/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
    11.3.1.3.Islands for question formation
    quickinfo

    Section 11.3.1.1 has shown that wh-movement is a near-obligatory operation in the formation of wh-questions, as it is needed to create operator-variable chains. From a semantic point of view the formation of such chains requires preposing of the wh-element only, but if some syntactic restriction blocks extraction of this element, wh-movement may also pied-pipe a larger phrase. If such a restriction does not apply, stranding normally is the preferred option. Section 11.3.1.2 has further shown that embedded clauses cannot be pied-piped by wh-movement; consequently, if long wh-movement is impossible for some reason, certain semantically plausible questions simply cannot be formed.
          The seminal work of Ross (1967) has made it clear that there is a wide range of constructions that resist the formation of semantically plausible wh-questions. We will refer to such cases as islands for question formation, thus taking the notion of island in a slightly stricter sense than is normally done by not only excluding wh-extraction (stranding) but also pied piping; the reason is purely practical given that stranding and pied piping were already discussed in Section 11.3.1.1. As this section will focus on the empirical data from Standard Dutch, we refer the reader to Szabolsci (2006), Müller (2011) and Boeckx (2012) for recent theoretical approaches to island phenomena.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  Factive islands: the distinction between strong and weak islands

    Section 11.3.1.2, sub IV, has shown that long wh-movement is normally excluded from factive clauses. This is illustrated again in example (214b): while long wh-movement is fully acceptable with the non-factive matrix verb denken'to think', it gives rise to a degraded result with the factive matrix verb weten'to know'. It must be noted, however, that some speakers do allow long wh-movement if the wh-phrase is D-linked such as welk boek'which book' in (214b'). Recall that we do not include the intermediate trace in the initial position of the embedded clause if this is not immediately relevant for our discussion.

    214
    Long wh-movement from factive islands
    a. Jan dacht/wist [dat Marie zijn boek gekocht had].
      Jan thought/knew   that  Marie  his book  bought   had
      'Jan thought/knew that Marie had bought his book.'
    b. Wati dacht/*wist Jan [dat Marie ti gekocht had]?
      what  thought/knew  Jan    that  Marie  bought  had
    b'. Welk boeki dacht/%wist Jan [dat Marie ti gekocht had]?
      which book  thought/knew  Jan    that  Marie  bought  had

    The percentage sign in (214b') indicates that judgments differ from speaker to speaker and from case to case; the (b)-examples in (214) improve for many speakers if we substitute the factive verb betreuren'to regret' for weten'to know', as in (215).

    215
    a. ?? Wati betreurde Jan [dat Marie ti gekocht had]?
      what  regretted  Jan    that  Marie  bought  had
    b. ? Welk boeki betreurde Jan [dat Marie ti gekocht had]?
      which book  regretted  Jan    that  Marie  bought  had

    That there is a great deal of speaker variation is clear from the fact that the judgments on examples such as (215a) found in the linguistic literature also vary considerably: some researchers reject examples of this type as fully ungrammatical (e.g. Hoeksema 2006:147), while others accept them as fully acceptable (e.g. Bennis 1986:104) or suggest some intermediate status (Barbiers 1998). The diacritics here should not be considered as the expression of absolute but of relative judgments: the use of a double question mark in (215a) instead of an asterisk at least does justice to the fact that this example deteriorates enormously when the anticipatory pronoun het'it' is added (cf. *Wati betreurde Jan het [dat Marie ti gekocht had]?) and that it is less felicitous than examples such as (215b), which involve extraction of a D-linked wh-phrase. Examples such as (215b) are sometimes given as fully acceptable in the literature (e.g. Zwart 2011:209) but since at least some speakers feel uncomfortable with them, we have added a question mark.
          The crucial thing for our present discussion is that the acceptability contrast between long wh-movement of non-D-linked and D-linked wh-phrases from factive complements is beyond doubt. This contrast shows that certain islands are not strong (absolute), but weak(selective) in that they block wh-extraction of certain elements but not others. It is often claimed that weak-island violations are sensitive to the referential properties of the wh-phrase in the sense that extraction is only possible if the descriptive part of the wh-phrase denotes a certain pre-established set of entities in the domain of discourse; see Szabolsci (2006; section 5) and the references cited there. D-linked wh-phrases such as welk boek'which book' satisfy this criterion, while non-D-linked pronouns wie'who' and wat'what' normally do not and at best presuppose the existence of some entity that satisfies the description of the predicative part of the question. Example (216b) shows that weak islands normally also block long wh-movement of non-arguments like adverbial adjuncts (but see Szabolsci 2006 for some exceptional cases).

