Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.1.1.General introduction

quickinfo

This section provides a brief introduction to a number of more general issues concerning finite argument clauses. We begin with a brief discussion of the syntactic functions that argument clauses may have. This is followed by some remarks on their form, with special attention to the position of the finite verb and the form of their complementizer. We then investigate the anticipatory pronominal elements that can be used to introduce finite argument clauses. We conclude this introduction with a brief discussion of free relatives, which are sometimes also analyzed as argument clauses.

I. The syntactic function of finite argument clauses
II. The form of finite argument clauses
III. The anticipatory pronominal elements het'it' and er + P'P + it'
IV. Free relatives

[+] I. The syntactic function of finite argument clauses

Finite clauses regularly occur as arguments of verbs: they can be used as subject, direct object or as part of a prepositional object. Indirect objects are normally nominal, which seems related to the fact that they typically refer to living entities or institutions, not to propositions. The examples in (8) show that argument clauses are normally placed after the verbs in clause-final position. The reason for calling the embedded clause in (8c) a prepositional object and not a direct object is that it cannot be pronominalized by means of the pronoun het, but must be replaced by the pronominal PP erover. The properties of the three types of argument clauses in (8) will be discussed in greater detail in Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.4.

a.	dat	duidelijk	is	[dat	Marie de nieuwe voorzitter	wordt].	subject
	that	clear	is	that	Marie the new chairman	becomes
	'that it is clear that Marie will be the new Chair.'

b.	dat	Jan niet	gemeld	heeft	[dat	hij	weg	zou	zijn].	direct object
	that	Jan not	reported	has	that	he	away	would	be
	'that Jan hasnʼt reported that he wouldnʼt be there.'

c.	dat	Peter klaagt	[dat	het	regent].	prepositional object
	that	Peter complains	that	it	rains
	'that Peter is complaining that it is raining.'

c'.		dat	Jan erover/*het	klaagt.
		that	Jan about.it/it	complains

[+] II. The form of finite argument clauses

Finite argument clauses normally take the form of an embedded clause, that is, a clause with the finite verb in clause-final position, as in the indirect reported speech example in (9a). Possible exceptions to this general rule are found in the direct and semi-direct reported speech examples in (9b-c), in which the apparent dependent clause appears in main clause order, that is, with the finite verb in second position. For this reason cases of direct and semi-direct speech deserve special attention and they will therefore be discussed separately in Section 5.1.2.4.

a.	Jan zei	[dat	hij	Marie	ging	bezoeken].	indirect reported speech
	Jan said	that	he	Marie	went	visit
	'Jan said that he was going to visit Marie.'

b.	Jan zei:	"Ik	ga	Marie bezoeken."	direct reported speech
	Jan said	I	go	Marie visit
	'Jan said: "Iʼm going to visit Marie".'

c.	Jan zei	hij	ging	Marie	bezoeken.	semi-direct reported speech
	Jan said	he	went	Marie	visit
	'Jan said he was going to visit Marie.'

Examples (10a&b) show that declarative argument clauses are obligatorily introduced by the complementizer dat'that', that is, unlike English that, Dutch dat cannot be omitted. Example (10c) further shows that Dutch also differs from German in that it does not allow embedded clauses without a complementizer and with verb-second; see Haider (1985) for a discussion of verb-second in embedded clauses in German and Barbiers et al. (2005: Section 1.3.1.8) for a number of Dutch (especially eastern) dialects that may also have this construction. Observe that example (10c) is acceptable as a case of direct reported speech, but this is, of course, not the reading intended here.

a.	Jan zegt	[dat	Peter	ziek	is].	with complementizer
	Jan says	that	Peter	ill	is
	'Jan says that Peter is ill.'

b.	*	Jan zegt	[Ø	Peter	ziek	is].	without complementizer and without V2
		Jan says	that	Peter	ill	is
		'Jan says Peter is ill.'

c.	*	Jan zegt	[Peter	is ziek].	without complementizer and with V2
		Jan says	Peter	is ill

