Transparency in Dutch TP complements*

Janneke ter Beek

Dutch has a type of complement clause that is transparent for extraction. The
construction does not have A’-like characteristics and is therefore better
analysed as instantiating A-movement. This is at odds with the intuition that
cross-clausal A-movement is last resort. The facts are accounted for if the
complement clause is not a phase in the sense of Chomsky (2001).

1. Introduction

Dutch has three ways of forming an infinitival complement clause. The first
way is traditionally analysed as involving rightward movement of the
embedded verb of a preverbal complement clause (Evers 1975); hence the term
Verb-Raising construction (1a). The second construction has been analysed as
involving rightward extraposition of the preverbal complement clause; hence
the term extraposition construction (1b). The third way is dubbed the third
construction in Den Besten et al. (1988) and differs from the extraposition
construction in (1b) in that the internal argument of the complement clause has
moved into the matrix clause (1c):

(1) a. omdat Cecilia een lied heeft willen zingen

because Cecilia a song has want sing
‘Because Cecilia wanted to sing a song.’
b. omdat Cecilia heeft besloten om een lied te zingen
because Cecilia has decided for a song to sing
‘Because Cecilia has decided to sing a song.’
c. omdat Cecilia een lied heeft geprobeerd te zingen
because Cecilia a song has tried to sing
‘Because Cecilia has tried to sing a song.’

*
In Martin Salzmann and Luis Vicente (eds.) Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2.3 (2005), (1-16)
http:/www/ulcl.leidenuniv.nl ISSN 1574-4728
The choice of the type of complement is largely determined by the matrix verb.
Verb-Raising is found with a restricted set of verbs including perception verbs,
modals, perception verbs, aspectual verbs and raising verbs (Evers 1975;
Rutten 1991). 1 This construction will not be discussed in this paper. When the
Verb-Raising construction is not possible, the extraposition construction or the
third construction is used. Many verbs allow both construction types, but there
are no verbs which allow the third construction but not the extraposition
construction.2 Finally, a small set of verbs allows all three complement types.
In those cases, the selecting verb can be shown to have different properties
depending on the type of complement it selects.
In this paper, I characterise the third construction. I demonstrate that the
movement of the embedded internal argument in (1c) does not show A’-like
properties, and is therefore more likely to be analysed as involving A-
movement. This result is at odds with the observation that cross-clausal A-
movement is generally impossible unless the clause in which the argument
originates is in some sense deficient, as recently put forth in Wurmbrand
(2001). However, the transparency of Dutch complement clauses might be
taken as support for a phase-based derivation, as proposed in Chomsky (2001).
The crucial difference between (1b) and (1c) will be shown to be the presence
of a CP-layer. Being a phase, CP triggers Spell Out of its domain, which
contains the embedded internal argument. Cross-clausal movement is therefore
impossible. Third construction complements are TPs, hence not phases, and as
a consequence, material contained in the complement clause is accessible to the
matrix vP.

2. Previous analyses

Since Den Besten et al. (1988) it is held that the third construction (2a) is
qualitatively different from the Verb-Raising construction (2b), even though it
may seem to produce the same word order:

1
I use the terms “Verb Raising” and “Extraposition” as descriptive labels. “Verb Raising” in
infinitival clauses should not be confused with the verb movement that takes place in finite main
clauses. The extraposition construction in this paper denotes a clausal complement that surfaces to
the right of the verb it depends on. Following Zwart (1993), I assume that complement clauses are
actually base generated in this position.
2
It is not clear what determines whether a verb can select for a third construction complement.
Den Besten et al. (1988) notice that non-bridge verbs, particle verbs and reflexive verbs generally
do not allow the third construction, but there are exceptions to this generalisation. As far as I can
tell, the exceptions regarding reflexive verbs are those verbs which are not factive. Factive verbs
are incompatible with the third construction. I do not have an account for the fact that particle verbs
are incompatible with the third construction.
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 3
(2) a. dat zij de vergadering heeft besloten te verzetten
that she the meeting has decided to reschedule
‘That she decided to reschedule the meeting.’
b. dat zij de vergadering heeft moeten verzetten
that she the meeting has must reschedule
‘That she has had to reschedule the meeting.’

