Expletive selection and CP arguments in Dutch

  • E. G. RuysEmail author
Open Access
Original Paper


It has recently been claimed (Hazout 2004) that the English expletives it and there do not differ in their theta-properties. This paper argues that Dutch het and er do differ: all instances of het bear a (quasi-)theta-role; no instance of er does. Evidence comes from an analysis of expletive selection in constructions with seem-type verbs.


Expletive Impersonal passive Quasi-argument Seem-verb 


  1. Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Linguistic Models 9. Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar
  2. Bolinger, Dwight. 1973. Ambient it is meaningful too. Journal of Linguistics 9: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1996. Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. A study in the unified description of Germanic and Romance. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. 2, ed. Höskuldur Thräinsson, Samuel David Epstein, and Steve Peter, 21–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. R. Freidin, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Corver, Norbert, and Craig Thiersch. 2001. Remarks on parentheticals. In Progress in Grammar. Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, eds. Marc van Oostendorp and Elena Anagnostopoulou. Utrecht: Roquade.
  14. Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: evidence from “Selection”. Syntax 12(4): 285–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frampton, John, Sam Gutmann, Julie Legate, and Charles Yang. 2000. Remarks on “Derivation by Phase”: Feature valuation, agreement, and intervention. Ms., Northeastern University and Yale University.Google Scholar
  16. Hartmann, Jutta. 2005. Why there is(n’t) wh-movement in there-constructions. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2005, ed. Jenny Doetjes and Jeroen van de Weijer, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity; grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  19. Hoekstra, Teun, and René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Google Scholar
  22. Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  24. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  26. Mohr, Sabine. 2002. German, Dutch and Icelandic—so similar and yet so different. Paper presented at Klausurtagung des GRK 609, Kleinwalsertal/Universität Stuttgart, June 20–23, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Postal, Paul, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1988. Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 635–670.Google Scholar
  29. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Point of view in language—The use of parentheticals. In Essays on Deixis, ed. Gisa Rauh, 169–194. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  30. Reuland, Eric. 1983. On the subject of nonargument subjects. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981, ed. Werner Abraham, 3–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Reuland, Eric. 1985. Representation at the level of Logical Form and the definiteness effect. In Grammatical representation, ed. Jacqueline Guéron, Hans Obenauer, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 327–362. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, Ian. 1985. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Doctoral dissertation, USC.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenbaum, P.S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, John R. 1973. Slifting. In The formal analysis of natural languages. Proceedings of the first international conference, ed. Maurice Gross, Morris Halle, and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, 133–169. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  35. Ruys, E.G. 2003. Chomsky on there: MPLT and beyond. Ms., Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  36. Safir, Ken. 1985. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schütze, Carson T. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz, Arthur. 1972. Constraints on movement transformations. Journal of Linguistics 8: 35–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ten Have, Erna. 2004. PP en QR in NL. Paper presented at TiN-dag, Utrecht, Feb 7, 2004.Google Scholar
  40. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness; the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
  41. van Zoelen, Albert. 2005. TEC-talen en niet-TEC-talen: wat is het technische verschil? Over transitieve, intransitieve, onaccusatieve en passieve expletiefconstructies. Unpublished MA thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  42. Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Semantics and the Lexicon, ed. James Pustejovsky, 129–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UiL-OTS, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations