Dutch Indefinites, Word Order and the Mapping Hypothesis
Janneke ter Beek
University of Groningen
Abstract
This squib discusses the Mapping Hypothesis (Diesing 1992), which accounts for the distribution of
existential and presuppositional interpretations of sentences containing indefinites. By the Mapping
Hypothesis, a presuppositional reading results if the indefinite has moved out of VP, but using data
from Dutch, I argue that there is no one-to-one correspondence between movement out of VP and a
presuppositional interpretation. A refinement of the original hypothesis can account for these cases,
but counterexamples remain. The refinement also conflicts with further evidence on word order,
suggesting that a mapping procedure that operates on an absolute cut off point in the syntactic
structure is not realistic.1
1. Weak and strong interpretations for indefinites
The class of indefinites includes bare plurals, and nouns introduced by the indefinite article,
a cardinal, or a weak quantifier.2 It is well known that indefinites may receive a weak
interpretation in certain contexts, but a strong interpretation in others (Milsark 1977). The
weak interpretation is most clearly demonstrated in there-sentences (1a):
(1) a. There are three linguists at the party
b. Three linguists left the party early
Milsark (1977) and Diesing (1992) refer to the weak interpretation as the existential
interpretation, because the sentence asserts the existence of the entities to which the
predicate applies. This is indeed the most salient characteristic of the weak interpretation: it
introduces the entities referred to by the noun phrase. Thus, a speaker may utter (1a) upon
seeing three linguists at the party, but he may well have been unaware of the existence of
linguists at the party before that. For this reason, the weak or existential reading is a nonpresuppositional reading: the existence of the entities of which the sentence predicates
something, is not presupposed.
The weak reading contrasts with four types of strong reading (De Hoop 1992). Diesing,
following Milsark (1977), argues that strong readings are presuppositional readings, because
the existence of the entities under consideration is presupposed.
The first strong reading is seen in (1b), in which the speaker presupposes the presence of
linguists at the party, and asserts that they left early. The reading in (1b) is therefore a
presuppositional reading: the existence of the entities of which the sentence predicates
something, in this case linguists, is presupposed. The interpretations of (1a) and (1b) further
differ in that the three linguists at the party in (1a) may in principle exhaust the set of
linguists, while there were most likely still some linguists at the party after the three in
question left. 3 Thus, (1b) most naturally receives a partitive reading.4
This paper was written in the fall of 2005, as part of the course Introduction to the Semantics at
MIT, where I was visiting at the time. I would like to thank my informants, Janneke Huitink and Inge
ter Beek, for their judgments and discussion of the examples in this squib.
2
I am agnostic as to whether such phrases should be analyzed as noun phrases or determiner
phrases, using the term noun phrases as a descriptive term throughout this squib. I also use the term
“weak quantifier” for those quantifiers that are compatible with an existential interpretation, or weak
reading in Milsark’s (1977) terminology, regardless of the fact that such quantifiers can also give rise to
a presuppositional, or strong reading.
3
Diesing is not fully explicit about the sense in which the various strong readings are
presuppositional. The presupposition follows from the formation of a restrictive clause (cf. section 2),
1
Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 46 (2008), 55-72
Center for Language and Cognition Groningen
http://gagl.eldoc.ub.rug.nl
56
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
In addition to the partitive interpretation, strong readings include the generic (3b),
specific (4b) and the generic-cardinal interpretation (5b). The generic reading can be
illustrated with a bare plural in subject position. Thus, while (3a) can truthfully be uttered by
a speaker who sees some dogs in the swimming pool and some other dogs on the grass, (3b)
makes a statement about all dogs:
(3) a. There were dogs in the swimming pool
b. Dogs bark
Again, the a-example represents a non-presuppositional interpretation, in that the existence
of dogs in the swimming pool is not presupposed; in the b-example, on the other hand, the
existence of dogs is presupposed, hence the interpretation is presuppositional.
The third strong interpretation, the specific interpretation, can be illustrated with a noun
introduced by the indefinite article in subject position. While (4a) merely requires the
presence of any one of my friends at my wedding, say Peter, Mary, John or Kate, (4b) most
likely refers to a particular friend mine, say Kate.
(4) a. There has to be a friend of mine at my wedding
b. A friend of mine is pregnant
Lastly, De Hoop (1992; 48) describes the generic cardinal reading in (5b), which
expresses a statement about all groups of ten boys:
(5) a. There are ten boys on the soccer field
b. Ten boys can’t form a soccer team
For the purposes of this squib, this brief discussion of the various interpretations that
sentences containing indefinites suffices. At this point, the most important point to note is
that indefinites may receive presuppositional or non-presuppositional interpretations, and
that the position of the indefinite is an important factor in determining the interpretation of
the sentence.5 Also, for the empirical part of this squib, it suffices to characterize the
interpretation of the indefinite as strong or weak; a more sophisticated definition of the
various strong interpretations will therefore not be attempted here.
2. The Mapping Hypothesis
In section 1, a descriptive generalization was demonstrated: an indefinite in a there-sentence
receives a weak interpretation, and an indefinite in subject position receives a strong
which restricts the domain of the operator, but if I understand correctly, this only gives rise to an
“absolute” existence presupposition. This may be problematic, because it seems to me that weak and
strong readings differ in presuppositions about the discourse. In my intuition, the presupposition in
(1b) is not merely that there exist linguists, but rather that there exist linguists at the party. Also, the
partitive “flavor” characteristic of weak determiners on their strong interpretation does not seem to
follow from the formation of the restrictive clause. I will ignore such issues in the remainder of this
squib.
4
The examples of the strong readings are only for illustration. It is not necessarily the case that the
strong readings in question are the only possible interpretation for the examples in this section, nor is
it the case that the subject position is the only environment that gives rise to a strong reading.
5
This is not to say that it is position per se that determines the interpretation. While true for
Diesing’s (1992) theory, the interpretation of the indefinite is ultimately governed by case
considerations in De Hoop (1992).
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
57
interpretation.6 Diesing (1992) provides an influential analysis that derives this
generalization: the Mapping Hypothesis.
2.1.