The examples in (2a) and (2b) differ in several respects. First, Verb-Raising
(3a), but not the third construction (3b), is characterised by the IPP-effect, in
which the matrix verb takes on the infinitival form when selected by the perfect
tense auxiliary, instead of the participial form:

(3) a. dat ze de jongen heeft zien/* gezien vallen

that she the boy has see/ seen fall
‘That she has seen the boy fall.’
b. dat ze het boek heeft *besluiten/besloten te lezen
that she the book has decide/ decided to read
‘That she has decided to read the book.’

Second, the perfect tense auxiliary and the matrix verb are in a fixed order in
Verb-Raising constructions (4), but not in the third construction (5):

(4) a. dat ze de jongen heeft zien vallen

that she the boy has see fall
‘That she has seen the boy fall.’
b. * dat ze de jongen zien heeft vallen
that she the boy seen has fall
‘That she has seen the boy fall.’

(5) a. dat ze het boek heeft besloten te lezen

that she the book has decided to read
‘That she has decided to read the book.’
b. dat ze het boek besloten heeft te lezen
that she the book decided has to read
‘That she has decided to read the book.’

Third, an argument of the embedded clause may not intervene between the
matrix verb and the embedded verb in the Verb-Raising construction in
standard Dutch, but this is possible in the third construction:
4 Janneke ter Beek
(6) a. dat ze het boek (aan Piet) moest (*aan Piet) geven
that she the book to Piet had-to to Piet give
‘That she had to give the book to Piet.’
b. dat ze het boek (aan Piet) besloot (?aan Piet) te geven
that she the book to Piet decided to Piet to give
‘That she decided to give the book to Piet.’

The third construction shares these properties with the extraposition

construction. The lexical verb in the extraposition construction takes on the
participial form when it is selected by a perfect tense auxiliary (7a); either order
of auxiliary and lexical verb is possible (7a,b), and the matrix verbs are not
adjacent to the embedded verb (7a,b):

(7) a. dat Jan heeft *beloven/beloofd om het boek aan Piet te geven
that Jan has promise/ promised for the book to Piet to give
‘That Jan has promised to give the book to Piet.’
b. dat Jan beloofd heeft om het boek aan Piet te geven
that Jan promised has for the book to Piet to give
‘That Jan has promised to give the book to Piet.’

For these reasons, Den Besten et al. (1988) suggest that the extraposition
construction and the third construction are related, while the Verb-Raising
construction represents a different type of complement. Specifically, they
propose that the Verb-Raising construction involves a VP-complement, the
verb of which undergoes rightward movement. The other two constructions
involve sentential complements. The extraposition construction allows a
complementiser, which suggests that the complement in these constructions is a
CP. In the third construction, however, a complementiser is impossible,
suggesting that these structures involve IP-complements, or TPs, in more recent
terminology. According to Den Besten et al. (1988), the internal argument of
the embedded clause undergoes A’-movement into the matrix clause:

(8) a. dat Jan dat boeki probeerde [IP PRO ti te lezen]

that Jan that book tried to read
‘That Jan tried to read that book.’
b. * dat Jan dat boeki probeerde [CP om PRO ti te lezen]
that Jan that book tried for to read
‘That Jan tried to read that book.’
(Den Besten et al. 1988; 27)

The structures in (8) have gained general acceptance among linguists working
on the topic.3 However, the trigger for movement of the object has not received

3
See among others, Den Besten & Rutten (1989), Rutten (1991), Broekhuis (1992), Broekhuis
et al. (1995), and more recently, Wurmbrand (2001). IJbema (2002) deviates from the
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 5
4
the attention I think it deserves. In part, this is due to historical factors. In the
framework that these authors worked in, the Dutch internal argument was
assumed to be base generated to the left of the verb, and accusative case was
assumed to be assigned in-situ; therefore the possibility that the movement in
(8a) might be A-movement seemed unlikely. Furthermore, movement into the
matrix clause is not obligatory, as examples like (7b) are also acceptable when
the complementiser is dropped. Moreover, movement is not restricted to
elements that need case, as can be seen in (6b), in which a prepositional phrase
moves into the matrix clause. Hence the movement of the object in the third
construction was straightforwardly identified as A’-movement.
However, if the Dutch verb phrase is analysed as in Zwart (1993), with the
preverbal position of the object resulting from movement from the postverbal
base position into the position that licences the internal argument as the direct
object, then the possibility arises that the third construction may actually
instantiate A-movement.5 In the next section I demonstrate that this is indeed
the correct scenario.

