General introduction
9.5. The middle field
This section briefly discusses the so-called middle field of the clause, that is, that part of the clause bounded to the right by the verb(s) in clause-final position (if present), and to the left by the complementizer in an embedded clause or the finite verb in a main clause. The middle field of the examples in (66) is in italics.
(66) a. Gisteren heeft Jan met plezier dat boek gelezen.
yesterday has Jan with pleasure that book read
‘Jan enjoyed reading that book yesterday.’
b. Ik denk [dat Jan met plezier dat boek gelezen heeft].
I think that Jan with pleasure that book read has
‘I think that Jan enjoyed reading that book.’
The middle field of a clause is not a constituent and not even a phrase, but refers to a set of positions within the clause. If we adopt the representation in (59b) and assume that C is the position of the complementizer or the finite verb in second position and that the clause-final verb occupies V, the middle field is as indicated in (67).
(67)
[CP... C [TP... T [XP ... X [vP... v [VP... V ...]]]]]
Functional domain Lexical domain Middle field
The fact that the middle field does not refer to a discrete entity in the clausal domain makes it clear immediately that we are dealing with a pre-theoretical notion. This is also evident from the fact that it refers to a slightly smaller domain in subject-initial sentences, such as Jan heeft met plezier dat boek gelezen, if such sentences are not CPs but TPs, as suggested by the data discussed in Section 9.3, sub IV.
Word order: General introduction 1231 (68) a. Jan heeft met plezier dat boek gelezen.
Jan has with pleasure that book read
b.
[TPSubject T [XP ... X [vP... v [VP... V ...]]]]]
Functional domain Lexical domain Middle field
Recall that X in the structures in (67) and (68) stands for an indeterminate number of functional heads that may be needed to provide a full description of the structure of the clause. More specifically, just as the specifier of C may function as the landing site of wh-movement and topicalization, the lower functional heads may likewise introduce specifiers that can function as landing sites for several other types of movement.
(69)
[CP... C [TP... T [XP ... X [vP... v [VP... V ...]]]]]
Landing site for movement
Whether the postulation of such functional heads is indeed necessary or whether there are alternative ways of expressing the same theoretical intuition is a controversial matter, but it is evident that Dutch exhibits considerable freedom in word order (relative to many other languages) in the middle field of the clause.
Example (70a), for instance, shows that a direct object can be left-adjacent to the verb(s) in clause-final position, but may also occur farther to the left. Similarly, example (70b) shows that the subject may be right-adjacent to the complementizer or finite verb in second position, but can also occur farther to the right.
(70) a. dat Jan <het boek> waarschijnlijk <het boek> koopt.
that Jan the book probably buys
‘that Jan will probably buy the book.’
b. dat <die jongen> waarschijnlijk <die jongen> het boek koopt.
that that boy probably the book buys
‘that that boy will probably buy the book.’
The following subsections discuss a number of cases of word order variation in the middle field of the clause in terms of leftward movement without being too specific about the functional heads that may be involved (if any). We will show, however, that these movements may have semantic effects and/or may be related to certain semantic features of the moved elements. Before beginning with this, we want to make some remarks about a number of elements typically occurring at the right-hand edge of the middle field of the clause.
I. Complementives and verbal particles
Predicative complements (complementives) normally precede the clause-final verb(s), whatever their category, as shown in (73) for nominal, adjectival and prepositional complementives. This word order restriction is especially conspicuous in the case of predicative PPs like op het bed in (71c) given that PP-complements normally can readily appear in postverbal position; cf. Section 9.4.
(71) a. dat ik hem <een schat> vind <*een schat>. [nominal]
that I him a dear consider
‘that I believe him to be a darling.’
b. dat Peter Marie <erg kwaad> maakt <*erg kwaad>. [adjectival]
that Peter Marie very angry makes
‘that Peter makes Marie very angry.’
c. dat Jan zijn kleren <op het bed> gooit <*op het bed>. [prepositional]
that Jan his clothes on the bed throws
‘that Jan throws his clothes on the bed.’
Complementives can easily be moved into clause-initial position by topicalization or wh-movement, but in the middle field they normally occupy the position adjacent to the verb(s) in clause-final position, as illustrated in the examples in (72). We will see in Subsection IIID, however, that they may sometimes be moved to the left if they receive contrastive accent.
(72) a. dat ik hem <*een schat> nog steeds <een schat> vind. [nominal]
that I him a dear yet still consider
‘that I still believe him to be a darling.’
b. dat Peter Marie <*erg kwaad> vaak <erg kwaad> maakt. [adjectival]
that Peter Marie very angry often makes
‘that Peter often makes Marie very angry.’
c. dat Jan zijn kleren <*op het bed> meestal <op het bed> gooit. [prep.]
that Jan his clothes on the bed normally throws
‘that Jan normally throws his clothes on the bed.’
The tendency of complementives to immediately precede the verb(s) in clause-final position makes it possible to use complementives as a diagnostic for extraposition.
This is illustrated in (73) where we see that nominal arguments (here the SUBJECT of the complementives themselves) must precede the complementives, whereas clausal arguments must follow them, just as in the case of clause-final verbs.
(73) a. Jan maakte <het probleem> duidelijk <*het probleem>.
Jan made the problem clear
‘Jan clarified the problem.’
b. Jan maakte <*dat het onmogelijk was> duidelijk <dat het onmogelijk was>.
Jan made that it impossible was clear
‘Jan made it clear that it was impossible.’
Verbal particles are perhaps even more reliable indicators of extraposition. Like the complementives in the examples above, they are normally left-adjacent to the verb(s) in clause-final position, but unlike complementives they cannot be moved leftwards because it is normally not easy to assign them contrastive accent. The examples in (74) with the particle verb afleiden ‘to deduce from’ show that, in neutral sentences, the PP-complement may either precede or follow the particle, and that the particle follows nominal but precedes clausal complements. Again, this is precisely what we find with clause-final verbs; cf. Subsection I.
Word order: General introduction 1233 (74) a. Els leidde deze conclusie <uit zijn weigering> af <uit zijn weigering>.
Els deduced this conclusion from his refusal prt.
‘Els concluded this from his refusal.’
b. Els leidde <uit zijn weigering> af <uit zijn weigering> dat hij bang was.
Els deduced from his refusal prt. that he scared was
‘Els deduced from his refusal that he was scared.’
The examples in (73) and (74) show that in clauses without clause-final verbs complementives and verbal particles can be used as reliable indicators of the right boundary of the middle field.
II. Nominal argument (object and subject) shift
Dutch allows a wide variety of word orders in the middle field of the clause. This subsection discusses the relative order of nominal arguments and °clausal adverbs like waarschijnlijk ‘probably’. All nominal arguments of the verb may either precede or follow such adverbs, which is illustrated in (75) by means of a subject and a direct object. The word order variation in (75) is not entirely free but restricted by information-structural considerations, more specifically, the division between presupposition (discourse-old information) and focus (discourse-new information); cf. Verhagen (1986).
(75) a. dat waarschijnlijk Marie dat boek wil kopen.
that probably Marie that book wants buy
‘that Marie probably wants to buy that book.’
ac. dat Marie waarschijnlijk dat boek wil kopen.
that Marie probably that book wants buy
‘that Marie probably wants to buy that book.’
b. Marie heeft waarschijnlijk dat boek gekocht.
Marie has probably that book bought
‘Marie has probably bought that book.’
bc. Marie heeft dat boek waarschijnlijk gekocht.
Marie has that book probably bought
‘Marie has probably bought that book.’
The distinction between presupposition and focus is especially clear in question-answer contexts, as we will illustrate below for the cases of object movement in the (b)-examples. A question like (76a) introduces the referent of dat boek as a topic of discussion, and therefore the answer preferably has the noun phrase in front of the adverb, that is, presents the noun phrase as discourse-old information; in actual speech, this is made even clearer by replacing the noun phrase dat boek by the personal pronoun het, which typically refers to discourse-old information.
(76) a. Wat heeft Marie met dat boek gedaan? [question]
what has Marie with that book done
b. ??Zij heeft waarschijnlijk dat boek gekocht. [answer = (75b)]
she has probably that book bought
bc. Zij heeft dat boek waarschijnlijk gekocht. [answer = (75bc)]
she has that book probably bought
A question like (77a), on the other hand, clearly does not presuppose the referent of the noun phrase dat boek to be a topic of discourse, and now the preferred answer has the noun phrase after the adverb. The answer in (77bc) with the nominal object preceding the adverb is only possible if the context provides more information, e.g., if the participants in the discourse know that Marie had the choice between buying a specific book or a specific CD; in that case the nominal object preceding the adverb is likely to have contrastive accent.
(77) a. Wat heeft Marie gekocht? [question]
what has Jan read
b. Zij heeft waarschijnlijk dat boek gekocht. [answer = (75b)]
she has probably that book bought
bc. *?Zij heeft dat boek waarschijnlijk gekocht. [answer = (75bc)]
she has that book probably bought
There are various analyses available for the word order variations in (75); see the reviews in the introduction in Corver & Van Riemsdijk (1994) and Broekhuis (2007/2008: Section 2.1). It has been claimed, for example, that the orders in (75) are simply base-generated, and that the word order variation should be accounted for by assuming either variable base-positions for the nominal arguments, as in Neeleman (1994a/1994b), or variable base-positions for the adverbial phrase, as in Vanden Wyngaerd (1989). Here we opt for a movement analysis, according to which the nominal argument is generated to the right of the clausal adverbial and optionally shifts into a more leftward position as indicated in (78).
(78)
[CP... C [TP... T [XP ... X Adverb [vPSubject v [VPObject V ...]]]]]
Subject shift
Object shift
The optional subject shift in (78) is probably due to the same movement that we find in passive constructions such as (79b). As this movement places the subject in the position where nominative case is assigned, it has been suggested that the landing site of the optional object shift in (78) is a designated position in which accusative case is assigned; see Broekhuis (2008:ch.3) and the references cited there.
(79) a. Gisteren heeft JanSubject MarieIO de boekenDO aangeboden.
yesterday has Jan Marie the books prt.-offered
‘Yesterday Jan offered Marie the books.’
b. Gisteren werden <de boeken> MarieIO <de boeken> aangeboden.
yesterday were the books Marie prt.-offered
‘Yesterday the books were offered to Marie (by Jan).’
The claim that subject and object shift target the nominative and accusative case positions implies that we are dealing with so-called °A-movement. This is supported by the fact discussed in Subsection IIIA that this movement is restricted to nominal arguments; Section 13.2 will argue that nominal argument shift has more hallmarks of A-movement.
Word order: General introduction 1235 III. Negation-, focus-, and topic- movement
Subsection II has shown that nominal arguments can occupy different positions in relation to the adverbial phrases in the clause; this was illustrated by means of the placement of subjects and direct objects vis-à-vis clausal adverbs like waarschijnlijk
‘probably’. We suggested that the word order variation is due to optional movement of the subject/object into a designated case position in the functional domain of the clause. If this suggestion is on the right track, we predict that this type of movement is restricted to nominal arguments: PP-complements of the verb, for example, are not assigned case and are therefore not associated either with a designated position in which case could be assigned. This raises the question as to how such PPs are able to occupy different positions in the middle field of the clause. Subsection A will show that the movement involved differs in non-trivial ways from nominal argument shift. The subsequent subsections will show that there are various other types of movements that affect the word order in the middle field of the clause:
negation-, focus-, and topic movement. As their names suggest, these movements are clearly related to certain semantic properties of the moved elements.
A. Differences between nominal argument shift and movement of PP-complements That PP-complements may occupy different surface positions in the clause is illustrated in the examples in (80), taken from Neeleman (1994a).
(80) a. dat Jan nauwelijks op mijn opmerking reageerde.
that Jan hardly on my remark reacted
‘that Jan hardly reacted to my remark.’
b. dat Jan op mijn opmerking nauwelijks reageerde.
that Jan on my remark hardly reacted
That the difference in placement is the result of movement receives support from the fact illustrated in (81) that °R-extraction from the PP is only possible if the stranded preposition follows the clausal adverbial (in this case nauwelijks ‘hardly’);
if the (b)-examples in (80) and (81) are derived from the (a)-examples by leftward movement of the PP, this may be accounted for by appealing to the °freezing effect.
Note that we added the time adverb toen ‘then’ in (81) in order to make the split of the pronominal PP daarop visible.
(81) a. dat Jan daar toen nauwelijks op reageerde.
that Jan there then hardly on reacted
‘that Jan hardly reacted to that then.’
b. *dat Jan daar toen op nauwelijks reageerde.
that Jan there then on hardly reacted
An important reason for assuming that the movement which derives the order in (80b) is different from nominal argument shift has to do with the distribution of PPs that contain a definite pronoun. Subsection II has already mentioned that definite subject/object pronouns normally undergo nominal argument shift: example (82a) is acceptable only if the pronoun hem is assigned contrastive accent: Jan nodigt waarschijnlijk HEM uit (niet HAAR) ‘Jan will probably invite him (not her)’.
(82) a. *Jan nodigt waarschijnlijk hem/ތm uit.
Jan invites probably him/him prt b. Jan nodigt hem/ތm waarschijnlijk uit.
Jan invites him/him probably prt.
‘Jan will probably invite him.’
The examples in (83) show that this does not hold for PP-complements: if the nominal part of the PP is a definite pronoun, leftward movement is optional while it is excluded if the pronoun is phonetically reduced. It should be clear that the division between discourse-old and discourse-new information has no bearing on the leftward movement of PP-complements.
(83) a. dat Jan nauwelijks naar hem/ތm luisterde.
that Jan hardly to him/him listened
‘that Jan hardly listened to him/him.’
ac. dat Jan naar hem/*ތm nauwelijks luisterde.
b. dat Jan nauwelijks naar haar/ތr keek.
that Jan hardly at her/her looked
‘that Jan hardly looked at her/her.’
bc. dat Jan naar haar/*ތr nauwelijks keek.
The unacceptability of the reduced pronouns in the primed examples is especially remarkable in light of the fact that nominal argument shift typically has the effect of destressing the moved element. Some speakers report that they accept examples such as (80b) only if the nominal complement of the PP is contrastively stressed: if true, this would suggest that we are dealing with focus movement, which will be the topic of Subsection C. That the moved PPs must be stressed is supported by the fact that the pronouns in the primed examples of (83) differ from the shifted pronoun in (82b) in that they cannot be phonetically reduced.
A second reason for assuming that the movement in (80b) is different from nominal argument shift is related to this effect: leftward movement of a complement PP under a neutral, that is, non-contrastive intonation pattern is only possible with a restricted set of adverbial phrases. If we replace the negative adverbial phrase nauwelijks ‘hardly’ in (80b) by the adverbial phrase gisteren ‘yesterday’, leftward movement of the PP gives rise to a degraded result (which can only be improved by giving the PP emphatic or contrastive stress). This is illustrated in (84) with three different PP-complements.
(84) a. Jan heeft nauwelijks/gisteren op mijn opmerkingen gereageerd.
Jan has hardly/yesterday on my remarks reacted ac. Jan heeft op mijn opmerkingen nauwelijks/*gisteren gereageerd.
b. Jan heeft nauwelijks/gisteren naar Marie gekeken.
Jan has hardly/yesterday at Marie looked bc. Jan heeft naar Marie nauwelijks/*gisteren gekeken.
c. Jan heeft gisteren op vader gewacht.
Jan has yesterday for father waited cc. *Jan heeft op vader gisteren gewacht.
Word order: General introduction 1237 The primed examples in (84) with the adverb gisteren contrast sharply with similar examples with object shift, which can easily cross adverbs like gisteren: Ik heb <dat boek> gisteren <dat boek> gelezen ‘I read that book yesterday’. For completeness’
sake, note that some speakers report that the acceptability of the primed examples in (84) improves when gisteren is given emphatic accent.
Finally, the (a)-examples in (85) show that leftward movement of a PP-complement across an adverbial PP is always blocked, whereas object shift across such an adverbial PP is easily possible. For completeness’ sake, note that the unacceptability of leftward movement in (85a) cannot be accounted for by assuming some constraint that prohibits movement of a complement of a certain categorial type across an adverbial phrase of the same categorial type, given that such a constraint would incorrectly exclude object shift across the adverbially used noun phrase deze middag ‘this afternoon’ in example (85b); cf. Verhagen (1986:78).
(85) a. dat Jan <*op Marie> na de vergadering <op Marie> wachtte.
that Jan for Marie after the meeting waited
‘that Jan waited for Marie after the meeting.’
ac. dat Jan <het boek> na de vergadering <het boek> wegbracht.
that Jan the book after the meeting away-brought
‘that Jan delivered the book after the meeting.’
b. dat Jan <dat boek> deze middag <dat boek> zal wegbrengen.
that Jan that book this afternoon will away-bring
‘that Jan will deliver that book this afternoon.’
The discussion above has shown (contra Neeleman 1994a and Haeberli 2002) that leftward movement of PP-complements exhibits a behavior deviating from nominal argument shift, which in its turn suggests that it is a movement of some different type. The following subsections will show that there are indeed other types of leftward movement that may affect the word order in the middle field of the clause.
B. Negation movement
Haegeman (1995) has argued for West-Flemish that negative phrases expressing sentential negation undergo obligatory leftward movement into the specifier of a functional head Neg; she further claims that this functional head can optionally be expressed morphologically by the negative clitic en: da Valère niemand (en-)kent
‘that Valère does not know anyone’. Although Standard Dutch does not have this negative clitic, it is possible to show that it does have the postulated leftward movement of negative phrases; cf. Klooster (1994). At first sight, the claim that
‘that Valère does not know anyone’. Although Standard Dutch does not have this negative clitic, it is possible to show that it does have the postulated leftward movement of negative phrases; cf. Klooster (1994). At first sight, the claim that