The P + CP pattern from a cross-linguistic perspective

To conclude my overview of the P + CP pattern, I briefly consider some data from other Germanic languages to show that Dutch is not unique in displaying the P+CP pattern.

As the data in (60) show, P + CPs are also found in all mainland Scandinavian languages. These languages differ from Dutch in that P+CP does not alternate with a

resumptive pronoun+P+CP pattern:17

(60) a. Danish

Peter tvivlar på at Maria ofte ryger disse cigarer.

Peter doubts on that Mary often smokes these cigars. b. Swedish

Peter tvivlar på att Maria talar sanning.

Peter doubts on that Mary speaks the truth. c. Norwegian

John tvilte på at Maria forteller sannheten.

John doubted on that Mary tells truth-DEF

The P+CP pattern is also found in Frisian, where, as in Dutch, it alternates with a

resumptive pronoun pattern (in Frisian der+P+CP): 18

(61) a. Ik warskôge har foar dat it glêd wie.

I warned her for that it slippery was

b. Ik warskôge har der foar dat it glêd wie.

I warned her there for that it slippery was.

Frisian is similar to Dutch in that there seems to be a correlation with factivity to the extent that the CP can occur in complement position only if the matrix verb is factive:

(62) a. Factive

Hy klage oer dat de besine sa djoer wie.

he complained about that the petrol so expensive was b. Non-factive

* Ik hope op dat ik de trein helje soe.

I hoped on that I the train catch would

Furthermore, as in Dutch, extraction out of P+CP constructions is not allowed:

(63) * Hokker boek betanke er dy foar datst ti meinommen hiest?

which book thanked he you for that-2SG brought had-2SG

Frisian and Dutch differ in this respect from Norwegian, where extraction out of P + CP is possible:

(64) Hvai tvilte John på at Maria ville si ti ?

what doubted John on that Mary would say?

18_{With “Frisian” I mean West-Frisian, i.e. the language spoken in the Dutch province of Friesland. I am}

In addition, Norwegian P + CPs do not display any restrictions with respect to the factivity of the matrix predicate:

(65) a. Factive

Hun led [ under [ at sjefen hennes drakk]].

she suffered under that boss-DEF her drank.

b. Non-factive

Han regent [ med [ at hun ville behandle ham pent]].

he counted with that she would treat him nice.

The facts in (65) suggest that in Norwegian (and, more generally, in mainland Scandinavian), the CP is the direct complement of the preposition. Given that Scandinavian allows P stranding, the possibility of extraction in P + CP is in fact expected. In Dutch and Frisian, on the other hand, the impossibility of extraction suggests that the CP is not the direct complement of the preposition, despite the fact that the P + CP configuration behaves as a constituent. This suggests, then, that in Dutch and Frisian there is intervening structure between the P and the CP. I will argue in §4.3 that the structure in question is a DP shell. This makes it possible to relate the ban on extraction to the complex NP condition of Ross (1967).

To conclude this section, consider the following data from English: (66) a. * We had forgotten to remind him about that he had not paid yet. b. * He did not wish to comment on that the trains are so often late. (Seppänen 1989:322)

(66ab) show that English verbal collocations do not allow P + CP structures. The sentences in (66ab) can be made grammatical by inserting a “dummy” DP between the preposition and the CP, as in (67):

(67) He did not wish to comment on {the fact/it} that the trains are so often late. But now consider (68ab), where the CPs have been preposed:

(68) a. That he had not yet paid we had forgotten to remind him about.

b. That the trains are so often late he did not wish to comment on.

(68ab) suggest an analysis in which the CP has been topicalised and the preposition has been stranded. However, the problem with such an analysis is that the facts in (66ab) appear to imply that the P + CP order does not form part of the underlying

representation.19

19_{Note that there is a difference between Dutch and English with respect to LDL that might play a role in}

this context. In Dutch LDL structures, it is possible to use an R-pronoun or a demonstrative directly following the dislocated constituent:

This brief cross-linguistic overview presented above shows that the P + CP pattern is not a unique property of Dutch. It also shows that languages display often quite subtle variation in respect of the syntactic behaviour of P + CP structures. This variation involves differences in constituency, extraction and P-stranding, as well as differences in sensitivity to the semantic properties of the matrix verb. I leave this variation as a topic for further research. In the remainder of this chapter I will focus on the P + CP structure found in Dutch collocations.