The tripartite structure
In order to be interpreted, the syntactic structure has to be mapped to a logical
representation. The logical representation maximally consists of three parts: an operator, a
restrictive clause, and the nuclear scope. The logical representation for (6a) would be (6c),
with ∀x the operator part, the part between brackets the restrictive clause, and the rest
forming the nuclear scope:
(6) a. All musicians smoke
b. [IP Alli [IP ti musicians]j [VP tj smoke]]]
c. ∀x [x is a musician] x smokes
(surface representation)
(LF)
(logical representation)
The Mapping Hypothesis now explains how the logical representation is formed from the
syntactic structure:
Material from VP is mapped into the nuclear scope
Material from IP is mapped into a restrictive clause
(Diesing 1992; 15)
The mapping procedure takes the LF-representation (6b) as its input, and maps all material
from VP into the nuclear scope. As the subject has moved out of VP into the subject position
[spec, IP], the nuclear scope consists of the verb only.7 Material from IP is mapped into the
restrictive clause. As the subject has moved into [spec, IP], it will be mapped into the
restrictive clause. She further assumes that the quantifier all undergoes LF-adjunction to IP,
and acts as the operator in the logical representation to bind the variables in the restrictive
clause and the nuclear scope.
The formation of the restrictive clause accounts for the fact that (6a) receives a
presuppositional interpretation. Since the domain of quantification is restricted to musicians,
the truth conditions for (6a) would be undefined if the set of musicians were empty. Thus,
“the set defined by the restrictive clause can be taken to represent the existence
presupposition induced by the quantifier. In other words, the presuppositions induced by the
quantifier are somehow incorporated into the restrictive clause.” (Diesing 1992; 62).
The strong readings of the indefinites in section 1 are accounted for in the same way. An
indefinite introduced by a cardinal (1b) gives rise to the following representations:
(7) a. Three linguists left the party early
b. [IP Threej [IP [tj linguists]i [VP ti left the party early]]]
c. Threex [x is a linguist] x left the party early
(surface representation)
(LF)
(logical representation)
On a presuppositional interpretation, the cardinal is treated like a quantifier and will act as
the operator in the logical representation. As the indefinite occupies [spec, IP] at LF, it will be
This is a simplification. While indefinites in English can only receive a weak reading in theresentences, they can in principle receive a weak or strong interpretation in subject position.
7
This LF-representation provides more detail than Diesing’s (1992) version, in that I haven chosen
to represent traces left behind by movement. As Diesing does not go into the details of the mapping
procedure, it is not clear from her discussion whether the movement from [spec, VP] to [spec, IP]
leaves a trace, and if it does, how this trace is interpreted. Her discussion of the interpretations of bare
plurals in [spec, IP] with stage level and individual level predicates suggests that for the purposes of
the mapping hypothesis, it is only the LF position of the indefinite that is interpreted. I will therefore
assume that the mapping procedure ignores traces.
6
58
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
mapped into the restrictive clause. As the domain of quantification is now restricted to
linguists, it follows that the existence of linguists (at the party) is presupposed.8
Now consider the non-presuppositional interpretation, as exemplified by (1a):
(8) a. There are three linguists at the party
(surface representation)
b. [IP there arei [VP ti three linguists at the party]]
(LF)
c. ∃x x is a linguist ∧ x is at the party ∧ the number of x is three
(logical representation)
Notice that the cardinal does not function as an operator in (8c); the cardinal does not have
quantificational force but acts as a cardinality predicate instead. The absence of the existence
presupposition follows from the logical representation (8c) because there is no restrictive
clause. Thus, cardinals are ambiguous between a use as a cardinality predicate, which has no
quantificational force, and a use a quantifier, which does have quantificational force. On the
use as a cardinality predicate, the variables in the nuclear scope are not bound. Therefore, a
default existential operator is assumed to bind any unbound variables at the level of VP.9
A similar analysis accounts for the weak and strong interpretations of nouns introduced
by other weak determiners, like many, few, some.10 On the presuppositional reading, the
determiner has quantificational force and functions as the operator in the logical
representation. On the non-presuppositional interpretation, the determiner does not have
quantificational force and acts as a cardinality predicate in the nuclear scope.
What about sentences in which there is no determiner that can function as the operator in
the logical representation? We have already seen that a default operator is available to bind
variables that are not bound by a quantifier. Presuppositional indefinites without
quantificational force are accounted for in a similar way. Consider the presuppositional
interpretation of bare plurals, repeated from section 1:
(9) a. Dogs bark
b. [IP dogsi [VP ti bark]]
c. Genx [x is a dog] x barks
(surface representation)
(LF)
(logical representation)
As the subject occupies [spec, IP] at LF, the Mapping Hypothesis predicts it will be mapped
into the restrictive clause, to restrict the domain of quantification of an operator. Since the
indefinite does not have quantificational force, a default operator is assumed. The default
operator at the level of IP is a generic operator; hence a generic reading results.
According to Diesing, the same mechanism accounts for the existential and specific
reading we observed with noun phrases introduced by the indefinite article (cf. (4)). De
Hoop’s (1992) adopts an analysis along similar lines for the generic cardinal reading observed
in (5).11 The cardinal functions as a cardinality predicate in the nuclear scope, and the
Note that the additional quality of the partitive reading we noticed in (1b/7a), the implication that
there are (contextually relevant) linguists besides the three who left early, does not follow from the
logical representation in (7c). Diesing does not take a stand as to whether this aspect of the
interpretation should be part of the meaning of the quantifier or not.
9
Existential closure might be problematic for approaches like Heim & Kratzer (1998), in which
movement leaves a variable that is bound by the index that is introduced by the movement operation. I
will ignore this problem.
10
A weak determiner is a determiner that can give rise to a weak interpretation, i.e. a determiner
that can occur in a there-sentence.
11
It is not immediately clear to me how the specific reading of (4b) would be derived. In the absence
of a quantifier, the quantificational force in a presuppositional interpretation must be due to the
generic operator. The generic operator may indeed be present in examples like (i), which expresses a
condition to be considered a true friend, but (4b), repeated here as (ii), expresses a statement about a
particular person, in which case the existence presupposition cannot be attributed to the generic
operator:
i. A true friend is forgiving
8
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
59
quantificational force comes from the generic operator. Hence, we can represent the generic
cardinal reading as (10):
(10)
a. Ten boys can’t form a soccer team
b. [IP [ten boys]i can’t [VP ti form a soccer team]
c. Genx [x is a group of ten boys] x can’t form a soccer team
To summarize, the LF-position of the indefinite is crucial in establishing the
interpretation of a sentence containing an indefinite.12 If the indefinite is in VP, it will be part
of the nuclear scope of the logical representation, and receive a non-presuppositional reading.