    216
    a. Jan dacht/wist [dat Marie zijn boek bij Amazon gekocht had].
      Jan thought/knew   that  Marie  his book  at Amazon  bought   had
      'Jan thought/knew that Marie had bought his book at Amazon.'
    b. Waari dacht/*wist Jan [dat Marie zijn boek ti gekocht had]?
      where  thought/knew  Jan    that  Marie his book  bought  had
    [+]  II.  Embedded questions

    Wh-extraction is not possible from embedded interrogative clauses: this holds for polar yes/no-questions as well as for wh-questions. That yes/no-questions are islands for question formation is illustrated in (217b); the fact that the wh-phrase welk boek'which book' is D-linked shows that such islands are strong.

    217
    a. Jan vroeg [of Marie het boek gekocht had].
      Jan asked   if  Marie  the book  bought  had
      'Jan asked whether Marie had bought the book.'
    b. * Welk boeki vroeg Jan [of Marie ti gekocht had]?
      which book  asked  Jan  whether  Marie  bought  had

    Although examples such as (217b) are not often explicitly discussed, its degraded status can readily be accounted for by assuming that the clause-initial position of the embedded clause is not accessible for the wh-phrase due to the presence of a phonetically empty polar question operator. This assumption may be needed anyway in order to exclude wh-movement in polar main clauses like (218a); wh-movement is possible only if the position preceding the finite verb is radically empty, which accounts for the fact that (218b) is a pure wh-question that does not leave room for a polar interpretation. For completeness' sake, we added example (218c) to show that the wh-element cannot remain in situ either.

    218
    a. OP[+Q] Koopt Peter het boek?
      buys  Peter  the book
      'Does Peter buy the book?'
    b. Welk boeki koopt Peter ti ?
      which book  buys  Peter
      'Which book does Peter buy?'
    c. * OP[+Q] Koopt Peter welk boek?
      buys  Peter which book

    If the clause-initial position of embedded polar questions is indeed occupied by a phonetically empty question operator, the unacceptability of long wh-movement of (217b) follows from the standard analysis in generative grammar that wh-extraction cannot apply in a single movement step, but must proceed via the clause-initial position of the object clause. This analysis can be straightforwardly extended to account for the unacceptability of cases like (219), in which long wh-movement takes place from embedded wh-questions. Observe that (219c) is fully acceptable if the adverbial phrase modifies the matrix clause, but this is of course not the reading intended here (as is indicated by the tracetj).

    219
    a. * Watj vroeg je [wieititj gekocht heeft]?
    non-D-linked
      what  asked  you  who  bought  has
      'What did you ask who has bought?'
    b. * Welk boekj vroeg je [wieititj gekocht heeft]?
    D-linked
      which book  asked  you  who  bought  has
      'Which book did you ask who has bought?'
    c. * Wanneerj vroeg je [wieititj vertrokken was]?
    adverbial adjunct
      when  asked  you   who  left  had
      'When did you ask who had left?'

    Wh-islands have been reported to be weak in many languages, including English. This does not seem to be the case in Dutch, as most speakers seem to consider all examples in (219) to be (equally) bad; see, e.g., Koster (1987:192ff.) and Zwart (2011:208). However, Koster (1987:22) claimed that long movement is more acceptable if the wh-phrase in the clause-initial position of the embedded clause is not a subject, as in the examples in (220), to which Koster assigns a mere question mark. It should further be noted that Koopman & Sportiche (1985) have claimed that long wh-movement of PPs in examples such as (220a') is more acceptable than long wh-movement of objects in examples such as (220b'), although Koster (1987) does not seem to agree with this. To our knowledge, wh-island violations of this sort have not been discussed elsewhere and since their precise status is not clear to us, we simply mark them with a percentage sign.

    220
    a. Jan wil weten [welk boeki jij ti aan Marie gegeven hebt].
      Jan wants  know  which book  you  to Marie  given  have
      'Jan wants to know which book you have given to Marie.'
    a'. % Aan wiej wil Jan weten [welk boeki jij titj gegeven hebt]?
      to whom  wants  Jan know  which book  you  given  have
    b. Jan wil weten [aan wiej jij dit boek tj gegeven hebt].
      Jan wants  know   to whom  you  this book  given  have
      'Jan wants to know to whom you have given this book.'
    b'. % Welk boekj wil Jan weten [aan wiej jij titj gegeven hebt]?
      to whom  wants  Jan know  to whom  you given  have
    [+]  III.  Subject clauses

    Long wh-movement typically involves extraction from direct object clauses. It is sometimes claimed that long wh-movement from subject clauses is excluded; cf. Huang (1982). Examples supplied to illustrate this normally involve subject clauses in non-extraposed position or subject clauses introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it'; see, e.g., Zwart (2011:202ff.). Section 11.3.1.2, sub III, has already shown, however, that there are subject clauses in extraposed position that allow long wh-movement if the anticipatory pronoun het is not present. We illustrate this again in (221b) by means of the passive counterpart of the construction in (221a) with an object clause. The fact that the extracted phrase is the non-D-linked pronoun wat'what' in fact shows that subject clauses are not even weak islands.

    221
    a. Wati had de directeur verwacht [dat hij zou ti krijgen]?
    direct object
      what  had  the manager  expected   that  he  would  receive
      'What had the manager expected that he would receive?'
    b. Wati werd er verwacht [dat hij zou ti krijgen]?
    subject
      what  was  there  expected   that  he  would  receive

    The fact that long wh-movement from subject clauses is nevertheless rare is due to the fact that such clauses are normally preceded by the anticipatory pronoun het if they occur in extraposed position; see Section 11.3.1.2, sub III, for more details.

    [+]  IV.  Adjunct clauses

    Adverbial clauses differ from argument clauses in that they always constitute islands for wh-formation; cf. Huang (1982). This is illustrated in (222) for adverbial clauses indicating time and reason. The fact that the primed examples involve the D-linked phrase Welke foto's'which pictures' shows that adjunct clauses are strong islands for wh-movement.

    222
    a. Marie vertrok [toen Jan zijn vakantiefoto's wou laten zien].
      Marie left   when  Jan his holiday.pictures  wanted  let  see
      'Marie left when Jan wanted to show his holiday pictures.'
    a'. * Welke foto's vertrok Marie [toen Jan ti wou laten zien]?
      which pictures  left  Marie   when  Jan  wanted  let  see
    b. Marie vertrok [omdat Jan zijn vakantiefotos wou laten zien].
      Marie left   because  Jan his holiday.pictures  wanted  let  see
      'Marie left because Jan wanted to show his holiday pictures.'
    b'. * Welke foto's vertrok Marie [omdat Jan ti wou laten zien]?
      which pictures  left  Marie   because  Jan  wanted  let  see
    [+]  V.  Complex noun phrases

    Section 11.3.1.1, sub VB has shown that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, there are reasons for assuming that noun phrases are islands for postnominal wh-phrases. This was argued on the basis of examples such as (223), which show that both the stranding and the pied piping option are excluded.

    223
    a. Els zal morgen [haar klacht [tegen Peter]] intrekken.
      Els will  tomorrow   her complaint  against Peter  withdraw
      'Els will withdraw her complaint against Peter tomorrow.'
    b. * [Tegen wie]i zal Els [haar klacht ti] morgen intrekken?
      against who  will  Els   her complaint  tomorrow  withdraw
    c. * [Haar klacht [tegen wie]]i zal Els morgen ti intrekken?
      her complaint  against who  will  Els tomorrow  withdraw

    The islandhood of noun phrases for wh-phrases embedded in postnominal clauses is uncontroversial. This holds regardless of the syntactic status of the postnominal clause: the (a)-examples show this for a clausal complement and the (b)-examples for a relative clause. The fact that the primed examples involve D-linked noun phrases shows that complex noun phrases are strong islands for wh-movement. For completeness' sake, it should be mentioned that extraposition of the relative clause does not improve the result.