3. Movement is case driven

As a starting point, let us assume that the embedded clause is not deficient in
licensing its arguments, that is, that the A’-movement analysis of Den Besten et
al. (1988) is correct. The internal argument is licensed in the embedded clause,
after which it moves into the matrix clause. What could trigger such
movement? If licensing is not the trigger, we might assume that this movement
has interpretational effects. For instance, we might expect that an indefinite
argument that undergoes movement acquires a strong, specific reading, as in
simple sentences (cf. De Hoop 1992).6 This does not seem to be the case,
however:

aforementioned authors in that she judges examples like (8b) as marginal, but she reports that
judgements are subject to speaker variation.
4
Wurmbrand (2001) is exceptional in making a principled distinction between A-movement
and A’-movement in such constructions. On the basis of the semantic properties of the matrix verb
she predicts that the Dutch third construction involves A’-movement rather than A-movement. We
will see that the prediction is not borne out.
5
Zwart (1993) proposes that the embedded clause in the third construction does not have an
AgrOP to check the accusative case feature, but he does not take a stand on the categorial status of
the complement clause.
6
I follow the observations made in De Hoop (1992). However, I do not assume that the object
in (9a) comes to precede the adverb through movement out of its licensing position, cf. Zwart
(1993).
6 Janneke ter Beek
(9) a. dat Jan een beroemde acteur vaak wil ontmoeten
that Jan a famous actor often wants meet
‘That Jan wants to meet a certain famous actor often.’
b. dat Jan een beroemde acteur beweert te kennen
that Jan a famous actor claims to know
‘That Jan claims to know a famous actor.’

Whereas the indefinite object een beroemde acteur ‘a famous actor’ must be
interpreted as specific in (9a), this interpretation is not forced in (9b).7
Furthermore, the third construction does not seem to yield distinctive
informational properties. Examples like (10a) are appropriate in out of the blue
contexts, which suggests that they represent a neutral information structure (cf.
Wöllstein-Leisten 2001 for German). Note that scrambling in simple sentences
like (10b) does affect the informational properties of the sentence:

(10) A: What are you guys talking about?

B: a. Ik vertel net dat Jan z’n idool beweert te kennen
I tell just that Jan his idol claims to know
‘I just told (him) that Jan claims to know his idol.’
b. #Ik vertel net dat Jan z’n idool al gauw zal ontmoeten
I tell just that Jan his idol already soon will meet
‘I just told (him) that Jan will meet his idol soon.’

Thirdly, quite a few idiomatic expressions are quite natural in the third
construction, which is unexpected if the third construction yields
interpretational effects. In contrast, scrambling of part of an idiomatic
expression in simple sentences results in loss of the idiomatic interpretation:8

(11) a. dat ik de zak denk te krijgen

that I the bag think to get
‘That I think I will get sacked.’
b. dat ik de zak morgen krijg
that I the bag tomorrow get
‘That I will get the bag tomorrow.’
not: ‘That I will get sacked tomorrow.’
7
Certain matrix verbs do force a specific interpretation for an indefinite argument in the third
construction. These include verbs like weigeren ‘refuse’ and verbieden ‘forbid’. I have not been
able to find out why these verbs have this effect. One factor that might be relevant is the fact that
these verbs carry the main stress, and as a consequence, the indefinite cannot. Zwart (1995) argues
that it is precisely in this context that indefinites must be interpreted as specific.
8
Rutten (1991) argues that parts of idioms do not participate in the third construction. He bases
his account on examples like (i):
i) * dat Jan de prijs in ontvangst heeft besloten te nemen (Rutten 1991; 71)
that Jan the prize in acceptance has decided to take
“That Jan decided to accept the prize.”
I agree with Rutten that (i) is less acceptable than (11), but the conclusion that parts of idioms
generally do not participate in the third construction is too strong.
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 7
I take these three properties to show that the third construction does not involve
a movement that derives interpretational effects. The lack of the interpretational
effects that we observe with scrambling over adverbs in simple sentences,
makes it unlikely that the third construction can be identified as an instance of
scrambling (contra Den Besten et al. 1988). Therefore, I reject the possibility
that the embedded internal argument in the third construction moves into the
matrix clause for reasons other than licensing. However, if the embedded
internal argument moves into the matrix clause to get licensed as the object,
then we have to assume that the embedded clause does not have the capacity to
license its internal argument. This immediately raises the question of what
factor makes the embedded clause deficient for object licensing.
Wurmbrand (2001) offers a straightforward answer to this question. She
proposes that an embedded clause can only be deficient for object licensing if it
forms a restructuring configuration with the matrix clause, i.e. when it is a VP.
Wurmbrand provides various arguments for German to show that when there is
evidence that an argument of the embedded clause fulfils a grammatical
function in the matrix clause, the embedded clause does not project a CP, TP
and vP, and there is no PRO-subject. For reasons of space, I cannot go into the
evidence, but I agree with Wurmbrand that the empirical facts support the view
that transparency of the complement is closely connected with deficiency of the
complement; that is, the functional domain of the matrix rescues the internal
argument, the unfulfilled licensing requirements of which would otherwise
cause the derivation to crash.
If Wurmbrand’s (2001) account can be carried over to Dutch, then we
expect to find ways in which the embedded clause is deficient in Dutch.
However, the conclusion in section 4 will be that the embedded clause in the
Dutch third construction is a TP, contrary to what is predicted.

4. Dutch transparent complements are TPs

If the Dutch third construction is derived by A-movement of the embedded

internal argument, then under Wurmbrand’s (2001) assumptions we expect
these sentences to represent the restructuring configuration.9 If this is true, then
we should be able to demonstrate that the embedded clause does not project a
CP, TP, PRO, and does not license its internal argument. While it is hard to
argue for or against the presence of a position for licensing the internal
argument on independent grounds, the other three predictions can be shown to
be false.
We have seen in (8b) that the complementiser om is ungrammatical in the
third construction. Moreover, the embedded clause cannot host a wh-phrase:

9
German not only has contexts for movement to object position, but also for movement into
subject position. It is generally assumed that Dutch does not have this option (Rutten 1991;
Broekhuis 1992, among others). I have to assume that these structures are excluded for independent
reasons, if they are indeed impossible, but the issue requires careful investigation.
8 Janneke ter Beek

(12) a. dat ze hem vroeg wie een prijs toe te kennen

that she him asked who a prize to to assign
‘That she asked him whom to award.’
b. * dat ze hem een prijs vroeg wie toe te kennen
that she him a prize asked who to to assign
‘That she asked him whom to award.’

The impossibility of having a complementiser or a wh-phrase in the third

construction indicates that there is no CP to host such elements. Third
construction complements are no larger than TP.
We have evidence for a TP if we can temporally modify the event described
in the embedded clause. IJbema (2002) observes that the extraposition
construction permits temporal modification of the embedded clause, in contrast
to the third construction:

(13) a. dat Jan vandaag besloot morgen een huis te kopen

that Jan today decided tomorrow a house to buy
‘That Jan decided today to buy a house tomorrow.’
b. * dat Jan vandaag <morgen> een huis besloot <morgen> te kopen
that Jan today tomorrow a house decided tomorrow to buy
‘That Jan decided today to buy a house tomorrow.’
(IJbema 2002; 149)

In (13a), the main clause and the embedded clause can both be modified with a
temporal adverb.10 In the third construction, this is not possible; the adverb that
modifies the embedded clause in (13a) is illicit in (13b). However, if one of the
adverbs in (13b) is dropped, the sentence becomes grammatical:

(14) dat Jan morgen een huis besloot te kopen

that Jan tomorrow a house decided to buy
‘That Jan decided to buy a house tomorrow.’

So even though the embedded clause cannot be modified with a temporal

adverb in the embedded clause, such modification does seem to be possible

10
One might object that the embedded clause in the third construction is degraded in the
presence of any adverb. Some speakers perceive a contrast between examples like (13b) and
examples in which the embedded clause contains a manner adverb, but the majority seem to find
both types of adverbs equally unacceptable. Wöllstein-Leisten (2001) provides grammatical
German examples of the third construction in which the embedded clause contains a (low) adverb,
which suggests that Wurmbrand’s (2001) conclusion that the ungrammaticality of examples like
(13b) in German is due to temporal modification is valid.
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 9
when the adverb is in the main clause. This suggests that the ungrammaticality
of (13b) may be due to processing difficulties.11
Another way to investigate whether the event described in the main clause
and the event in the embedded clause are independently situated in time is to
study the use of temporal auxiliaries. If it is possible to construe a main clause
in the present tense with an embedded clause that is set in the past, as indicated
by the use of the temporal auxiliary ‘hebben’, we have evidence that the two
clauses are independently situated in time. Indeed, the third construction is
compatible with a perfect tense auxiliary:
?
(15) dat Jan zijn huiswerk gisteren beweert te hebben gemaakt
that Jan his homework yesterday claims to have made
‘That Jan claims to have done his homework yesterday.’

I take the possibility of temporal modification of the embedded clause as

evidence that the embedded clause in the third construction has a TP-layer.
If the embedded clause projects a TP, we might expect that it may also host
PRO. The interpretation of certain adjunct clauses offers a test to investigate
this. Adjunct clauses introduced by zonder ‘without’ cannot be controlled by an
indirect object (Van Haaften 1991; 109):

(16) a. Iki heb de studentj een goed cijfer beloofd [zonder PROi/*j
I have the student a good grade promised without
mei/ *zichj ervoor te schamen]
myself/ himself for-it to shame
‘I promised the student a good grade without being ashamed of it.’
b. Iki heb de studentj dit artikel aangeraden [zonder PROi/*j
I have the student this article recommended without
mei/ *zichj ervoor te schamen]
myself/ himself for-it to shame
‘I recommended the student this article without being ashamed of it.’

The adjunct clause contains an anaphor which is bound by PRO. If PRO can
only be controlled by the matrix subject, it follows that the anaphor cannot be
coreferent with the matrix indirect object in (16). Coreference between the
matrix indirect object and PRO in the adjunct clause is possible, however,
when it is mediated by a second PRO. If a complement clause is added to a
sentence like (16), then PRO in the adjunct clause can be controlled by PRO in
the complement clause. If the matrix indirect object controls PRO in the
complement clause, coreference between the matrix indirect object and PRO in
the adjunct is possible:

11
I do not have an explanation for the presence of the adverb in the matrix clause. For the sake
of simplicity, I assume without argumentation that adjuncts can be base generated in the matrix
clause in the third construction.
10 Janneke ter Beek
(17) dat iki de studentj aanraadde [PRO*i/j het artikel te lezen] [zonder
that I the student recommended the article to read without
PROi/j mei/ zichj ervoor te schamen]
myself/ himself for-it to shame
‘That I recommended to the student to read the article without being
ashamed of it.’

The contrasting coreference possibilities in (16) and (17) are hard to

understand, unless we assume that the coreference between the matrix indirect
object and PRO in the adjunct clause is mediated by the presence of another
PRO. We can now use the coreference possibilities of PRO in an adjunct clause
as a test for the presence of PRO in the third construction:

(18) dat iki de studentj het artikel aanraadde [PRO*i/j te lezen] [zonder
that I the student the article recommended to read without
PROi/j mei/ zichj ervoor te schamen]
myself/himself for-it to shame
‘That I recommended to the student to read the article without being
ashamed of it.’

In (18), the matrix indirect object can be coreferent with PRO in the adjunct,
which can be taken as evidence for the presence of PRO in the complement
clause.
One might object that the constrast between (16) on the one hand, and (17)
and (18) on the other can be explained by a difference in the c-command
relations between PRO and its controller, in which case the coreference
possibilities do not tell us anything about the presence of PRO in the
complement clause. The adjunct in (16) has to be attached to the matrix clause.
I follow Chomsky (1995) in assuming that it is attached to VP, but one might
argue that the adjunct is actually attached somewhere lower than the subject,
but higher than the indirect object. In this analysis the indirect object is not a
possible controller because it does not c-command PRO.
In (17) and (18), however, there are two possible attachment sites for the
adjunct clause. If the adjunct is attached in the matrix clause, again between the
position the subject and the indirect object, PRO in the adjunct can only be
controlled by the matrix subject, as this is the only DP that c-commands it. If
the adjunct is attached in the complement clause, however, then the matrix
subject and the matrix indirect object both c-command it, and as a
consequence, both qualify as a controller for its PRO-subject, regardless of
whether the complement clause has a PRO-subject. If this should be true,
however, we predict that the matrix indirect object should be a possible
controller for PRO in the adjunct clause even when it is not the controller of
PRO in the complement clause. The prediction is not borne out:
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 11
(19) dat iki de studentj beloofde [PROi/*j het artikel te lezen] [zonder
that I the student promised the article to read without
PROi/*j mei/ *zichj ervoor te schamen]
myself/ himself for-it to shame
‘That I promised the student to read the article without being ashamed of
it.’

I take the fact that coreference between the matrix indirect object and PRO in
an adjunct clause introduced by zonder ‘without’ is only possible in the context
of an infinitival complement clause to an object control verb, to mean that PRO
in such adjunct clauses is truly subject-oriented. The fact that coreference
between the matrix indirect object and PRO in such an adjunct is possible with
object control verbs in the third construction (18) is then most naturally
explained by assuming that third construction complements may have a PRO-
subject.
Another indication that the complement clause in the third construction has
a PRO subject can be found in the interpretation of PRO. It has been noticed
that in certain cases, PRO and its controller are not identical in reference (cf.
Landau 2000). Certain predicates allow for partial control, in which the
controller represents only a subset of the referents associated with PRO. It
seems that when this is possible, the option is retained in the third construction:

(20) a. dat de commandanti het pand PROi+j besloot te omsingelen

that the commander the building decided to surround
‘That the commander decided to surround the building.’
b. * dat de commandant het pand omsingelde
that the commander the building surrounded
‘That the commander surrounded the building.’

The complement clause in (20) contains a collective predicate, which is

interpreted as having a plural agent. As there is no such DP in the sentence, it
has to be the case that there is a PRO that refers to a group of individuals in
(20a). The fact that PRO is available as the DP that provides the collective
agent explains the contrast between the monoclausal (20b) and the biclausal
(20a). 12
From the fact that there is evidence to assume a TP and a PRO in the
embedded clause in the third construction, it must be concluded that the Dutch
third construction does not represent the restructuring configuration as

12
Examples like (20) should be distinguished from sentences like (ia), which do not
necessarily represent partial control, as the controller is not among those individuals who actually
carry out the activity, but rather represents the group as a whole:
i) a. Balkenende besloot naar Irak te gaan ‘Balkenende decided to go to Iraq.’
b. Balkenende ging naar Irak ‘Balkenende went to Iraq.’
Another indication that (i) does not represent partial control is the observation that the monoclausal
sentence (ib) is acceptable in the interpretation of a collective going to Iraq, despite the fact that the
only DP in the sentence is singular. I thank Jan-Wouter Zwart for pointing out the examples in (i).
12 Janneke ter Beek
proposed by Wurmbrand (2001). One might conclude that the Dutch third
construction therefore cannot reflect A-movement.
Wurmbrand (2001) argues that several verbs, most notably irrealis verbs,
are incompatible with A-movement into the matrix clause. Focus scrambling is
possible in those cases, however. It is therefore worth investigating whether the
Dutch third construction might be the result of focus scrambling. Even though
we have discarded a trigger in terms of interpretive effects in section 3, the
possibility of focus scrambling should be investigated, especially since this is
actually what Wurmbrand (2001) suggests might be the correct analysis for
Dutch, based on the fact that the class of verbs that allow the third construction
in Dutch roughly corresponds to the class of verbs that allow focus scrambling
but not A-movement in German.13
The data clearly demonstrate that we can exclude focus scrambling,
however. Firstly, as pointed out in Neeleman (1994), focus scrambling may
alter the order of the arguments (21a), but this is not true for the third
construction (21b):

(21) a. dat zulke boeken zelfs Jan niet koopt (Neeleman 1994; 84)
that such books even Jan not buys
‘That such books, even Jan does not buy.’
b. * dat deze wetenschappers Jan beweert te kennen
that these scientists Jan claims to know
‘That Jan claims to know these scientists.’
c. dat zulke wetenschappers zelfs Jan beweert te bewonderen
that such scientists even Jan claims to admire
‘That such scientists, even Jan claims to admire.’

The example in (21b) is ungrammatical with neutral intonation. Notice that the
point is not that focus scrambling is impossible in the third construction, but
that the third construction cannot be reduced to focus scrambling. The example
in (21c) demonstrates that focus scrambling is possible in the third construction
(if pronounced with the distinctive intonation pattern associated with it).
Secondly, focus scrambling is incompatible with wide focus (22), but the
third construction is not, as was shown in (10a):

(22) A: What are you guys talking about?

B: # Ik vertel net dat zo’n acteur zelfs wij niet willen ontmoeten
I tell just that such-a actor even we not want meet
‘I just told (him) that such an actor even we do not want to meet.’

Thirdly, focus scrambling does not apply to parts of idioms (23), unlike the
third construction, as demonstrated in (11a) above:

13
Actually, the class is a bit larger than the class of verbs allowing focus scrambling in
German. Wurmbrand (2001) demonstrates that German propositional verbs are incompatible with
focus scrambling., but the third construction in Dutch is possible with several propositional verbs.
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 13

(23) # dat de knoop zelfs wij niet doorhakken

that the knot even we not cut-through
‘That the Gordian knot, even we do not cut.’

These contrasts are hard to explain if the third construction is derived by focus
scrambling. Therefore, I take (21)-(23) to show that focus scrambling is not
involved. However, if focus scrambling is not at issue, and we maintain that the
embedded clause in the third construction is not deficient in any obvious way,
then we are faced with a paradox. On the one hand, the third construction
behaves like a deficient clause in that it fails to license its internal argument,
but on the other hand, no related properties of deficiency can be identified,
other than the absence of a CP-layer. The next section explores a line of
analysis that might reconcile these contradictory properties.

5. TP and phase-based derivation

If one assumes that derivation proceeds by phase, with phases being vP and CP,
as Chomsky (2001) proposes, then a situation like the one we find in Dutch is
not unexpected. If TP is not a phase, then we predict that such clauses display
transparency. The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) restricts access of the
matrix v to its domain , but it has no access to material lower than the phase
head of the phase dominated by vP. The reason for this is that Spell out
proceeds by phase: when the head of a new phase is merged, the domain of the
lower phase (but not the edge) undergoes Spell Out.
Normally, clausal complements are CPs. Thus, a probe in the matrix vP has
access to C and the edge of the CP-phase, but the structure below C is
inaccessible, having already undergone Spell Out. The analyis accounts for the
fact that A-movement out of CP is impossible, regardless of whether CP is
finite or non-finite:

(24) a. *Johni seems [CP that [TP ti is a nice guy]]

b. * dat Jan hemi besluit [CP om [TP PRO ti te bezoeken]]
that Jan him decide for to visit
‘That Jan decides to visit him.’

However, if the complement clause is a TP, it does not constitute a phase, so

any material inside it is accessible to probes in the vP-phase. There are two
ways to derive the option of moving the embedded internal argument into the
matrix vP. The first possibility is that the embedded clause licenses the internal
argument. To this end, the internal argument undergoes movement to the
specifier of a designated AgrP. I assume that this AgrP is part of the edge of
vP. But at the edge of the embedded vP, the object is accessible to the higher
probe. Under this scenario, the embedded internal argument in fact gets its case
feature checked twice. A phase-based derivation allows for this possibility, as
14 Janneke ter Beek
an uninterpretable feature, once checked, remains in the structure up to the
point of Spell Out. 14
Several problems arise. First of all, we may wonder why German allows the
third construction with only a subset of the verbs that are compatible with it in
Dutch. An obvious solution would be to assume that certain German verbs are
forced to select for a CP, where the equivalent Dutch verbs have the option of
selecting a TP. I have not looked into the categorial status of German
complement clauses, and as long as no supporting evidence is provided, the
assumption is admittedly unsatisfactory. But note that a similar assumption
needs to be made to account for the fact that the class of restructuring verbs is
not completely uniform across languages (Wurmbrand 2001).
Secondly, we make the wrong prediction for examples like (25):
?
(25) dat Anna haar broer heeft besloten die brief te schrijven
that Anna her brother has decided that letter to write
‘That Anna has decided to write her brother that letter.’
(Rutten 1991; 61)

If an Agr in the matrix vP-phase attracts the embedded goal argument, the
matrix clause must have access to the material inside the complement clause.
From this perspective, it is unclear why the theme is not also attracted.
I speculate that this problem is avoided if we adopt a scenario along the
lines of Zwart (2001). Let us assume that contrary to what we assumed above,
the embedded clause in a third construction complement does not license its
internal arguments, that is, it does not project the relevant AgrPs. If the
complement clause were a CP, this would be fatal: only the edge of CP is
accessible to the matrix vP phase, so the matrix v, or more precisely, the
relevant Agr(s) in that phase cannot license the internal argument(s) in the
embedded clause. However, if the complement clause is a TP, then the AgrP(s)
in the matrix vP can access the embedded clause and attract an argument.
Now, if we assume that the transparency of the embedded clause allows for
the generation of the AgrP that licenses the internal argument in the functional
domain of the matrix clause, then we can understand how (25) comes about.
The embedded clause has to project two AgrPs, but because there is no CP-
layer to prevent it, one of them is generated in the matrix clause in (25).15