If it occupies a position in IP, it will be part of the restrictive clause, and hence receive a
presuppositional interpretation.
The correlation between the position of an indefinite subject and its interpretation
provides strong support for the Mapping Hypothesis. Diesing goes on to show that languages
which show scrambling, like German and Dutch, offer further evidence.
2.2.
Diesing on Dutch
Diesing demonstrates that indefinite subjects in Dutch behave like in English. Examples will
be given in Dutch, but similar examples can be given for German:
(11)
a. Fred denkt dat [IP [twee koeien]i [VP ti op het dak liggen]13
Fred thinks that
two cows
on the roof lie
“Fred thinks that two (specific) cows are lying on the roof”
b. Fred denkt dat [IP er
[VP twee koeien op het dak
Fred thinks that there
two cows on the roof
“Fred thinks that there are two cows lying on the roof”
liggen]
lie
(Diesing 1992:83, quoting Reuland 1988)
In (11a), the indefinite subject has moved out of VP into [spec, IP]. The mapping procedure
therefore maps it into the restrictive clause, and a presuppositional reading results (12a). In
(11b), the indefinite remains in the VP. Hence, it is mapped into the nuclear scope, inducing
an existential reading (12b):
(12)
a. Twox [x is a cow] x is lying on the roof
b. ∃x x is a cow ∧ x is lying on the roof ∧ the number of x is two
Diesing argues that indefinite objects show a similar alternation. In Dutch and German,
the position of the object is variable: it can surface in its base position, or it move up a little
ii. A friend of mine is pregnant
One possible solution would be to assume that the indefinite article not only has two uses, one with
and one without quantificational force, but that both uses are attested in presuppositional readings.
12
The qualification “at LF” is necessary to capture apparent exceptions to the Mapping Hypothesis.
One class of exceptions is bare plurals in subject position with a stage level predicate. These are not
necessarily interpreted as strong, despite the fact that they occupy [spec, IP] at surface structure.
Another class of exceptions is indefinites in object position, which need not receive an existential
interpretation, even though they are in VP at surface structure:
i Scientists argued against Intelligent Design
(no existence presupposition for scientists)
ii John hates spiders
(generic reading for spiders)
After LF-lowering in (i) and LF-raising (QR) for (ii), the Mapping Hypothesis derives the correct
interpretations.
13
Diesing 1992; 83, quoting Reuland 1988. Bracketing adapted for consistency.
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
60
through scrambling. Scrambling of an indefinite object has the same interpretive effect as
movement of an indefinite subject to [spec, IP]:14
a. ...dat Otto altijd [VP boeken over wombats leest]
that Otto always books about wombats reads
“...that Otto always reads books about wombats”
(13)
b. ...dat [IP Otto [ boeken over wombats ]i altijd [VP ti
that
Otto
books about wombats
always
“...that Otto always reads books about wombats”
leest]]
reads
In (13a), the indefinite object is in VP, and will therefore be mapped into the nuclear scope.
This accounts for the existential interpretation in (13a), illustrated in (14a). In (13b), the
object has undergone movement out of VP, which induces a presuppositional interpretation
(14b). This example differs from the English examples in section 2 in that the quantificational
force does not come from the default generic operator, but from the quantificational adverb
altijd “always”:
a. Alwayst [t is a time] ∃x x is a book ∧ Otto reads x at t
b. Alwaysx [x is a book] Otto reads x
(14)
So far, it seems that in Dutch, the Mapping Hypothesis works exactly like in English: an
indefinite in VP is mapped into the nuclear scope, with an existential interpretation as a
result, while an indefinite in IP is mapped into a restrictive clause, inducing a
presuppositional interpretation. This pattern is observed both with indefinite subjects and
indefinite objects.
3. More on Dutch
This section presents potential counterexamples to the Mapping Hypothesis. In 3.1, it is
argued that what Diesing takes to be the VP is actually a larger structure. In 3.2 it is argued
that within this larger structure, an indefinite is sometimes mapped into the nuclear scope,
and sometimes into a restrictive clause.
3.1.
What’s in a VP?
This section discusses two environments in which an indefinite receives an existential
interpretation, but seems to have moved out of VP. The problematic data are accounted for
by parameterizing the mapping procedure in 3.1.3.
3.1.1 Cross-clausal scrambling
The first problem for the mapping procedure we discuss here is found in cases of crossclausal scrambling. Consider (15), with an indefinite that receives an existential
interpretation:
(15)
... dat
Jan een
boek besluit
that Jan a
book decides
“....that Jan decides to read a book”
te lezen
to read
(15) is an example of the so-called third construction (Den Besten et al. 1988), in which the
internal argument of the infinitival clause surfaces to the left of the matrix verb, while the rest
14
Diesing’s examples are from German, but the same effect can be shown for Dutch.
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
61
of the infinitival clause surfaces to the right. Den Besten et al. (1988) analyze (15) as a
combination of scrambling and extraposition, that is, leftward scrambling of the object to a
position in the matrix clause, and rightward movement of the infinitival clause (15’a). The
third construction is a problem for the Mapping Hypothesis, because unless the internal
argument can move into the matrix VP, the indefinite is outside the VP, but nevertheless
seems to be mapped into the nuclear scope.15 I am not sure how Diesing would treat such
examples, but I speculate that the logical representation could be like (15’b):
(15’)
a. [CP that [IP Jank [a booki] [VP [VP tk tj decides]]] [ti to read]j]
b. ∃x x is a book ∧ Jan decides to read x
If (15’b) is a reasonable representation, then it is a counterexample to the Mapping
Hypothesis.16
3.1.2 Non-adjacent argument and verb
We have seen in (11) that an indefinite external argument in a there-sentence is mapped into
the nuclear scope. According to Diesing, this position is the VP-internal base position of the
argument. However, it is not obvious that the indefinite is in VP in these examples. The
indefinite can be separated from the verb by a PP:
(16)
Fred denkt dat
er twee koeien op het dak
liggen
Fred thinks that er two cows
on the roof lie
“Fred thinks that there are two cows lying on the roof”
(=11b)
On the assumption that adjuncts may not be inserted internal to the VP, one could argue that
(16) cannot be a base structure, but must be derived through movement of the indefinite over
the PP. The structure would then not be as in (11b), but rather as in (11b’), which would be
problematic for the Mapping Hypothesis, because the indefinite is now in IP and would
therefore be predicted to be mapped into the restrictive clause, inducing a presuppositional
reading:
(11)
b. that [IP there [VP two cows on the roof lie]
b’. that [IP there [two cows]i on the roof [VP ti lie]]
On the other hand, one might object that the locational PP in (11/16) is an argument
of the verb, or even predicate, and not an adjunct. If so, then it is possible that the indefinite
is in VP, as argued by Diesing. Two arguments support such a claim. First, the verb liggen
“lie” can be considered a light verb in this sentence. While the cows have to be in a lying
position for the sentence to be true, it is my intuition that the sentence is most naturally used
to express the location of the cows. Moreover, the PP cannot be left out.17
Second, when we replace the PP with an adverb which is uncontroversially an adjunct,
the sentence becomes deviant:
One could assume a syntactic structure in which the object is in the matrix VP. One would have to
assume that the infinitive undergoes extraposition, stranding its object. This way, the indefinite could
be mapped into the nuclear scope derived from the matrix VP. It would take us too far to discuss the
arguments, but see Ter Beek (2005) for data on binding, word order and NPI-licensing that suggest
that the third construction involves movement of the embedded internal argument.
16
Diesing (1992; 153, fn.20) mentions this construction as well, for German, and notes that it
patterns with VP-internal indefinites concerning was für-split, but she does not discuss the
construction any further, viewing it “as being substantively different from the cases of clause-bound
scrambling”. We will see that this is not correct, and that the third construction has several properties
in common with clause bound scrambling.
17
The resulting sentence is grammatical on the irrelevant reading in which er “there” expresses the
location of the cows.
15
62
(17)
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
*... dat
er
twee kinderen immers
that there two children ‘indeed’
“...that there were two children sleeping”
lagen te slapen18
lay to sleep
Because of the presence of er “there”, an existential interpretation is forced, but because the
indefinite is outside of VP, a presuppositional interpretation is forced. With these
contradictory requirements, the sentence has no sensible interpretation and is therefore
deviant. If the requirement of existential interpretation is removed, the sentence becomes
grammatical, on the presuppositional interpretation, as predicted by the Mapping
Hypothesis:19
(18)
a. ... dat
honden immers blaffen
that dogs
‘indeed’ bark
“...that dogs ‘indeed’ bark”
b. [CP that [IP dogs [VP ‘indeed’ [VP ti bark]]]]
c. Genx [x is a dog] x barks
(surface representation)
(LF)
(logical representation)
As the adverb in (17) is not an argument, we may assume that the indefinite is not in VP in
(17) and (18). Since we have reason to assume that the PP in (16) is in VP, the indefinite may
be as well. It thus seems that the mapping procedure works exactly as it does for English.
However, the examples in (16)-(18) tell only part of the story. We have seen in 3.1.1 that
there are cases in which an indefinite is outside of VP, but nevertheless receives an existential
interpretation. Consider also (19):
(19)
Jan zei
dat
er
een
dief was
Jan said that there a
thief was
“Jan said that a thief had been arrested”
gearresteerd
arrested
In (19), the indefinite receives an existential interpretation. However, there is reason to be
believe it is outside VP. (19) is a passive sentence. It is generally held that the internal
argument of a passive sentence originates in same position as in the active counterpart, but
undergoes movement to the subject position. One might argue that in there-sentences, this
movement to [spec, IP] does not take place, so that the indefinite in (19) occupies its base
position in VP. However, if the agent is expressed overtly, this phrase can separate the
indefinite from the verb:
(20)
Jan zei
dat
er
een
dief door de agent
was gearresteerd
Jan said that there a
thief by the police-officer was arrested
“Jan said that a thief had been arrested by the police officer”
If themes are generated closer to the verb than agents, then the word order in (20) would
suggest that the theme has moved over the agent. If so, then it cannot be in VP. The same
point can be made for (21):
This adverb was chosen by analogy with the German particle ja doch that Diesing uses to mark the
boundary of VP, which she glosses as ‘indeed’. The Dutch immers means roughly the same, but it is
hard to render its meaning in English. The adverb is used call attention to a fact that the speaker feels
the hearer should be aware of, as in the following dialogue:
A: Shall we go out now?
B: No, it is raining, remember?
While B’s utterance may not be a natural sentence of English, its Dutch translation is fully natural
with remember rendered as immers.
19
The presuppositional reading is more clearly demonstrated with a bare plural. The variant of (17)
without er “there” would work as well, but would require the right context to sound natural.
18
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
(21)
Ik denk dat
er
een
klant
zonder te betalen
I think
that there a
customer without to pay
“I think a customer left without paying”
63
wegliep
away-walked
The indefinite een klant “a customer” receives an existential interpretation. The Mapping
Hypothesis would predict it is in VP, but this is unlikely given the presence of the adjunct
clause.
3.1.3. Revising the Mapping Hypothesis
For the sake of exposition, let us assume the structure of (20)-(21) is as in (22):20
(22)
a. [CP that [IP there [FP-EA a thiefi [VP by the cop [VP ti was arrested]]]]]
b. [CP that [IP there [FP-EA a customeri [VP without paying [VP ti left]]]]]
FP-EA stands for “functional projection hosting the external argument”. This projection is
needed to account for the word order in there-sentences, in which the external argument
does not move all the way up to [spec, IP]. The motivation for this projection does not
concern us here.21 I have chosen to represent the external argument in a designated position,
rather than adjoined to VP. The reason for this is that it seems unintuitive to me to move the
indefinite out of VP to adjoin it to VP without any change in interpretation. Moreover, the
movement seems to be obligatory in this case. For the purposes of this squib, nothing hinges
on the analysis of scrambling as movement into a designated position, or adjunction to a
maximal projection.