Interrogative argument clauses are introduced either by the complementizer of'whether' or by a wh-phrase. In speech (but not in written language) it is also common that the wh-phrase in embedded wh-questions is followed by a complementizer: the complementizer of is used in the northern, whereas the complementizer dat is more common in the southern varieties; some (mainly northern) speakers even use the combination ofdat; we refer the reader to Barbiers (2005: Section 1.3.1.5) for details on the geographical distribution of these options; see also Hoekstra & Zwart (1994), Sturm (1996) and Zwart & Hoekstra (1997) on the question as to whether ofdat should be analyzed as a compound or as two separate words.

a.	Jan vraagt	[of	Peter ziek	is].	yes/no-question
	Jan asks	whether	Peter ill	is
	'Jan asks whether Peter is ill.'

b.	Jan vraagt	wie	(of/dat)	er	ziek	is.	wh-question
	Jan asks	who	whether/that	there	ill	is
	'Jan asks who is ill.'

If two embedded yes/no questions are coordinated by means of the disjunction of'or', as in (12a), the complementizer of the second clause does not occur as of but as dat in order to avoid a sequence of two (homophonous) occurrences of of. That this is a surface phenomenon is clear from the fact illustrated in (12b) that the second complementizer must be realized as of when we replace the disjunction of by the more formal disjunction dan wel'or'; see Haeseryn et al. (1997:547).

weet

niet

[of

hij

nog

komt]

[dat/*of

hij

thuis

blijft].

know

not

whether

still

comes

that/whether

home

stays

'I donʼt know whether heʼs still coming or whether heʼll stay at home.'

b.	Ik	weet	niet	[of	hij nog komt]	dan wel	[of/*dat	hij thuis blijft].
	I	know	not	whether	he still comes	or	whether/that	he home stays
	'I donʼt know whether heʼs still coming or whether heʼll stay at home.'

There is a small set of cases in which what would seem to be an argument clause is introduced by the conjunction als'if/when'; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:1136&1153). The primeless examples in (13) show that such als-clauses are especially common in constructions with a subject/object experiencer, although the primed examples show that the experiencer may also remain implicit; observe that het functions as an anticipatory pronoun associated with the als-clause. To our knowledge als-clauses of this type have received little attention in the literature so far, and, in fact, it remains to be demonstrated whether they do indeed function as argument clauses in these cases; this is why Section 5.1.2.2, sub IV, investigates them in more detail.

a.	JanExperiencer	waardeert	het	[als	je	hem	helpt].	subject experiencer
	Jan	appreciates	it	if	one	him	helps
	'Jan appreciates it if you help him.'

a'.	Het	wordt	gewaardeerd	[als	je	hem	helpt].	implicit experiencer
	it	is	appreciated	if	you	him	helps
	'Itʼs appreciated if you help him.'

b.	Het	irriteert me	[als	je	zingt].	object experiencer
	it	annoys me	when	you	sing
	'Your singing annoys me.'

b'.	Het	is	irritant	[als	je	zingt].	implicit experiencer
	it	is	annoying	when	you	sing
	'Your singing annoys me.'

It is important to observe that the distinction between declarative and interrogative embedded clauses is formal rather than semantic: the embedded clause in (14a) is called declarative despite the fact that we are clearly not dealing with an assertion, and the embedded clauses in (14b&c) are called interrogative despite the fact that we are not dealing with true questions. Notwithstanding this, we will simply accept the traditional terminology.

a.	Jan vermoedt	[dat	hij	ziek	is].	declarative clause
	Jan suspects	that	he	ill	is
	'Jan suspects that heʼs ill.'

b.	Jan betwijfelt	[of	hij	op tijd	zal	aankomen].	yes/no-question
	Jan doubts	whether	he	on time	will	arrive
	'Jan doubts whether heʼll arrive in time.'

c.	Els onderzoekt	[wie	het boek	gestolen	heeft].	wh-question
	Els investigates	who	the book	stolen	has
	'Els is investigating who has stolen the book.'

