Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.1.2.2.The placement of finite object clauses

quickinfo

This section discusses the placement of finite object clauses. The most common position for such clauses is after the clause-final verbs but they can also occur in sentence-initial position (observe that we do not use the notion clause-initial here for the simple reason that the initial position of embedded clauses cannot be occupied by non-wh-phrases). Normally, finite object clauses (with the possible exception of factive clauses discussed in Section 5.1.2.3) do not occur in the middle field of the clause, subsections I to III below discuss these three options in more detail.

a.	Jan heeft	(het)	gisteren	gezegd	[dat	Marie	ziek	is].	clause-final
	Jan has	it	yesterday	said	that	Marie	ill	is
	'Jan said yesterday that Marie is ill.'

b.	*	Jan heeft	gisteren	[dat	Marie ziek	is]	gezegd.	clause-internal
		Jan has	yesterday	that	Marie ill	is	said

c.	[Dat	Marie ziek	is]	(dat)	heeft	Jan gisteren	gezegd.	sentence-initial
	that	Marie ill	is	that	has	Jan yesterday	said
	'That Marie is ill Jan said yesterday.'

The examples in (60a&c) also show that object clauses in clause-final and sentence-initial position differ in that the former can be preceded by the anticipatory object pronoun het, whereas the latter can be followed by the resumptive demonstrative pronoun dat'that'. We take this as a hallmark of argument clauses, and will use it as a test to determine whether or not we are dealing with object clauses, subsection IV will show that according to this test conditional clauses introduced by als, which are analyzed as object clauses in Haeseryn et al. (1997:1155), are in fact adverbial adjuncts.

I. Extraposed position
II. Middle field
III. Sentence-initial position
IV. Apparent object clauses

[+] I. Extraposed position

Finite direct object clauses differ from nominal direct objects in that they must follow the verbs in clause-final position in neutral contexts. This is illustrated in (61): whereas the primeless examples show that nominal direct objects must precede the main verb in clause-final position, the primed examples show that direct object clauses can follow it.

a.	Jan heeft	Marie	<zijn belevenissen>	verteld <*zijn belevenissen>.
	Jan has	Marie	his adventures	told
	'Jan has told Marie his adventures.'

a'.	Jan heeft	Marie	verteld	[dat	hij	beroofd	was].
	Jan has	Marie	told	that	he	robbed	was
	'Jan has told Marie that he was robbed.'

b.	Els zal	<de gebeurtenis>	onderzoeken <*de gebeurtenis>.
	Els will	the event	investigate
	'Els will investigate the event.'

b'.	Els zal	onderzoeken	[of	Jan beroofd	is].
	Els will	investigate	whether	Jan robbed	is
	'Els will investigate whether Jan has been robbed.'

In fact, it seems that object clauses normally follow all non-clausal constituents of their clause including those placed after the verbs in clause-final position. This is illustrated in (62) for, respectively, a prepositional indirect object and a temporal adverbial phrase. The unacceptable orders improve when the object clause is followed by an intonation break, in which case the PP/adverbial phrase would express an afterthought.

a.	Jan heeft	verteld	<aan Marie>	[dat	hij	beroofd	was] <*aan Marie>.
	Jan has	told	to Marie	that	he	robbed	was
	'Jan has told Marie that he was robbed.'

b.	Els zal	onderzoeken	<morgen>	[of	Jan beroofd	is] <*morgen>.
	Els will	investigate	tomorrow	whether	Jan robbed	is
	'Els will investigate tomorrow whether Jan has been robbed.'

Direct object clauses are, however, followed by extraposed adverbial clauses. This is illustrated in the primeless examples in (63) for adverbial clauses expressing time and reason, respectively; the number signs preceding the primed examples indicate that these examples are only acceptable if the adverbial clause is interpreted parenthetically, in which case it must be preceded and followed by an intonation break. Note in passing that example (63a) is actually ambiguous; the adverbial clauses may in principle also be construed as part of the object clause, in which case it does not refer to the time at which John told that he was robbed, but to the time at which the robbery took place.

Jan heeft

verteld

[dat

hij

beroofd

was]

[direct

nadat

hij

thuis

kwam].

Jan has

told

that

robbed

was]

right

after

home

came

'Jan has said that he was robbed immediately after he came home.'

a'.

Jan heeft verteld [direct nadat hij thuis kwam] [dat hij beroofd was].

b.	Els zal	onderzoeken	[of	Jan beroofd	is]	[omdat	zij	het	niet gelooft].
	Els will	investigate	whether	Jan robbed	is	because	she	it	not believes
	'Els will investigate whether Jan has been robbed since she doesnʼt believe it.'

b'.