We can reconcile the Mapping Hypothesis with the Dutch clause structure by
parameterizing the Mapping Hypothesis, as in (23):22
(23)
The Mapping Hypothesis (revised):
Material from VP is mapped into the nuclear scope (English)
Material from FP-EA is mapped into the nuclear scope (Dutch)
Material from IP is mapped into a restrictive clause
(23) retains the spirit of Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis and revises only the boundary
between the chunk of structure that is the input to the nuclear scope and the chunk that is the
input to the restrictive clause.
The construction discussed in 3.1.1 also falls into place if we assume that the internal
argument of the infinite clause occupies a position lower than the FP-EA projection of the
matrix clause. This point will be elaborated in the next subsection.
3.1.4 Further complications of the clause structure
The parameter setting for Dutch requires another complication of the clause structure. Recall
(18), in which an object is interpreted existentially or presuppositionally, depending on
whether it follows or precedes the adverb immers “indeed”. We observe a similar difference
in interpretation with indefinite objects (cf. also (13)):
I assume the adjuncts in (20)-(21) are adjoined to VP. The one in (18) would be adjoined to FPEA. Note also that the structure of the verbal cluster is simplified.
21
It has been proposed that IP in Dutch should be split into two projections, AgrSP and TP, and that
what I refer to here as FP-EA is AgrSP, cf. Zwart 1993.
22
A parameter is also necessary on De Hoop’s (1992) theory. She proposes a rather large VP with
positions for a moved object, an adjunct, the subject in its base position, the object in its base position,
and the verb in its base position, in that order. The word orders in (20)-(21) would only follow on her
theory if non-arguments can be inserted internal below the base position of the subject, a point on
which she is vague. But even she allows this, she cannot account for the orders in section 3.2.
20
64
(24)
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
a. ...dat de bioloog
bloemen immers droogt
that the biologist flowers ‘indeed’ dries
“...that the biologist indeed dries flowers”
“Whenever the biologist has flowers, he dries them”
b. ...dat de bioloog
immers bloemen droogt
that the biologist ‘indeed’ flowers dries
“...that the biologist indeed dries flowers”
In order to account for this effect, we would have to postulate a structure like (25):
(25)
a. [CP that [IP the biologisti [FP-O flowersj [FP-EA ‘indeed’[FP-EA [VP ti tj dries]]]]]]
b. [CP that [IP the biologisti [FP-EA ‘indeed’[FP-EA [VP ti flowersj dries]]]]]23
Rather than taking immers to mark the boundary of VP, we can take it to mark the boundary
of FP-EA, which we have identified as the cut-off point for the mapping procedure. The
revised Mapping Hypothesis now makes the correct prediction: (25a) receives a
presuppositional interpretation, as the object occupies a position higher than FP-EA and is
therefore mapped into a restrictive clause. In (25b), it occupies a position lower within FPEA, and as a consequence, the mapping procedure maps it into the nuclear scope, resulting in
the observed existential interpretation.24
But it seems that FP-O is not the only position to which an object can move. Not only the
external argument can precede an adjunct and still be interpreted existentially (cf. (21)), but
objects can as well:
(26)
[Guys don’t always look into your eyes before kissing you. I know...]
... dat
Jan weleens een meisje
zonder haar aan te kijken
that Jan ‘once’
a girl
without her on to look
“...that Jan once kissed a girl without looking at her”
heeft gekust
has kissed
The adverb weleens “once” is like immers “indeed” in that an indefinite that precedes it
receives a presuppositional interpretation, but an indefinite that follows it is interpreted
existentially. I therefore assume that it is adjoined to FP-EA, marking the boundary between
elements mapped into a restrictive clause and elements mapped into the nuclear scope. The
position of the object een meisje “a girl” is somewhere within FP-EA, but it cannot be the base
position, as the object is not adjacent to the verb. We are forced to postulate another object
position:
(27)
[CP that [IP Ji [FP-EA once [FP-EA [FP-O2 a girlj [VP without looking at her [VP ti tj kissed]]]]]]
FP-O stands for “functional projection hosting the object”, a projection needed to account for
word order and whose motivation need not concern us here. We can identify FP-O as Zwart’s (1993)
AgrOP, the position in which the case of the object is licensed. Note that in Zwart’s theory, the object
always moves into this position, but it is the position of the adjunct that is variable. This view is not
compatible with the Mapping Hypothesis. FP-O is left out in (25b) for reasons of exposition; I do not
take a stand as to whether the projection is there if the object does not move into it. Note that FP-EA
must be projected even if the external argument is not in it for the mapping procedure to work.
24
One may wonder why FP-O and FP-EA cannot be filled simultaneously. The relevant construction
would have a presuppositionally interpreted object, preceding an existentially interpreted external
argument. But the Dutch equivalent of (i) is ungrammatical:
i. [CP that [IP there [FP-O flowersj [FP-EA ‘indeed’[FP-EA a biologisti [VP ti tj dries]]]]]]
The construction may not be problematic if we can reduce the ungrammaticality of (i) to the general
ban on reordering arguments, which seems to hold for Dutch.
23
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
65
We could avoid postulating a new object position by assuming that the object can also move
into FP-EA. However, this solution is untenable in the light of transitive expletive
constructions, in which the external argument occupies FP-EA and the object occupies a
position lower than FP-EA but higher than VP:
(28)
... dat
er
weleens klanten producten
zonder te betalen meenemen
that there ‘once’
customers products
without to pay with.take
“...that occasionally, customers take products without paying for them”
To summarize, we were able to maintain the Mapping Hypothesis with a slight revision in
section 3.1.3, but this was at the cost of assuming an extra position for the external argument.
But it turns out that to maintain the revised Mapping Hypothesis, we need to have two object
positions for an object to scramble to, instead of the one that Diesing admits. This is
problematic, because one of the strongest arguments for Mapping Hypothesis as a crosslinguistic mapping procedure comes from scrambling languages. In the absence of
scrambling, the indefinite is mapped into the nuclear scope, but when scrambling takes place,
the indefinite gets mapped into the restrictive clause. The interpretive effects investigated by
Diesing (cf. (11)-(13)) suggest a motivation for scrambling: scrambling establishes a logical
representation that is not available without scrambling. But with the extended range of data
(19)-(28), it turns out that there are also cases of scrambling which do not establish this
effect, which forces us to adopt the more complicated revised Mapping Hypothesis.
3.2
Counterexamples to the revised Mapping Hypothesis
Consider (29):
(29)
[We found some mice poison in the classroom. We think...]
... dat
er
iemand bang is voor muizen, maar we weten niet wie
that there someone afraid is for mice
but
we know not who
“...that someone is afraid of mice, but we don’t know who”
The example contains two indefinites. The external argument iemand “someone” gets an
existential interpretation, but the object of the PP, muizen “mice” is interpreted as generic.
The person in question is most likely afraid of mice in general, not just of the mice in the
classroom. We may assume the structure in (30):
(30)
[CP that [IP there [FP-EA someonei [PredP afraidj [VP is [SC ti tj [PP of mice]]]]]]
PredP stands for “predicate phrase”, the projection that hosts non-verbal predicates. The
verb takes a small clause complement, of which the adjective is the head. The head undergoes
predicate raising to PredP, while its PP complement remains in-situ. The Mapping
Hypothesis now predicts that both indefinites are interpreted existentially, because both are
within FP-EA.25
A possible way out would be to assume that muizen “mice” undergoes LF-movement to a
position higher than FP-EA. However, allowing LF-movement would undermine the general
approach. If LF-movement were possible, we need to account for why we need the overt
instances of scrambling, which are the original motivation for the mapping hypothesis. It is
25
One could object that (30) is not the right structure, and that the PP is attached higher than FPEA. This would be unlikely, though, because argumental PPs tend to be degraded in extraposed
position (the PP-over-V effect). In addition, an alternative word order is possible in which the PP is
between the adjective and the verb. This word order has the same interpretation as (29):
i. ... dat
er
iemand
bang voor muizen is
that
there someone afraid of mice
is
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
66
possible that overt movement and LF-movement both exist. But then we have to discuss the
conditions under which LF-movement is possible.
In fact, it seems that in general, LF-movement is not possible. There-sentences exhibit a
definiteness restriction (Milsark 1977), which means that the argument in a there-sentence
has to receive a weak interpretation. Strong quantifiers are ruled out in this construction
(31a), and weak DPs are only allowed on their weak interpretation (31b); (31b) does not
permit the partitive interpretation:
(31)
a. *There are both girls in the swimming pool
b. There are some girls in the swimming pool
In Dutch transitive expletive constructions, the definiteness restriction seems to hold for both
arguments (Bennis 1986):
(32)
a. *Er
hebben een paar studenten alle honden
there have
a pair
students all dogs
“A couple of students fed all dogs”
gevoerd
fed
b. *Er
haten een paar studenten honden
there hate a pair
students dogs
“A couple of students hate dogs”
These facts are explained on the (revised) Mapping Hypothesis. The objects in (32) are
somewhere in FP-EA and will therefore be mapped into the nuclear scope. However, the
objects in (32) are presuppositional (universally quantified in (32a), generic in (32b)), and
the existence presupposition is represented in the restrictive clause. We might expect these
examples to be grammatical if LF-movement to a position higher than FP-EA were possible.
The fact that they are not suggests that LF-movement is not an option.26 This makes (29)
problematic.
However, I have to admit that examples like (29), in which the higher indefinite gets an
existential interpretation, but the lower one is presuppositional, are exceptional. Curiously,
they are most readily accepted if one of the indefinites is embedded in a PP:
(33)
Dat
that
er
professoren gek
zijn
there professors
crazy are
op roddelbladen
on gossip-magazines
(had ik nooit gedacht)
had I never thought
“I would never have thought that there are professors who are crazy about gossip
magazines”
(34)
[It is best not to plan a fieldtrip to the animal shelter. I heard...]
... dat
er
een paar studenten allergisch zijn
that there a pair
students allergic are
“...that a couple of students are allergic to cats”
voor katten
for cats
Diesing does assume LF-movement for English (cf. fn. 12). The fact that it is not possible in (31)
may have an independent explanation. Note also that LF-movement for (32) may be ruled out if the
ban on reordering arguments (cf. fn. 20) also holds at LF. This would not explain why the order of
arguments can be changed by movement of PP-arguments, though.
26
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
(35)
67
[Tigers have been an endangered species for years. It is terrible...]
...dat er
nog steeds
jagers
op tijgers jagen
that there still constantly hunters on tigers hunt
“...that there are still hunters who hunt tigers”
While the meaning of the predicates in (29) and (33)-(35) certainly facilitates the generic
interpretation of the indefinites in their complements, not all predicates which have a
meaning that favors generic interpretation of the complement, allow this interpretation.
Consider (36). The sentence means roughly the same as (29), but the examples differ in that
the main predicate in (29) is an adjective, but a verb (36):
(36)
[We found some mice poison in the classroom. We think...]
??... dat
er
iemand muizen vreest,
maar we weten niet wie
that there someone mice
fears,
but we know not who
“...that someone fears mice, but we don’t know who”
We observe the same effect with strong DPs. Strong DPs are degraded in there-sentences, but
the sentence improves significantly if the strong DP is embedded in a PP. The examples in
(37) have roughly the same meaning. A context is provided to facilitate existential
interpretation of the external argument:
(37)
[Students have to pass the oral or written exam to receive their degree. It is very
rare that a student passes the written exam. The secretary is entering the grades
into the computer. She is surprised...]
a. ... dat
er
een
student voor
that there a
student for
“...that a student passed both exams”
b.
??... dat
beide examens geslaagd is
both exams
succeeded is
er
een
student beide examens
that there a
student both exams
“...that a student passed both exams”
gehaald
made
heeft
has
Hence, it seems that there is a contrast between DPs which are complements of verbs and
DPs which are complements of prepositions.27 Complements of prepositions can be
interpreted presuppositionally when they are apparently in FP-EA, but complements of verbs
cannot.
There are some exceptions to this claim, though. With a context that facilitates a generic
interpretation of the object, my informant accepts certain there-sentences with an
existentially interpreted external argument. These constructions seem to be most acceptable
with both arguments bare plurals:
The contrast might be related to the linear distance between the arguments. If the distance
between the arguments is increased by adding more material between them, the sentence improves for
my informant. I share this judgment, but I still feel the sentence is odd:
i. ... dat
er
een student
tegen alle verwachtingen in
beide examens gehaald heeft
that
there a student
against all expectations
both exams
made has
“...that contrary to all expectations, a student has passed both exams”
27
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
68
(38)
[A dangerous new virus has been discovered. It is spread by an insect that looks like a
mosquito.]
Dat
that
er
mensen
there people
muggen
mosquitoes
meteen
doodslaan
immediately dead.hit
kan ik me
can I myself
dus
goed voorstellen
therefore well imagine
“I can therefore imagine that there are people who kill mosquitoes right away”
(39)
[The paparazzi are becoming increasingly aggressive]
Dat
that
er
beroemdheden
there celebrities
fotografen
photographers
altijd ontlopen kan ik me
always avoid
can I myself
dus
goed voorstellen
therefore well imagine
“I can therefore imagine that there are celebrities who always avoid photographers”
If the external argument is replaced by a noun introduced by the indefinite article, the
acceptability decreases:
(40)
[The crew of a movie is bothered by paparazzi. A crewmember tells the director to do
something about it, because one of the actresses is avoiding the photographers, and
another one has filed a complaint. The director says:]
?Dat
that
er
een
there an
gek,
strange
actrice
actress
maar een
but
a
fotografen
photographers
aanklacht gaat
charge
goes
altijd ontloopt vind ik niet zo
always avoids
find I not so
toch
yet
echt te ver
really too far
“...that there is an actress who always avoids photographers is not so strange, I think,
but it goes too far to file charges”
Also, it is much harder to construct an example with a presuppositional object, in which the
object indefinite is not a bare plural:
(41)
[The students have to write an essay and hand it in anonymously. They have to
interview three people, and they have to ask for permission for each interview. Upon
grading the essays, the teacher notices that in one of the essays, five interviews are
cited. It therefore seems...]
?...
dat
er
een
leerling twee interviews
stiekem heeft gehouden
that there a
student two interviews
secretly has
held
“...that there is a student who has done two of his interviews secretly”
To conclude this section, there are counterexamples to the revised Mapping Hypothesis. If we
take FP-EA to mark the boundary between elements that will be mapped into the restrictive
clause and elements that will be mapped into the nuclear scope, we predict that it is not
possible for a sentence with two indefinites to have an interpretation in which the higher
indefinite receives an existential interpretation and the lower one a presuppositional
interpretation.
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
69
At this point, I have little to say about these exceptions. The exceptions concerning
indefinites in PPs are interesting, but I have to leave the problem unresolved for now. As for
the exceptions concerning DPs, more work needs to be done to get a clear picture of the data.
4. Discussion and concluding remarks
We have seen that Diesing’s approach offers a natural account of the interpretive differences
between sentences containing indefinites. However, when we apply her theory to a broader
range of data, it turns out that maintaining the Mapping Hypothesis comes at a cost.
Specifically, we have to ignore certain exceptions.28 Furthermore, we have to assume two
attachment sites for adjuncts, one at the boundary between the input to the restrictive clause
and the nuclear scope, and one within the domain that is the input to the nuclear scope. Also,
we have to assume two landing sites for the movement of an object; again, one within the
domain that is the input to the nuclear scope, and one that is in the domain that is the input
to the restrictive clause. But as far as word order can tell us, there is no evidence for two
landing sites or two attachment sites. As long as we do not have a principled explanation for
why a particular adjunct is adjoined to FP-EA or lower, and for why an object scrambles to
the position it does, the clause structure we ended up with could be considered ad hoc.
We might therefore attempt to simplify the clause structure. We could maintain the
notion of the mapping procedure, but reject the (revised) Mapping Hypothesis. That is, we
maintain that sentences are split into the tripartite structure, but we abandon the assumption
that each sentence is split according to the same (language specific) rule, leaving an account
of the input to the mapping procedure for future research. This allows us to adopt a clause
structure with only one position for the object to scramble to.
So instead of (42), we could adopt (43), the clause structure we arrive at if we only take
evidence based on word order into account. The part in italics can be mapped into the
restrictive clause, and the part that is underlined can be mapped into the nuclear scope:
(42)
[IP (sub) [FP-O1 (ob) [FP-EA (adj) [FP-EA (sub) [FP-O2 (ob) [VP (adj) [VP (ob) ]]]]]]]
(43)
[IP (sub) [FP-EA (adj) [FP-EA (sub) [FP-O (adj) [FP-O (ob) [VP (adj) [VP (ob) ]]]]]]
We can simplify (43) even further if we accept Zwart’s (1993) proposal that the object in
Dutch always moves into a licensing position:
(44) [IP (sub) [FP-EA (adj) [FP-EA (sub) [FP-O (adj) [FP-O (ob) [VP (adj) [VP ]]]]]]
(42) and (44) both have advantages and disadvantages. (42) allows a maximally simple
interface between the syntax and the level of interpretation, but complicates the syntax, and
(44) allows a maximally simple syntax, but complicates the interface. Diesing opts to keep the
interface simple, because based on her data (cf. 2.2), it seems that the difference between the
existential and the presuppositional interpretation can indeed be reduced to a difference in
the syntax. But the extended range of data reviewed in section 3. casts doubt on the validity of
this assumption. For this reason, we have to re-evaluate whether it is justified to take the
syntax as the source of interpretive differences between sentences containing indefinites.
From this perspective, it may be interesting to investigate whether there is a correlation
between the attachment sites for adjuncts that we postulated (cf. (42)) based on the mapping
procedure, and the attachment sites proposed in the syntactic literature. Cinque (1999)
argues that adverbs are ordered according to a hierarchy, and that this hierarchy is
28
We could stipulate that in these case, LF-movement applies, but this solution would be ad hoc.
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
70
represented in the syntax by a sequence of hierarchically ordered projections. The simplified
hierarchy looks like (45):29
(45)
Mood > Tense > Modality > Aspect > Voice
The symbol “>” should be read as “occupies a hierarchically higher position than”. Mood
adverbs include evidentials and evaluative adverbs like “unfortunately” and “apparently”, and
also epistemic modal adverbs like “probably”. Examples of tense adverbs are “yesterday”and
“tomorrow”; “necessarily” is a modal adverb. Aspectual adverbs come in various types, a good
example for our purposes is “always”. Lastly, the most typical voice adverbs are manner
adverbs, like “carefully”.
Now, if the difference between existential and presuppositional interpretation is a matter
of position in the syntactic tree, then we may expect that the adverbs we located at FP-EA in
3.2, are also higher than the ones we located at positions below FP-EA in Cinque’s (1999)
hierarchy of adverbs.30 The prediction is difficult to test, however. Recall the adjuncts we
identified as being attached below FP-EA. These are by-phrases in passive sentences (cf.
(20)) and adjunct clauses introduced by zonder “without” (cf. (21), (26), (28)). It is hard to
classify these phrases as one of the categories of (45); in fact, it seems that they belong to
none of them. In order to locate them in the tree, we have to compare the relative ordering of
such a phrase with respect to an adverb whose position we know from the hierarchy. As far as
we can tell from such a small sample, it seems that the position of these phrases is lower than
adverbs of the category Mood (46), Tense (47), Modality (48) and Aspect (49):
(46)
a. ... dat
that
Jan
Jan
helaas
unfortunately
b.
Jan
Jan
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say
why
??... dat
that
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say why
helaas
unfortunately
is weggegaan
is left
is weggegaan
is left
“...that Jan unfortunately left without saying why”
(47)
a. ... dat
that
Jan
Jan
gisteren
yesterday
b.
Jan
Jan
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say
why
??... dat
that
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say why
gisteren
yesterday
is weggegaan
is left
is weggegaan
is left
“...that Jan left yesterday without saying why”
(48)
a. ... dat
that
b.
??... dat
that
Jan
Jan
misschien
perhaps
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say why
Jan
Jan
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say
why
misschien
perhaps
is weggegaan
is left
is weggegaan
is left
I left out certain classes in (45). The hierarchy Cinque proposes orders the adverbs as follows:
Mood, Tense, Modality, Aspect, Modality, Aspect, Tense, Aspect, Voice, Aspect. The categories may
consist of subcategories that follow their own order. With a few exceptions, each adverb has only one
slot in the hierarchy, e.g. a particular aspectual adverb would only fit in one of the Aspect-slots. For the
purposes of this squib, the simplified hierarchy in (45) is sufficient.
30
Some linguists have argued against the hierarchy of projections. Bobaljik (1999) proposes that
adverbs are indeed ordered with respect to each other, but this does not necessarily reveals the
position of an adverb in the syntactic structure. The point I am making here assumes that there is an
an actual hierarchy of projections.
29
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
71
“...that Jan may have left without saying why”
(49)
a. ... dat
that
Jan
Jan
altijd
always
b.
Jan
Jan
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say
why
??... dat
that
zonder te zeggen waarom
without to say
why
altijd
always
weggaat
leaves
weggaat
leaves
“...that Jan always leaves without saying why”
Manner adverbs, however, preferably precede an adjunct clause (50):
(50)
a.
??... dat
that
Jan
Jan
zonder te betalen
without to pay
b. ... dat
that
Jan
Jan
stiekem
secretly
stiekem
secretly
zonder te betalen
without to pay
is weggegaan
is left
is weggegaan
is left
“...that Jan left in secret without paying”
Let us assume that (46)-(50) show that the adverbs which are attached below FP-EA, are
located below aspectual adverbs, but perhaps above voice adverbs. Now we can test our
prediction. We have an argument for the (revised) Mapping Hypothesis if the adverbs we
located at FP-EA are all higher than voice adverbs.
Recall the adverbs we identified as marking the boundary of FP-EA: immers “indeed” (cf.
(13), (17)), altijd “always” (cf. (24), (39), (40)), weleens “occasionally” (cf. (26), (28)), meteen
“immediately” and stiekem “secretly” (41). If we take immers as a mood adverb, meteen,
weleens and altijd as aspectual adverbs, and stiekem as a voice adverb, then the adverbs at
the boundary of FP-EA seem to represent the entire hierarchy in (45).31 This suggests that the
prediction is not borne out: adjuncts below FP-EA are probably located higher than voice
adverbs (cf. (50), but voice adverbs like “secretly” are probably as high as FP-EA if the
structure in (42) is correct.
Thus, the ordering we assumed on the evidence from the mapping procedure (42),
contradicts the (preliminary) evidence based on word order ((46)-(50)). This result has
important consequences for the Mapping Hypothesis: there is no independent evidence for
the view that the syntactic structure is the source of the difference between the existential and
the presuppositional interpretation. We can adjust the syntax so as to derive the difference,
but we have seen that there are no syntactic reasons to do so. I would therefore suggest that
Mapping Hypothesis is too strong. The tree splitting procedure may be correct, but we can no
longer assume that there is a fixed point in the tree structure along which the tree is split.
Future research into the interface between syntax and interpretation may shed light on what
may be the real cues for the mapping procedure.
References
Beek, J. ter (2005) “TP and Transparency in Dutch.” LABG handout.
Bennis, H. (1986) Gaps and Dummies. Foris, Dordrecht
I am not sure how Cinque (1993) would classify immers, but it seems to have an affirmative
quality in that it calls attention to a part of the shared background, which we therefore take to be true
(cf. fn. 18). For this reason, I take immers to be an evaluative adverb, belonging to the class of mood
adverbs.
31
72
GAGL 46 (2008)
Ter Beek, Dutch indefinites, word order, and the Mapping Principle
Besten, H. den, J. Rutten, T. Veenstra & J. Veld (1988). “Verb Raising, Extrapositie en
de Derde Constructie” [Verb Raising, Extraposition and the Third Construction]
ms., University of Amsterdam.
Bobaljik, J. (1999) Adverbs: the Hierarchy Paradox. Glot International 4: 27–28.
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Heim, I. & A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell Publishing,
London.
Hoop, H. de (1992) Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Groningen.
Milsark, G. (1977) “Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential
construction in English.” Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.
Zwart, C.J.W. (1993). Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Groningen.