinger, Irene2007The syntactic location of events. Aspects of verbal complementation in DutchUniversity of TilburgThesis
Haslinger, Irene2007The syntactic location of events. Aspects of verbal complementation in DutchUniversity of TilburgThesis
Hoekstra, Teun1984Government and the distribution of sentential complementation in DutchDe Geest, W. & Putseys, Y. (eds.)Sentential complementationDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications105-116
Larson, Richard K1990Extraction and multiple selection in PPThe Linguistic Review7169-182

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AdpositionsAdverbial ClauseBlockingClausal ComplementClausal Complement of adpositionClausal Complement of adposition: FiniteClauseComplementComplementizerComplex Subordinating Complementizer (e.g.voordat 'before')ConjunctionFinite Clausal Complement of adpositionNon-temporal Adverbial ClausePP-over-VScramblingSubordinating ComplementizerSubordinatingTopicalizationals 'when'doorniettegenstaandeomondanksopsinds 'when'tegenterwijl 'while'toen 'when'totvanafvoorzonder

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