Els zal onderzoeken [omdat zij het niet gelooft] [of Jan beroofd is].

Direct object clauses can also be followed by elements that are not part of the sentence, like the epithet in (64a) or the afterthought in (64b). Such elements are normally preceded by an intonation break.

a.	Jan heeft	Marie	verteld	[dat	hij	beroofd	was],	de leugenaar.
	Jan has	Marie	told	that	he	robbed	was	the liar
	'Jan has told Marie that he was robbed, the liar.'

b.	Els zal	onderzoeken	[of	Jan beroofd	is],	(en)	terecht.
	Els will	investigate	whether	Jan robbed	is	and	with.good.reason
	'Els will investigate whether Jan has been robbed, and rightly so.'

Finite object clauses in extraposed position can be introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it', which we have indicated here by means of subscripts; see also Section 5.1.1, sub III.

a.	Jan zal	heti	Marie	morgen	vertellen	[dat	hij	beroofd	was]i.
	Jan will	it	Marie	tomorrow	tell	that	he	robbed	was
	'Jan will tell Marie tomorrow that he was robbed.'

b.	Els zal	heti	morgen	onderzoeken	[of	Jan beroofd	is]i.
	Els will	it	tomorrow	investigate	whether	Jan robbed	is
	'Els will investigate tomorrow whether Jan has been robbed.'

[+] II. Middle field

The examples in (66) show that as a general rule direct object clauses do not precede their matrix verb in clause-final position.

a.	Jan heeft	gisteren	beweerd	[dat	Els	gaat	emigreren].
	Jan has	yesterday	claimed	that	Els	goes	emigrate
	'Jan claimed yesterday that Els is going to emigrate.'

a'.

Jan heeft [dat Els gaat emigreren] gisteren beweerd.

b.	Marie zal	grondig	onderzoeken	[of	het	waar	is].
	Marie will	thoroughly	investigate	whether	it	true	is
	'Marie will investigate thoroughly whether it is true.'

b'.

Marie zal [of het waar is] grondig onderzoeken.

There are, however, a number of potential counterexamples to this general rule. First, the examples in (67) show that free relative clauses can generally either precede of follow the verbs in clause-final position. We have seen in Section 5.1.1, sub IV, that this is one of a large number of reasons for assuming that free relatives should not be considered argument clauses but noun phrases. Thus, the surprising thing is that example (67a) is acceptable, but it can be accounted for by assuming that free relatives can be in extraposed position just like relative clauses with an overt antecedent: dat Jan de man prijst [die hij bewondert]'that Jan praises the man who he admires'.

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

dat Jan [wie hij bewondert] prijst.

Secondly, we find similar ordering alternations with so-called factive verbs like onthullen'to reveal' and betreuren'to regret'. Although some speakers may judge the primed examples as marked compared to the primeless examples, they seem well-formed and are certainly much better than the primed examples in (66). Barbiers (2000) suggests that the markedness of the primed examples is not related to grammaticality issues but due to the fact that center-embedding of longer constituents normally gives rise to processing difficulties.

a.	Jan heeft	gisteren	onthuld	[dat	Els	gaat	emigreren].
	Jan has	yesterday	revealed	that	Els	goes	emigrate
	'Jan revealed yesterday that Els is going to emigrate.'

a'.

Jan heeft [dat Els gaat emigreren] gisteren onthuld.

b.	Jan heeft	nooit	betreurd	[dat	hij	taalkundige	is	geworden].
	Jan has	never	regretted	that	he	linguist	has	become
	'Jan has never regretted that he has become a linguist.'

b'.

Jan heeft [dat hij taalkundige is geworden] nooit betreurd.

The main difference between the (a)-examples in (66) and (68) is related to the truth of the proposition expressed by the embedded clause; cf. Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1970). Consider the examples in (69). Sentence (69a) shows that the proposition expressed by the clausal complement of beweren'to claim' in (66a) can be denied by the speaker without any problem; the speaker does not commit himself to the truth of the proposition, but instead attributes the responsibility for its truth to Jan. Things are different when the speaker uses a factive verb like onthullen'to reveal'; by using this verb the speaker presupposes that the proposition "Els is going to emigrate" is true. This is clear from the fact that the denial in the second conjunct in (69b) is surprising, to say the least.

a.	Jan heeft	beweerd	[dat	Els gaat	emigreren],	maar	dat	is niet waar.
	Jan has	claimed	that	Els goes	emigrate	but	that	is not true
	'Jan has said that Els is going to emigrate, but that isnʼt true.'

b.	$	Jan heeft	onthuld	[dat	Els gaat emigreren],	maar	dat	is	niet waar.
		Jan has	revealed	that	Els goes emigrate	but	that	is	not true
		'Jan has revealed that Els is going to emigrate, but that isnʼt true.'

The behavior of factive clauses deserves more attention, especially since it has been suggested that they do not function as argument clauses. However, since discussing this here would lead us to far afield and away from the present topic, we will return to this in Section 5.1.2.3.

[+] III. Sentence-initial position

The examples in (70) show that object clauses can readily occur in sentence-initial position. In accordance with the general verb-second requirement in Dutch, the preposed clause must be immediately followed by the finite verb. Placement of object clauses in sentence-initial position is impossible if the anticipatory pronoun het'it' is present, as will become clear by comparing the examples in (70) to those in (65).

a.	[Dat	hij	beroofd	was]	zal	Jan	(*het)	Marie	morgen	vertellen.
	that	he	robbed	was	will	Jan	it	Marie	tomorrow	tell
	'That he was robbed Jan will tell Marie tomorrow.'

b.	[Of	Jan beroofd	is]	zal	Els	(*het)	morgen	onderzoeken.
	whether	Jan robbed	is	will	Els	it	tomorrow	investigate
	'Whether Jan has been robbed Els will investigate tomorrow.'

The impossibility of het in (70) can be accounted for in at least two ways. One way is to assume that the examples in (70) are in fact not derived by regular topicalization, but in a similar way as the left dislocation constructions in (71); cf. Koster (1978).

[Dat

hij

beroofd

was],

dat

zal

Jan

(*het)

Marie

morgen

vertellen.

that

robbed

was

that

will

Jan

Marie

tomorrow

tell

b.		[Of	Jan beroofd	is],	dat	zal	Els	(*het)	morgen	onderzoeken.
		whether	Jan robbed	is	that	will	Els	it	tomorrow	investigate

If we follow this line of thinking, the examples in (70) may involve a phonetically empty pronoun pro with the same function and in the same position as the resumptive demonstrative pronoun dat'that' in (71). On this analysis, the anticipatory pronoun cannot be realized since it is replaced by the pronoun dat/pro, which is moved into sentence-initial position; the structures in (72) show that the use of het is blocked because the clause-internal object position is occupied by the trace of the moved pronoun.

[dat hij beroofd was]i [sentence dati zal Jan ti Marie morgen vertellen].

[dat hij beroofd was]i [sentence proi zal Jan ti Marie morgen vertellen].

The analysis suggested above is contested in Klein (1979), who points out that the examples in (70) and (71) exhibit different intonation patterns: whereas the examples in (71) involve an intonation break between the clause and the pronoun dat, indicated here by means of a comma, the clauses in (70) are not likely to be followed by such an intonation break. If one wants to conclude from this that the examples in (70) must be derived by topicalization of the finite clause, we may account for the impossibility of the pronoun het by assuming that the clause must be moved via the regular object position in the middle field of the clause; under this proposal the pronoun het cannot be realized because the regular object position would be filled by a trace of the moved clause. An analysis like this raises the question as to why finite clauses cannot surface in the regular object position; see the discussion in Subsection II. One option would be to assume that there is a surface condition that prohibits that argument positions are filled by non-nominal categories; see Stowell (1983), Hoekstra (1984a), and Den Dikken and Næss (1993) for proposals to this effect. We will see in Section 5.1.3 that the same issue arises with finite subject clauses.

[+] IV. Apparent object clauses

Haeseryn et al. (1997:1155) claim that subject experiencer verbs like betreuren'to regret' and waarderen'to appreciate' may take an object clause introduced by the conditional complementizer als'if'; cf. the primeless examples in (73). As the claim is simply postulated without any motivation, we can only guess why it is proposed; one obvious argument in favor of this claim is that we can replace the als-clauses by noun phrases that clearly function as direct objects; cf. the primed examples in (73).

a.	Jan zou	het	betreuren	[als	zij	niet	kan	komen].
	Jan would	it	regret	if	she	not	can	come
	'Jan would regret it if she couldnʼt come.'

a'.	Jan zou	haar afwezigheid	betreuren.
	Jan would	her non-attendance	regret
	'Jan would regret her absence.'

b.	Jan waardeert	het	zeer	[als	zij	hem	wil	helpen].
	Jan appreciates	it	a.lot	if	she	him	want	help
	'Jan really appreciates it if sheʼs willing to help him.'

b'.	Jan zou	haar hulp	zeer	waarderen.
	Jan would	her help	a.lot	appreciate
	'Jan would really appreciate her help a lot.'

There are, however, also arguments that militate against the claim that we are dealing with object clauses in (73a&b). These involve the distribution of the anticipatory pronoun het'it' and the resumptive pronoun dat'that', which are optionally used to refer to (logical) object clauses in, respectively, extraposed and sentence-initial position; see the discussion in Subsections I to III. The examples in this subsection reveal that the clauses in (73a&b) display a different behavior here. The examples in (74) indicate first of all that the anticipatory object pronoun het is obligatory, and not optional, if the verbs betreuren and waarderen are followed by an als-clause.

a.	Jan betreurde	(het)	[dat	hij	niet	kon	komen].
	Jan regretted	it	that	he	not	could	come
	'Jan regretted it that he couldnʼt come.'

a'.	Jan zou	*(het)	betreuren	[als	hij	niet	kon	komen].
	Jan would	it	regret	if	he	not	could	come
	'Jan would regret it if he couldnʼt come.'

b.	Jan waardeerde	(het)	[dat	Els hem	wou	helpen].
	Jan appreciated	it	that	Els him	wanted	help
	'Jan appreciated it that Els was willing to help him.'

b'.	Jan zou	*(het)	waarderen	[als	Els hem	wil	helpen].
	Jan would	it	appreciate	if	Els him	want	help
	'Jan would appreciate it if Els is willing to help him.'

The examples in (75) provide further support: the anticipatory pronoun het can be replaced by the resumptive pronoun dat in sentence-initial position with left-dislocateddat-clauses. The primed examples, on the other hand, show that resumptive dat is excluded with left-dislocated conditional als-clauses.

a.	[Dat	hij	niet	kon	komen],	dat betreurde	Jan zeer.
	that	he	not	could	come	that regretted	Jan a.lot
	'That he couldnʼt come, Jan regretted very much.'

a'.	*	[Als	hij	niet	kan	komen],	dat	zou	Jan zeer	betreuren.
		if	he	not	can	come	that	would	Jan a.lot	regret

b.	[Dat	Els hem	wou	helpen],	dat	waardeerde Peter zeer.
	that	Els him	wanted	help	that	appreciated Peter a.lot
	'That Els was willing to help him, Peter appreciated very much.'

b'.	*	[Als	Els hem	wil	helpen],	dat	zou	Peter zeer	waarderen.
		if	Els him	want	help	that	would	Peter a.lot	appreciate

The primeless examples in (76) further show that resumptive dat is normally not used when the dat-clause is not followed by an intonation break. The primed examples, on the other hand, show that such constructions without dat do not arise with als-clauses either.

a.	[Dat	hij	niet	kon	komen]	betreurde	Jan zeer.
	that	he	not	could	come	regretted	Jan a.lot
	'That he couldnʼt come, Jan regretted very much.'

a'.	*	[Als	hij	niet	kan	komen]	zou	Jan	zeer	betreuren.
		if	he	not	can	come	would	Jan	a.lot	regret

b.	[Dat	Els hem	wou	helpen]	waardeerde	Peter zeer.
	that	Els him	wanted	help	appreciated	Peter a.lot
	'That Els was willing to help him, Peter greatly appreciated.'

b'.	*	[Als	Els hem	wil	helpen]	zou	Peter zeer	waarderen.
		if	Els him	want	help	would	Peter a.lot	appreciate

Adding an object pronoun like dat or het to the primeless examples in (76) would make these examples ungrammatical, which may be due to the fact that the object position is already occupied by a trace; cf, subsection III. Adding an object pronoun to the primeless examples in (76), on the other hand, makes these examples fully acceptable.

a.	*	[Dat	hij	niet	kon	komen]	betreurde	Jan het/dat	zeer.
		that	he	not	could	come	regretted	Jan it/that	a.lot

a'.	[Als	hij	niet	kan	komen]	zou	Jan het/dat	zeer	betreuren.
	if	he	not	can	come	would	Jan it/that	a.lot	regret
	'If he couldnʼt come, Jan would regret it/that very much.'

b.	*	[Dat	Els hem	wou	helpen]	waardeerde	Peter het/dat	zeer.
		that	Els him	wanted	help	appreciated	Peter it/that	a.lot

b'.	[Als	Els hem	wil	helpen]	zou	Peter het/dat	zeer	waarderen.
	if	Els him	want	help	would	Peter it/that	a.lot	appreciate
	'If Els is willing to help him, Peter would greatly appreciate it/that.'