14
Note that I ignore a serious locality issue here. Unless we want to assume that a probe in the
matrix vP-phase attracts PRO before it attracts the object, we have to account for the fact that PRO
fails to yield the predicted intervention effect.
15
If the position in which functional heads are generated is flexible within the phase, we might
wonder why we cannot generate the Dutch equivalent of [CP that [AgrOP himj [TP Ii [vP ti [VP like tj ]]]]].
I cannot answer this question at this point. I speculate that if locality should be understood along
the lines of Fox & Pesetsky (2004), we may exclude such cases on the basis of ordering principles,
but clearly more research has to done to support such a view. An advantage of such reasoning is
that since the ordering principles are assumed to hold for elements with phonological features, the
locality issues concerning PRO in footnote 15 vanish.
Transparency in Dutch TP complements 15
Note that this scenario is independently needed to account for the fact that
the matrix clause in (25) is capable of licensing an indirect object in the first
place. The verb besluiten ‘decide’ can take a nominal direct object in certain
cases, but it cannot take a nominal indirect object (except in the third
construction, as was above):

(26) a. Ik heb dat na zorgvuldige overweging besloten.

I have that after careful consideration decided
‘I have decided that after careful consideration.’
b. * Ik heb het hem besloten
I have it him decided
‘I have it him decided.’
c. * Ik heb hem besloten naar huis te gaan
I have him decided to home to go
‘I have him decided to go home.’

Given that most of the matrix verbs that allow for a third construction
complement never take two nominal internal arguments, it is not immediately
clear that the matrix clause should be able to license two nominal internal
objects. I therefore follow Zwart (2001) in assuming that the embedded internal
arguments are not licensed by independently available functional structure of
the matrix clause, but rather move into the functional projections associated
with the embedded clause, which for whichever reason are generated in the
matrix clause. However, a more careful study of the issues awaits further
research.

6. Conclusion

I conclude that the Dutch third construction represents a flexibility in the

position in which functional projections are licensed. This flexibility is only
possible if the complement clause is not a CP, that is, not a phase. Thus,
constructions like the third construction offer support for Chomsky’s (2001)
theory of derivation by phase. However, the conditions under which functional
structure is projected in the matrix clause are a matter for further research.
16 Janneke ter Beek
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the participants of the First Syntax AiO Meeting and the
2005 TIN-Dag, as well as the department of General Linguistics of the
University of Groningen for useful comments and suggestions. Special thanks
go to Jan-Wouter Zwart for helpful remarks on an earlier version of this paper.
Needless to say, all remaining errors are mine.

Janneke ter Beek

University of Groningen
Oude Kijk in ‘t Jatstraat 26
9712 EK Groningen, the Netherlands
j.ter.beek@rug.nl

References

Besten, H. den, J. Rutten, T. Veenstra & J. Veld (1988). Verb raising, extrapositie en de derde
constructie. Ms., University of Amsterdam.
Besten, H. den & J. Rutten (1989). On verb raising and free word order in Dutch. Jaspers, D. , W.
Klooster, Y. Putseys & P. Seuren (eds.), Sentential complementation and the lexicon:
Studies in honour of W. de Geest. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 41-56.
Broekhuis, H. (1992). Chain-government: Issues in Dutch syntax. Diss., University of Amsterdam.
Broekhuis, H., H. den Besten & K. Hoekstra (1995). Infinitival complementation in Dutch: On
remnant extraposition. The Linguistic Review 12, pp. 93-122.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Evers, A. (1975). The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Diss., University of Utrecht.
Fox, D. & D. Pesetsky (to appear). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. É. Kiss, K. (ed.)
Theoretical linguistics.
Haaften, T. van (1991). De interpretatie van verzwegen subjecten. I.C.G. Printing, Dordrecht.
Hoop, H. de (1992). Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Diss., University of
Groningen.
IJbema, A. (2002). Grammaticalization and infinitival complements in Dutch. Diss., University of
Leiden.
Landau, I. (2000). Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Neeleman, A. (1994). Complex Predicates. Diss., University of Utrecht.
Rutten, J. (1991). Infinitival complements and auxiliaries. Diss., University of Amsterdam.
Wöllstein-Leisten, A. (2001). Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion: Eine repräsentationelle Analyse
zur Monosententialität von ‘zu’-Infinitiven im Deutschen. Stauffenburg Verlag, Tübingen.
Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Mouton de Gruyter ,
Berlin/New York.
Zwart, C.J.W. (1993). Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Diss., University of Groningen.
Zwart, C.J.W. (1995). Word-order, intonation, and noun phrase interpretation in Dutch. Samiian,
V. & J. Schaeffer (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 7. pp 279-
289.
Zwart, C.J.W. (2001). Object shift with raising verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 32:3, pp. 547-554.