[+] III. The anticipatory pronominal elements het'it' and er + P'P + it'

The examples in (15) show that finite argument clauses may be introduced by an anticipatory pronominal element (given in italics), which appears to the left of the clause-final verbs.

a.	dat	het	duidelijk	is	[dat Marie	de nieuwe voorzitter	wordt].	subject
	that	it	clear	is	that Marie	the new chairman	becomes
	'that it is clear that Marie will be the new Chair.'

b.	dat	Jan het	niet gemeld	heeft	[dat	hij	weg	zou	gaan].	direct object
	that	Jan it	not reported	has	that	he	away	would	go
	'that Jan didnʼt report it that heʼd go away.'

c.	dat	Peter erover	klaagt	[dat	het	regent].	prepositional object
	that	Peter about.it	complains	that	it	rains
	'that Peter complains about it that it rains.'

The distribution of anticipatory pronominal elements is rather complex: Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 will show that in many cases it is optional, but there are also cases in which it must or cannot occur. In addition, the presence or absence of the pronominal element may affect the syntactic behavior of argument clauses: example (16b), for instance, shows that object clauses only allow wh-extraction if there is no anticipatory pronoun; see, e.g., Bennis (1986:ch.2)

a.	dat	Jan	(het)	zei	[dat	Peter een nieuwe auto	gekocht	had].
	that	Jan	it	said	that	Peter a new car	bought	had
	'that Jan said (it) that Peter had bought a new car.'

b.	Wati	zei	Jan	(*het)	[dat	Peter ti	gekocht	had]?
	what	said	Jan	it	that	Peter	bought	had
	'What did Jan say that Peter had bought?'

If the anticipatory pronominal element is optional, its presence may trigger a somewhat different reading: sentence (16a) without the pronoun het presents the proposition expressed by the embedded clause as new information; (16a) with the pronoun, on the other hand, presents the embedded proposition as old information and adds to this that Jan was the source of the information. In cases such as (17), the presence of the anticipatory pronoun may trigger a factive reading of the object clause: example (17a) simply presents the proposition expressed by the embedded clause as new information, which may or may not be true, whereas (17b) presents this proposition as familiar truthful information.

a.	Jan heeft	me	gisteren	verteld	[dat	hij	decaan	wordt].
	Jan has	me	yesterday	told	that	he	dean	becomes
	'Jan told me yesterday that heʼll become dean of the faculty.'

b.	Jan heeft	het	me	gisteren	verteld	[dat	hij	decaan	wordt].
	Jan has	it	me	yesterday	told	that	he	dean	becomes
	'Jan told me yesterday that heʼll become dean of the faculty.'

A similar contrast can be found in the passive counterparts of the examples in (17) in (18): the impersonal passive with the expletiveer'there' in (18a) presents the proposition expressed by the embedded clause as new information that may be true or false, whereas the personal passive with the anticipatory subject pronoun het'it' in (18b) presents it as familiar and true; see Haeseryn et al. (1997:1138) for similar intuitions. A more detailed description of the distribution of expletive er'there' and the anticipatory subject pronoun het'it' will be provided in Section 5.1.3, sub III.

a.	Er	werd	me gisteren	verteld	[dat	hij	decaan	wordt].
	there	was	me yesterday	told	that	he	dean	becomes
	'I was told yesterday that heʼll become dean of the faculty.'

b.	Het	werd	me gisteren	verteld	[dat	hij	decaan	wordt].
	it	was	me yesterday	told	that	he	dean	becomes
	'I was told yesterday that heʼll become dean of the faculty.'

The question as to whether a factive reading arises is, however, more complex than the examples in (17) and (18) suggest. Examples (19a&b) show that regardless of the presence or absence of the anticipatory pronoun, the truth of propositions expressed by clausal objects of typically factive verbs like betreuren'to regret' will normally be presupposed by the speaker, whereas the truth of propositions expressed by clausal objects of a typically non-factive verb like beweren'to claim' will normally be left open. It is only with neutral verbs like vertellen'to tell', which can be used both as factive and as non-factive verbs, that the presence of the anticipatory pronoun het will normally trigger the factive reading.

a.	Jan betreurt	(het)	[dat	Marie ontslagen	is].	factive
	Jan regrets	it	that	Marie fired	is
	'Jan regrets (it) that Marie has been fired.'

b.	Jan beweert	(het)	[dat	Marie ontslagen	is].	non-factive
	Jan claims	it	that	Marie fired	is
	'Jan claims (it) that Marie has been fired.'

c.	Jan vertelde	me	[dat	Marie ontslagen	is].	non-factive
	Jan told	me	that	Marie fired	is
	'Jan told me that Marie has been fired.'

c'.	Jan vertelde	het	me	[dat	Marie ontslagen	is].	factive
	Jan told	it	me	that	Marie fired	is
	'Jan told it to me that Marie has been fired.'

Because the semantic effect of the anticipatory pronoun het is sometimes difficult to pinpoint even with neutral verbs like vertellen, we will not digress on this issue and leave further investigation of it to future research.
Observe finally that the frequency of the anticipatory pronoun het is much higher with typically factive verbs like betreuren'to regret' than with non-factive verbs like beweren'to claim'; neutral verbs like vertellen'to tell' take up an intermediate position. This is shown in Table (20) by the results of a Google search (12/9/2011) on the strings [V-t (het) dat] and [V-de (het) dat].

	anticipatory pronoun present		anticipatory pronoun absent
factive	betreurt het dat ... regrets it that	1.300.000 81 %	betreurt dat ... regrets that	300.000 19%
	betreurde het dat ... regretted it that	112.000 72 %	betreurde dat ... regrettedthat	42.400 28 %
non-factive	beweert het dat ... claims it that	120.000 9%	beweert dat ... claims that	1.250.000 91 %
	beweerde het dat ... claimed it that	15.600 3%	beweerde dat ... claimed that	548.000 97 %
neutral	vertelt het dat ... tells it that	360.000 22%	vertelt dat ... claims that	1.290.000 78 %
	vertelde het dat ... told it that	162.000 48 %	vertelde dat ... told that	174.000 52 %

[+] IV. Free relatives

Haeseryn et al. (1997) assume that argument clauses may also take the form of free relative clauses. The reason is that we are clearly dealing with non-main clauses functioning as arguments. That we are dealing with non-main clauses is easily recognizable from the fact that the finite verb appears in clause-final position; that we are dealing with arguments is clear from the fact that free relatives may function as subject, direct object and part of a prepositional object.

a.	[Wie	dit	leest]	is gek.	subject
	who	this	reads	is crazy
	'Anyone who reads this is crazy.'

b.	Jan prijst	[wie	hij bewondert].	direct object
	Jan praises	who	he admires
	'Jan praises whoever he admires.'

c.	Jan wil	wachten	[op	wat	Els te zeggen	heeft].	PO-object
	Jan wants.to	wait	for	what	Els to say	has
	'Jan wants to wait for whatever Els has to say (about it).'

The question we want to raise here, however, is whether free relatives exhibit the behavior typical of argument clauses. There may be good reasons for answering this question in the negative and for assuming that free relatives are nominal in nature. The first reason is that they normally refer to entities and not to propositions. This would also account for the fact that free relatives can readily be used as indirect objects, whereas declarative and interrogative argument clauses cannot.

a.	Jan gaf	[wie erom vroeg]	een gesigneerde foto.
	Jan gave	who for.it asked	a signed picture
	'Jan gave a signed picture to anyone who asked for it.'

b.	Jan gaf	een gesigneerde foto	aan	[wie	erom	vroeg].
	Jan gave	a signed picture	to	who	for.it	asked
	'Jan gave a signed picture to anyone who asked for it.'

Secondly, the examples in (23) show that free relatives may occur in the argument positions in the middle field of the clause, which are normally not available to declarative and interrogative argument clauses.

a.	dat [wie	dit	leest]	gek	is.	subject
	that who	this	reads	crazy	is
	'that anyone who reads this is crazy.'

b.	dat	Jan	[wie	hij	bewondert]	prijst.	direct object
	that	Jan	who	he	admires	praises
	'that Jan praises whoever he admires.'

c.	dat	Jan	[op	wat	Els te zeggen	heeft]	wil	wachten.	PO-object
	that	Jan	for	what	Els to say	has	wants.to	wait
	'that Jan wants to wait for whatever Els has to say (about it).'

Thirdly, the examples in (24) show that the use of the anticipatory elements het and erop is impossible.

a.	*	dat	heti	gek	is	[wie	dit	leest]i.	subject
		that	it	crazy	is	who	this	reads

b.	*	dat	Jan heti	prijst	[wie	hij	bewondert]i.	direct object
		that	Jan it	praises	who	he	admires

c.	*	dat	Jan	eri	op	wacht	[wat	Els te zeggen	heeft]i.	PO-object
		that	Jan	there	for	waits	what	Els to say	has

Fourthly, the examples in (25) show that extraposition of the free relatives only yields an acceptable result if they function as direct objects. Not also that the prepositional object clause may only be in extraposed position if it pied-pipes the preposition, although this would normally give rise to a marked result with finite prepositional object clauses; cf. ??dat Jan wacht op dat Els iets zegt'that Jan is waiting for that Els says something'.

a.	??	dat	gek	is	[wie	dit	leest].	subject
		that	crazy	is	who	this	reads

b.		dat	Jan prijst	[wie	hij	bewondert].	direct object
		that	Jan praises	who	he	admires

c.		dat	Jan	<*op>	wacht	<op> [wat	Els te zeggen	heeft].	PO-object
		that	Jan	for	waits	what	Els to say	has

The behavior displayed in examples (22)-(24) is what we attribute to nominal but not to clausal arguments. The only fact that is perhaps not immediately expected is that free relatives functioning as direct objects may follow the clause-final verbs, but this would follow if we assume that free relatives exhibit similar extraposition behavior as the regular relative clauses with an overt antecedent (here: iedereen and hetgeen) in (26). However, this suggestion leaves unexplained why (25c) is unacceptable with the preposition op stranded in preverbal position.

a.	?	dat	iedereen	gek	is [rel-clause	die	dit	leest].
		that	everyone	crazy	is	who	this	reads
		'that everyone who reads this is mad.'

b.	dat	Jan iedereen	prijst [rel-clause	die	hij	bewondert].
	that	Jan everyone	praises	who	he	admires
	'that Jan praises everyone whom he admires.'

c.	dat	Jan	op hetgeen	wacht [rel-clause	dat	Els te zeggen	heeft].
	that	Jan	for the.things	waits	that	Els to say	has
	'that Jan is waiting for the things that Els has to say.'

We conclude from the discussion that free relatives are nominal in nature and should therefore not be included in our discussion of argument clauses. We refer to Section N3.3.2.2 for a discussion of free relatives.

References:

Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, Vogelaer, Gunther de, Devos, Magda & Ham, Margreet van de2005Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialectsAmsterdamAmsterdam University Press
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, Vogelaer, Gunther de, Devos, Magda & Ham, Margreet van de2005Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialectsAmsterdamAmsterdam University Press
Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
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
Haider, Hubert1985V-second in GermanHaider, Hubert & Prinzhorn, Martin (eds.)Verb second phenomena in Germanic languagesDordrecht/RivertonForis Publications49-75
Hoekstra, Eric & Zwart, Jan-Wouter1994De structuur van CP. Functionele projecties voor topics en vraagwoorden in het NederlandsSpektator23191-212
Sturm, Arie1996Over functionele projectiesNederlandse Taalkunde1191-206
Zwart, Jan-Wouter & Hoekstra, Eric1997Weer functionele projectiesNederlandse Taalkunde2121-132

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Anticipatory PronounArgument ClauseClauseComplementizerConditional ConjunctionDeclarative ComplementizerDirect ObjectDirect SpeechExtrapositionFactivityFocusInterrogative ComplementizerObject ClausePrepositional ObjectRelative ClauseSubject ClauseTemporal Conjunction

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles