Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

6.6.PP subjects

quickinfo

Section 6.5, sub IVA, has discussed the differences between the het-construction in (274a) and the easy-to-please-construction in (274b). We concluded that these two constructions differ in that in the former the infinitival clause acts as the logical subject of the adjective moeilijk'difficult', whereas in the latter it is the noun phrase dit probleem'this problem' that acts as such.

274

a.		Het	is moeilijk	[om	dit probleem	op	te lossen].
		it	is difficult	comp	this problem	prt.	to solve

b.		dit probleem	is moeilijk [OPi	om [PRO ti	op	te lossen]].
		this problem	is difficult	comp	prt.	to solve

Now consider the examples in (275), in which the square brackets indicate the boundaries of the infinitival clause. Bennis & Wehrmann (1987) have suggested that example (275b) may receive a analysis similar to example (274b); it is not the infinitival clause, but the locational PP that acts as the logical subject of the AP.

275

a.	Het	is erg gezellig	[om PRO	in de tuin	te eten].
	it	is very nice	comp	in the garden	to eat
	'Itʼs very nice to eat in the garden.'

b.		Het	is in de tuin	erg gezellig	[om PRO	te eten].
		it	is in the garden	erg nice	comp	to eat

I. Two analyses
II. PP subjects and clausal subjects
III. PP subjects of weather adjectives

[+] I. Two analyses

The suggestion that (275b) must be analyzed along the same lines as the easy-to-please-construction in (274b) implies that the infinitival clause in (275b) contains a moved empty operator OP which is interpreted as identical to the locational PP in de tuin, as in (276a).

276

		Het	is	[in de tuin]i	erg gezellig [OPi	om [PRO ti	te eten]].
		it	is	in the garden	very nice	comp	to eat

One reason to adopt this analysis is based on the set of examples in (277). Example (277a) shows that there are verbal predicates, like wonen'to live', which require the presence of a locational phrase (or, alternatively, a qualifying adverb; cf. (290a) in Section 6.7). Example (277b) shows that if the verb wonen functions as the main verb of an infinitival clause, the same restriction applies. Nevertheless, the locational PP need not (in fact: cannot) be expressed within the infinitival clause if the main clause contains one. By assuming that (277c) involves an empty operator OP that is coindexed with this locational PP, the apparent violation of the selection restrictions of the verb wonen is solved. The primed examples show that the two constructions occur not only in the copular but also the vinden-construction.

277

a.		Jan woont	*?(in Amsterdam).
		Jan lives	in Amsterdam

b.		Het	is gezellig	[om PRO	*(in Amsterdam)	te wonen].
		it	is nice	comp	in Amsterdam	to live

b'.		Ik	vind	het	gezellig	[om PRO	*(in Amsterdam)	te wonen].
		I	consider	it	nice	comp	in Amsterdam	to live

c.		Het	is	*([in Amsterdam] i)	gezellig [OPi	om [PRO ti	te wonen]].
		it	is	in Amsterdam	nice	comp	to live

c'.		Ik	vind	het	*([in Amsterdam]i)	gezellig [OPi	om [PRO ti	te wonen]].
		I	consider	it	in Amsterdam	nice	comp	to live

Of course, the analysis in the (c)-examples is surprising, as PPs generally do not occur as subjects. An alternative analysis would be to assume that the locational PP in the matrix clause originates from within the dependent clause, and that its surface position is the result of movement. In that case, the structure of (277c) is not as indicated there, but as in (278a).

278

		Het	is	[in Amsterdam]i	gezellig	[om PRO ti	te wonen].
		it	is	in Amsterdam	nice	comp	to live

A problem with this analysis is, however, that the movement depicted in (278a) crosses a clause boundary, which is generally excluded. This is illustrated in (279b), which involves movement of the PP from a complement clause.

279

a.	Jan beloofde	[om PRO	in Amsterdam te gaan	wonen].
	Jan promised	comp	in Amsterdam to go	live
	'Jan promised to live in Amsterdam in the future.'

Jan beloofde [in Amsterdam]i [om PRO ti te gaan wonen].