    224
    a. De directeur heeft [het gerucht [dat Jan deze baan krijgt]] bevestigd.
      the manager  has   the rumor  that  Jan this job  gets  confirmed
      'The manager has confirmed the rumor that Jan will get the job.'
    a'. * Welke baani heeft de directeur [het gerucht [dat Jan ti krijgt]] bevestigd?
      which job  has  the manager   the rumor   that  Jan  gets  confirmed
    b. Marie heeft [de man [die haar boek gerecenseerd had]] ontmoet.
      Marie has  the man  who  her book  reviewed  had  met
      'Marie has met the man who had reviewed her book.'
    b'. * Welk boeki heeft Marie [de man [die ti gerecenseerd had]] ontmoet?
      which book  has  Marie   the man   who  reviewed   had  met
    [+]  VI.  Coordinate structures

    Islands for question formation are normally clausal in nature due to the fact that non-sentential clausal constituents regularly allow either stranding or pied piping; see Section 11.3.1.1, sub V and Section 11.3.1.1, sub VI. Coordinate structures are, however, notable exceptions to this. The examples in (225) first show that the full coordinate structure can be easily questioned.

    225
    a. Jan heeft [[een boek] en [een CD]] gekocht.
      Jan has  a book  and   a CD  bought
      'Jan has bought a book and a CD.'
    b. Wati heeft Jan ti gekocht? [[Een boek] en [een CD]].
      what  has  Jan bought    a book  and   a CD
      'What has Jan bought? A book and a CD.'

    It is, however, impossible to question one of the conjuncts: the (a)-examples in (226) show that wh-movement of one of the conjuncts while stranding the remainder of the coordinate structure is excluded; the (b)-examples show that pied piping of the complete coordinate structure is excluded as well.

    226
    a. * Wati heeft Jan [[een boek] en [ ti ]] gekocht?
      what  has  Jan    a book  and  bought
    a'. * Wati heeft Jan [[ ti ] en [een CD]] gekocht?
      what  has  Jan  and   a CD  bought
    b. * [[Een boek] en [wat]]i heeft Jan ti gekocht?
      a book  and   what  has  Jan  bought
    b'. * [[Wat] en [een CD]]i heeft Jan ti gekocht?
      what  and   a CD  has  Jan  bought

    Although it is not entirely clear what the correct representation of "split" coordinate structures like (227a) is, it might be interesting to note that such cases do not allow question formation either.

    227
    a. Jan heeft een boek gekocht, en (ook) een CD.
      Jan has  a book  bought  and  also a CD
      'Jan has bought a book as well as a CD.'
    b. * Wat heeft Jan ti gekocht, en (ook) een CD.
      what  has  Jan  bought  and   also  a CD

          The examples above have shown that wh-extraction from coordinated structures is not possible. A potential exception is the so-called across-the-board movement, which may extract wh-phrases from coordinated structures provided that all the conjuncts are affected in a parallel way. Note that the strikethrough in (228b) is the result of backward conjunction reduction, which need not bother us here.

    228
    a. Welk boeki zal [[Jan ti bewonderen] maar [Marie ti verafschuwen]].
      which book  will    Jan  admire  but   Marie  loathe
      'Which book will Jan admire and Marie loathe?'
    b. Aan wiei zal [[Jan een boek ti geven] en [Peter een CD ti geven]]?
      to whom  will    Jan  a book  give  and  Peter  a CD  give
      'To whom will Jan give a book and Peter give a CD.'

    Observe that across-the-board movement always involves subextraction from a conjunct, that is, it must leave a remnant. This is shown by the unacceptability of examples like (229a). It is not clear, however, whether this is due to a syntactic constraint, as example (229b) shows that wh-movement of the full coordinate structure is also impossible. The use of the dollar sign indicates that we may be dealing with a simple economy effect because the answer to Wat heeft Jan gekocht? may involve a list: Een boek, een plaat, ...'A book, a record, ...'.

    229
    a. * Wati heeft Jan [[ti] en [ ti ]] gekocht?
      what  has  Jan  and  bought
    b. $ [Wat en wat] heeft Jan i gekocht?
      what and what  has  Jan  bought

    Given that the wh-phrase in across-the-board movement constructions is associated with two independent gaps, it is controversial whether the examples in (228) are derived by wh-movement in a run-of-the-mill fashion. We will not digress on this theoretical issue here but refer the reader to De Vries (2014) for extensive discussion.

    [+]  VII.  A note on resumptive prolepsis

    Standard German differs from Standard Dutch in that many speakers of German do not allow long wh-movement constructions such as (230a). Such speakers may employ various alternative strategies in order to overcome this problem, one of which is using the resumptive prolepsis construction illustrated in (230b), in which a proleptic phrase (here: von welchem Maler) obligatorily binds a resumptive pronoun within the embedded clause; see Salzmann (2006) for extensive discussion.

    230
    a. % Weni glaubst du [dass Petra ti liebt]?
    German
      who  think  you   that Petra  loves
      'Who do you think that Petra likes?'
    b. Von welchem Maleri glaubst du [dass Petra ihni liebt].
      of which painter  think  you   that  Petra  him  loves
      'Which painter do you think that Petra likes?'

    The resumptive prolepsis construction is not unique to speakers that do not allow long wh-movement, as is clear from the fact that in Standard Dutch, the two constructions in (231) are possible side by side.

    231
    a. Wiei denk je [dat Marie/zij ti bewondert]?
    Dutch
      who  think  you   that  Marie/she  admires
      'Who do you think that Marie/she admires?'
    b. Van welke schilderi denk je [dat Marie hemi bewondert]?
      of which painter  think  you   that  Marie  him  admires

    The long wh-movement and resumptive prolepsis construction exhibit a number of similarities, to which we will return in Section 11.3.6. These may make one think that they are both derived by means of wh-movement (in which case something special should be said about the use of the preposition von/van and the insertion of the resumptive pronoun). Salzmann (2006) argues, however, that there are various reasons not to adopt this line of thinking. One of the main reasons is that the resumptive prolepsis construction is not sensitive to islands. This is illustrated in (232) for factive islands: while (232a) shows that long wh-movement gives rise to a degraded result for many speakers, (232b) shows that the corresponding resumptive prolepsis construction is fully acceptable.

    232
    a. % Welk boeki wist Jan niet [dat Els ti gekocht had]?
    wh-movement
      which book  knew  Jan not   that  Els  bought  had
    b. Van welk boeki wist Jan niet [dat Els heti gekocht had]?
    prolepsis
      of which book  knew  Jan not   that  Els  it  bought  it
      'Of which book didnʼt Jan know that Els had bought?'

    Assuming that the resumptive prolepis construction is derived by wh-movement becomes even less plausible when we consider strong islands, like the embedded questions in (233). The contrast between the primeless and primed examples shows that while long wh-movement is impossible, the corresponding resumptive prolepsis constructions are again fully acceptable.

    233
    a. * Welk boeki wist Jan niet [of Els ti gekocht had]?
    wh-movement
      which book  knew  Jan not   if  Els  bought  had
    a'. Van welk boeki wist Jan niet [of Els heti gekocht had]?
    prolepsis
      of which book  knew  Jan not   if  Els  it  bought  had
      'Of which book didnʼt Jan know if Els had bought it?'
    b. * Welk boeki wist Jan niet [wie ti gekocht had]?
    wh-movement
      which book  knew  Jan not   who  bought  had
    b'. Van welk boeki wist Jan niet [wie heti gekocht had]?
    prolepsis
      of which book  knew  Jan not   who  it  bought  had
      'Of which book didnʼt Jan know who had bought it?'

    If wh-movement is not involved in the derivation of the resumptive prolepis construction, the proleptic phrase must find its origin within the matrix clause. Consequently, the (obligatory) coindexing in the examples above must be due to the normal conditions on binding of referential pronouns, which does not seem to pose any special problems as the pronoun is free in its local domain; cf. Section N5.2.1.5. An appeal to the normal mechanisms involved in binding would also immediately explain the fact illustrated in example (234) that the proleptic phrase may serve as the antecedent of two (or more) resumptive pronouns.

    234
    Van welk boeki wist Jan niet [of hij heti wilde kopen] [voordat hij heti gelezen had]?
      of which book  knew  Jan not   if  he  it  wanted  buy  before  he  it  read  had
    'Of which book didnʼt Jan know if he wanted to buy it before he had read it?'

    A wh-movement approach, on the other hand, would certainly need various additional provisos to account for this option because wh-phrases in clause-initial position are normally associated with only a single argument position: the interrogative pronoun who in (235a), for example, functions as a subject, as is clear from the fact that (235b) is a felicitous answer to (235a), but it cannot simultaneously function as a subject and an object, as is clear from the fact that (235b') is not a felicitous answer to (235a).

    235
    a. Who will meet?
    b. John and Mary (will meet).
    appropriate answer
    b'. John (will meet) Mary.
    inappropriate answer

    That the proleptic phrase must be independently licensed within the matrix clause may also account for the fact that resumptive prolepsis is especially common with a limited number of predicates, including denken'to think', geloven'to believe', hopen'to hope', vermoeden'to suspect', vertellen'to tell', vrezen'to fear', (niet) weten'to know (not)'zeggen'to say', and zich afvragen'to wonder'. The unacceptability of example (236b) follows immediately if the predicate vertrekken'to leave' is not able to license a proleptic van-phrase. The wh-movement approach to resumptive prolepsis, on the other hand, would have to explain why adjuncts differ from embedded questions in this respect, which will be difficult in the light of the fact that they both behave as strong islands in other contexts.

    236
    a. * Welk berichti vertrok Peter [nadat hij ti gelezen had]?
      which message  left  Peter  after  he  read  had
    b. * Van welk berichti vertrok Peter [nadat hij heti gelezen had]?
      of which message  left  Peter   after  he  it  read  had

    For completeness' sake, we conclude by noting that resumptive prolepsis is also possible in constructions such as (237b'), in which the proleptic phrase is associated with the adverbial proform er'there'.

    237
    a. Jan wist niet dat/of ik in Amsterdam gewoond had.
      Jan knew  not  that.if  I  in Amsterdam  lived  had
      'Jan didnt know that/whether I had lived in Amsterdam.'
    b. In welke stad wist Jan niet ?dat/*of ik gewoond ti had.
      in which town  knew  Jan not that/if  I  lived  had
    b'. Van welke stad wist Jan niet ?dat/*of ik er gewoond had.
      of which town  knew  Jan not   that/if  I  there  lived  had
    References:
    • Barbiers, Sjef1998Gaps and remnantsBarbiers, Sjef, Rooryck, Johan & Weijer, Jeroen van der (eds.)Small words in the big picture. Squibs for Hans BennisLeidenHolland Institute of Generative Linguistcs
    • Bennis, Hans1986Gaps and dummiesDordrechtForis Publications
    • Boeckx, Cedric2012Syntactic islandsCambridge (UK)/New YorkCanbridge University Press
    • Hoeksema, Jack2006<i>Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja</i>: distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door <i>van</i>Tabu35135-158
    • Huang, Cheng-Teh James1982Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of GrammarCambridge, MAMITThesis
    • Huang, Cheng-Teh James1982Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of GrammarCambridge, MAMITThesis
    • Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique1985Theta-theory and extraction [abstract]GLOW Newsletter1457-8
    • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
    • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
    • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
    • Müller, Gereon2011Constraints on displacement. A phase-based approachAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company
    • Ross, John1967Constraints on variables in syntaxBloomingtonIndiana university linguistics club
    • Salzmann, Martin2006Resumptive prolepis. A study in indirect A'-dependenciesUniversity of LeidenThesis
    • Salzmann, Martin2006Resumptive prolepis. A study in indirect A'-dependenciesUniversity of LeidenThesis
    • Szabolsci, Anna2006Strong vs. weak islandsEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwel companion to syntax4Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
    • Szabolsci, Anna2006Strong vs. weak islandsEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwel companion to syntax4Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
    • Szabolsci, Anna2006Strong vs. weak islandsEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwel companion to syntax4Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
    • Vries, Mark de2014Across-the-Board Phenomena
    • Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press
    • Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press
    • Zwart, Jan-Wouter2011The syntax of DutchCambridgeCambridge University Press
    About this article
    Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver
    Category: Dutch Syntax
    Keywords: AdjunctArgument PositionCoordinate StructureExtractionInterrogative ClauseMovementOperatorNoun PhrasePositionQuestionPolarity OperatorResumptive ProlepsisSubject ClauseWh-question
    Version: 1.0, January 2016
    Version history:
    version editor(s) date remarks
    1.0 Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver January 2016
    report errorprintcite
    Jump to:
    X