The primed examples in (77) strongly suggest that conditional als-clauses and object pronouns have different syntactic functions. This is also supported by the fact that als-clauses in left-dislocation constructions can be associated with the resumptive adverbial element dan'then', which also surfaces in regular conditional constructions: cf. Als het regent, dan kom ik niet'If it rains, (then) I won't come'. Now note that the object pronoun het/dat must also be expressed when resumptive dan is present.

[Als

hij

niet

kan

komen],

dan

zou

Jan

*(het/dat)

zeer

betreuren.

not

can

come

then

would

Jan

it/that

a.lot

regret

'If he canʼt come, then Jan would regret it/that very much.'

b.	[Als	Els hem	wil	helpen],	dan	zou	Peter	*(het/dat)	zeer	waarderen.
	if	Els him	want	help	then	would	Peter	it/that	a.lot	appreciate
	'If Els is willing to help him, then Peter would greatly appreciate it.'

The fact that an object pronoun must co-occur with resumptive dan conclusively shows that object pronouns and conditional als-clauses have different (logical) syntactic functions: object versus adverbial adjunct. Consequently, object pronouns cannot function as anticipatory or resumptive pronouns associated with such als-clauses. It goes without saying that this also shows that the fact that the conditional als-clauses in the primeless examples in (73) can apparently be replaced by the nominal direct objects in the primed examples in (73) is not sufficient ground for concluding that conditional als-clauses are object clauses.
The conclusion that dat- and als-clauses have different syntactic functions can also be supported by means of the coordination facts in (79). While (79a&b) show that two dat- and two als-clauses can easily be coordinated, (79c) shows that this is impossible for a dat- and an als-clause. The claim that the two clause types have different syntactic functions straightforwardly derives this.

a.	Jan waardeert	het	[[dat	Marie komt]	en	[dat	Els opbelt]].
	Jan appreciates	it	that	Marie comes	and	that	Els prt.-calls
	'Jan appreciates it that Marie will come and that Els will ring.'

b.	Jan waardeert	het	[[als	Marie komt]	en	[als	Els opbelt]].
	Jan appreciates	it	if	Marie comes	and	if	Els prt.-calls
	'Jan appreciates it if Marie will come and if Els will ring.'

c.	*	Jan waardeert	het	[[als	Marie komt]	en	[dat	Els opbelt]].
		Jan appreciates	it	if	Marie comes	and	that	Els prt.-calls

For completeness' sake, note that the left-dislocation test can also be applied to other cases in which one might be tempted to analyze a clause, or some other phrase, as a direct object. For example, the phrases introduced by alsof/als in the primeless examples in (80) resemble direct objects in that they cannot be omitted just like that, but the fact that the left-dislocation construction does not allow the resumptive dat but requires the manner adverb zo shows immediately that we are dealing with adverbial phrases.

a.	Jan gedraagt	zich	*(alsof	hij	gek	is).
	Jan behaves	refl	as.if	he	crazy	is
	'Jan behaves as if heʼs crazy.'

a'.

Alsof hij gek is, zo/*dat gedraagt Jan zich.

b.	Jan gedraagt	zich	#(als een popster)
	Jan behaves	refl	as a pop.star
	'Jan behaves like a pop star.'

b'.

Als een popster, zo/*dat gedraagt Jan zich.

References:

Barbiers, Sjef2000The right periphery in SOV languages: English and DutchSvenonius, Peter (ed.)The derivation of VO and OVAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins45-67
Dikken, Marcel den & Næss, Alma1993Case dependencies: the case of predicate inversionThe Linguistic Review10303-336
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
Hoekstra, Teun1984Transitivity. Grammatical relations in government-binding theoryDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol1970FactBierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.)Progress in linguisticsThe Hague/ParisMouton143-173
Klein, Maarten1979Paardekoopers notie <i>aanloop</i> and het bestaansrecht van subjectzinnenGramma387-223
Koster, Jan1978Why subject sentences don't existKeyser, S. Jay (ed.)Recent transformational studies in European languages53-64
Stowell, Tim1983Subjects across categoriesThe Linguistic Review2285-312

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Anticipatory PronounConditional ConjunctionFactivityLeft DislocationResumptive PronounTemporal ConjunctionTopicalizationFinal Position

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