Another problem for this alternative proposal is that the infinitival clause need not be present; a movement analysis along the line of (278) is not possible for (280a), whereas its acceptability is completely compatible with the analysis in (277c). The problem (280a) poses for the alternative analysis would of course be solved if it could be shown that the PP is actually an adverbial phrase in this example. A potential argument in favor of this assumption is that the PP seems to be optional, as shown in (280b). It should be noted, however, that the pronoun het is referential in (280b), but not in (280a). In (280b), the pronoun refers to something mentioned earlier in the discourse, e.g., watching television, which is also clear from the fact illustrated in (280b') that it can be replaced by the demonstrative pronoun dit'this'. If the PP is present, on the other hand, the pronoun het cannot be construed referentially: example (280a) just expresses that Amsterdam is a nice place and het cannot be replaced by a demonstrative, as is shown in (280a').

280

a.		Het	is in Amsterdam	gezellig.
		it	is in Amsterdam	nice

a'.

Dit is in Amsterdam

gezellig.

b.		Het	is gezellig.
		it	is nice

b'.

Dit

is gezellig.

This suggests that locational PPs may indeed act as logical subjects of an AP, although it is clear that more research is needed in order to establish this claim more firmly. It is interesting to note, however, that in all examples so far, the locational PP can be replaced by the locative proforms hier'here' and daar'there' (cf. (281a)), and that such proforms can actually occupy the subject position in Swedish (cf. (281b&c), taken from Holmberg (1986:68)).

281

a.		Het	is hier/daar	gezellig.
		it	is here/there	cozy

b.	Här	är	tråktigt.
	here	is	boring
	'Itʼs very boring here.'

c.	Där	var	mycket	vackert.
	there	was	very	pretty
	'It was very pretty there.'

The PPs in the examples above all denote a location, but the same construction can be found with PPs denoting a path. If one were to discuss two alternatives routes from Amsterdam to Groningen, one could use either (282a) or (282b); cf. the examples in (275). The fact that the PP is the logical subject of the adjective is again supported by the facts that the infinitival clause in (282b) can be dropped, as in (282c), and that the pronoun het cannot be replaced by the demonstrative dit; cf. the discussion of the primed examples in (280).

282

a.	Het	is korter	[om PRO	door de polders	naar Groningen	te rijden].
	it	is shorter	comp	through the polders	to Groningen	to drive
	'Itʼs shorter to drive to Groningen through the polders.'

Het is door de polders korter [om PRO naar Groningen te rijden].

Het/*Dit is door de polders korter.

For completeness’ sake, we conclude this subsection by noting that, besides the examples with om + te infinitives discussed above, we also find constructions such as (283) with bare infinitives. Given that the infinitive must precede the finite verb in clause-final position, we are probably dealing with a nominalization functioning as a complementive; if so, the PPs can probably be analyzed as logical subjects of the nominal predicate. To our knowledge, examples such as (283) have not been studied so far.

283

		dat	het	*(in Amsterdam)	gezellig	wonen	is.
		that	it	in Amsterdam	nice	live	is

[+] II. PP subjects and clausal subjects

The examples from Subsection I with a PP subject (if that is the correct analysis) differ in various respects from the cases involving a clausal subject. Section 6.5, sub IC, has shown that if a clausal subject occupies the sentence-initial position, the anticipatory pronoun het cannot be realized. In the constructions under discussion, however, the anticipatory pronoun het must be present if the PP is preposed. This is illustrated in (284).

284

a.		In Amsterdam is *(het)	gezellig	om	te wonen.
		in Amsterdam is it	nice	comp	to live

b.		Door de polders	is *(het)	korter	om	naar Groningen	te rijden.
		through the polders	is it	shorter	comp	to Groningen	to drive

It should be noted, however, that the two examples in (284) exhibit divergent behavior if the infinitival clause is dropped, as in (285): examples without het are acceptable then if the PP denotes a path, but not if it denotes a location. It is not clear what this tells us, given that (285b) without the pronoun het could in principle be construed as a colloquial form of “telegraphic speech", as a shorthand for the more elaborate sentence in (285b'). Although Neeleman (1997) argues against this by pointing out that the presumed reduction process should be limited to PP-modifiers that denote a path, let us provisionally assume that the reduction analysis is correct, and put example (285b) aside as irrelevant.

285

a.		In Amsterdam is	*(het)	gezellig.
		in Amsterdam is	it	nice

b.		Door de polders	is	(het)	korter.
		through the polders	is	it	shorter

b'.		De route door de polders	is (*het) korter.
		the route through the polders	is it shorter

The fact that the pronoun het must be present if the PP is preposed may suggest that the anticipatory pronoun is not associated with the PP at all, but with the infinitival clause. The examples in (286) strongly suggest that this alternative proposal is not tenable. Recall that Section 6.5, sub I, has shown that it is possible to prepose the infinitival clause and a predicative adjective in isolation if the former functions as a clausal subject of the latter (cf, subsections C and D), but that preposing of the adjective and the infinitival clause as a whole is impossible in that case (cf. Subsection E). The examples in (286) show that the facts are just the reverse in the construction under discussion; although the (c)-examples are somewhat marked, the contrast with the (a)- and (b)-examples is quite sharp. These facts strongly suggest that the alternative analysis, according to which the infinitival clause acts as the logical subject of the adjective gezellig/korter, is incorrect.

286

a.	*	Om te wonen	is het	in Amsterdam gezellig.
		comp to live	is it	in Amsterdam nice

a'.	*	Om naar Groningen te rijden	is het	door de polders	korter.
		comp to Groningen	is it	through the polders	shorter

Gezellig is het in Amsterdam om te wonen.

b'.

Korter is het door de polders om naar Groningen te rijden.

Gezellig om te wonen is het in Amsterdam niet.

c'.

Korter om naar Groningen te rijden is het door de polders niet.

[+] III. PP subjects of weather adjectives

The primeless examples in (287) show that weather adjectives like warm'warm', heet'hot', kil'chilly', koud'cold' and nat'wet' typically occur with a PP subject that denotes a location. As in (280a), the pronoun het is non-referential in the sense that it cannot refer to some entity in the discourse, and therefore it cannot be replaced by a demonstrative pronoun. This contrasts sharply with examples without a locational phrase, where the pronoun het can have either a non-referential or a referential interpretation: in the former case, illustrated in the singly-primed examples, the PP subject has simply been left implicit, and in the latter case, illustrated in the doubly-primed examples, the pronoun acts as the subject of the adjective, which is also clear from the fact that it can be replaced by a demonstrative pronoun then.

287

a.	Het/*Dit	is hier	warm.
	it/this	is here	warm
	'Itʼs warm in here.'

b.	Het/*Dit	is nat	in Amsterdam.
	it/this	is wet	in Amsterdam
	'Itʼs raining in Amsterdam.'

a'.	Het/*Dit is warm	vandaag
	it/this is warm	today
	'Itʼs warm today.'

b'.	Het/*Dit	is nat	vandaag.
	it/this	is wet	today
	'Itʼs raining today.'

a''.	Het/Dit	is warm.
	it/this	is warm
	'It/This is warm.'

b''.	Het/Dit	is nat.
	it/this	is wet
	'It/This is wet.'

PP subjects that denote a location occur not only in the copular construction but also in resultative and vinden-constructions. These are illustrated in (288a) and (288b), respectively. PP subjects that denote a path can also be found in the vinden-construction. This is shown in (288c).

288

a.		De zon	maakt	het	hier/in de kamer	lekker warm.
		the sun	makes	it	here/in the room	comfortably warm

b.		Ik	vind	het	hier/in de kamer	lekker warm.
		I	consider	it	here/in the room	comfortably warm

c.		Ik	vind	het	door de polders	veel leuker.
		I	consider	it	through the polders	much nicer

To conclude, it should be noted that adjectives such as gezellig and the weather adjectives may also occur in constructions of the type in (289). Again, the pronoun het is obligatorily present and cannot be replaced by a demonstrative. Nevertheless, the semantic relation seems to be somewhat different than in the earlier examples; instead of referring to a property of the place mentioned in the PP, the adjectives seem to refer to a sensation experienced by the persons denoted by the +animate subject of the clause.

289

a.	We	hebben	het/*dit	gezellig in Amsterdam.
	we	have	it/this	sociable in Amsterdam
	'Weʼre very sociable in Amsterdam.'

b.	We	kregen	het/*dit	erg koud	in de tuin.
	we	got	it/this	very cold	in the garden
	'We were getting rather cold in the garden.'

References:

Bennis, Hans & Wehrmann, Pim1987Adverbial argumentsBeukema, Frits & Coopmans, Peter (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1987Dordrecht1-11
Holmberg, Anders1986Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and EnglishStockholmUniversity of Stockholm, Department of General LinguisticsThesis
Neeleman, Ad1997PP-complementsNatural Language & Linguistic Theory89-137

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AdjectiveAnticipatory PronounDirectional PPEmpty OperatorLocational PPOperatorPPResultative ConstructionVerbWeather Adjective

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles