Close Studypack

Syntax: More on ER – theoretical problems (advanced)

Probleem van Bech

This is a fairly technical story, so don’t worry if you don’t get all the details. Just try to understand the gist of the story!

Consider the sentences in 12 (Because she is being watched):

12.

omdat er naar ___ gekeken wordt. (prepositional)
*omdat ___ naar ___ gekeken wordt.
omdat ___ naar haar gekeken wordt. (expletive)
omdat er naar haar gekeken wordt.

Note that ER is in the same position in all these sentences (because it is a clitic that attaches to ‘omdat’). We can deduce that expletive ER is optional in d because sentence c is the same sentence without ER, and it’s grammatical. At the same time we have to say that prepositional ER in a is obligatory; because b is ungrammatical (it is the same sentence without ER).

Now here’s the difficult part. Take a closer look at sentence 12a:

If ER in a were an expletive only then b should have been grammatical (because we have seen in c that expletive is optional rather than obligatory). BUT if ER in a were prepositional only, then c would have to be ungrammatical (because b shows us that prepositional ER is obligatory.

Apparently the only correct conclusion is that in 12a the expletive and prepositional features of ER are present in just one word ER. This is known as “Bech’s Probleem”; how is it possible that one word can fulfill two functions?

It is now possible to calculate how many combinations are possible in principle, then how many are actually used in Dutch and then the obvious task is to explain why certain combinations (say, prepositional and expletive) are possible while others aren’t. This is a very technical and rather impossible story that we won’t bother you with here.

Het Dubbele R-probleem

Understanding the “Dubbele R-probleem” requires understanding of some fairly difficult Dutch sentences, with only the slightest difference in meaning, and a reasonable amount of grammatical insight. Let us try to just grasp what the problem is, and leave the possible solutions for what they are (which is very interesting and complex!).

Take a look at 13:

13.

Zij heeft Jan thuis vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd.
She often accused Jan of unfaithfulness at home.
Zij heeft er Jan thuis vaak van beschuldigd. prep.
She often accused Jan of it at home.
Waar heeft zij Jan thuis vaak van beschuldigd?
Of what did she accuses Jan often at home?

13b is understood to mean that ER means (refers to) ‘ontrouw’ (Just like ‘it’ refers to ‘unfaithfulness’). ER is prepositional (it’s part of ‘ervan’). ‘Waar’ in 13c is also prepositional (waar is an R-word, and it refers to the preposition ‘van’).

Now look at 14:

14.

Zij heeft Jan thuis vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd.
She often accused Jan of unfaithfulness at home.
Zij heeft er Jan vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd. loc.
She often accused Jan of unfaithfulness there.
Waar heeft zij Jan vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd?
Where did she often accuse Jan of unfaithfulness?

Notice that 14a is the same as 13a. In 14b ER is locative and not prepositional as in 13b. That is because ER refers to ‘thuis’ and not to ‘ontrouw’. ‘Waar’ in 14c is also a locative.

We saw that we can replace both ‘ontrouw’ and ‘thuis’ with an R-word. What we haven’t tried yet is to replace both words in 1 sentence (so we would get 2 R-words in 1 sentence…double-R!).

Bear in mind that the main sentence we’re working from is:

Zij heeft Jan THUIS vaak van ONTROUW beschuldigd.
She has Jan at home often of unfaithfulness accused.
‘She often accuses Jan of unfaithfulness at home’

In syntax it is common practice to try things with sentences without caring about the results, just to see if something is possible at least in theory. Let us try a little experiment!

What if we replace ‘thuis’ in 13b with ‘waar’ (and then move ‘waar’ to the front of the sentence, because it is a ‘wh’ word)? We would get 13b. If we replace ‘ontrouw’ in 13c with ER we get 13c:

13b. Waar_{1 (LOC)} heeft zij er₂ Jan e₁ vaak van e₂ beschuldigd?

13c. Waar₂ heeft zij er_{1 (LOC)} Jan e₁ vaak van e₂ beschuldigd?

We put the little numbers_1&2 with the words so we can keep track of what word refers to what. The ‘e’ stands for empty, as if to say we left a hole where the original word used to be. So ‘waar₁’ is supposed to refer to ‘thuis’ in 13b, because it has the same number as the ‘e₁’ that now fills the place where ‘thuis’ once used to be. In short: ‘waar’ in 13b is a LOCATIVE (and ER is prepositional).

However, in 13c ER refers to ‘thuis’. In other words; ER is LOCATIVE. (Can you see why?)

So far you probably think: ‘So what’s the problem? In one sentence ‘waar’ is locative, in the other ER is locative, great!’ But see what happens if we take all the numbers and ‘e’s away in 13b and 13c: in both cases we’re left with 15.

15.

Waar heeft zij er Jan vaak van beschuldigd?

Based on what we’ve seen in 13 we would expect this sentence to have two possible meanings (it would be >ambiguous); in one ‘waar’ refers to ‘thuis’ in the other ER refers to ‘thuis’. Just by hearing this sentence a listener can’t tell if ‘waar’ refers to e₁ or e₂.

Now the problem is that sentence 15 is NOT ambiguous. ‘Waar’ in 15 can only be understood to be locative (i.e. to refer to ‘thuis’), as we can see in 15.

15a. Waar(LOC) heeft zij er Jan vaak van beschuldigd?
15b. *Waar heeft zij er(LOC) Jan vaak van beschuldigd?

The problem for linguists is to try and find an explanation. Why isn’t sentence 14) ambiguous? What is it about (Dutch) grammar that we cannot understand ER to be locative in 14)? Huybregts has proposed some interesting ideas and other linguists are actively debating the precise nature of the principles involved here. The theoretic problems that come with such explanations are further complicated by disagreement on the grammaticality of the sentences involved.

Conclusion

We have learned that ER is an R-clitic, a ‘weaker’ unstressed version of a strong R-word. However, ER can also be used for grammatical reasons in places where R-words cannot be used.

We now know that ER has to be used in GRAMMATICAL and QUANTITATIVE positions. For LOCATIVES and PREPOSITIONALS we can use both ER and ‘hier/daar’. Generally speaking ‘hier/daar’ are used in cases where stress is needed (for example to indicate a contrast).

R-words seem to be limited by some constraints on their use. Sometimes you only need 1 R-word to fulfill more than 1 function (for example expletive and prepositional), this is know as >Bech’s Probleem. (The problem being that we have to explain how this is possible.) Another constraint is that you cannot use an unlimited number of R-words in a sentence. In a sentence with several R-words not all theoretical possible readings are possible in ‘real life’. This is what Huybregts dubbed ‘>het Dubbele R-Probleem’.

next
(phonology and phonetics)



Dutch Linguistics Home Welcome Outline of course Terminology Syntax Word Order Verb Second ER Sound structure Meaning Glossary References Further reading Feedback form Copyright Close Studypack	Syntax: More on ER – theoretical problems (advanced) Probleem van Bech This is a fairly technical story, so don’t worry if you don’t get all the details. Just try to understand the gist of the story! Consider the sentences in 12 (Because she is being watched): 12. omdat er naar ___ gekeken wordt. (prepositional) omdat ___ naar ___ gekeken wordt. omdat ___ naar haar gekeken wordt. (expletive) omdat er naar haar gekeken wordt. Note that ER is in the same position in all these sentences (because it is a clitic that attaches to ‘omdat’). We can deduce that expletive ER is optional in d because sentence c is the same sentence without ER, and it’s grammatical. At the same time we have to say that prepositional ER in a is obligatory; because b is ungrammatical (it is the same sentence without ER). Now here’s the difficult part. Take a closer look at sentence 12a: If ER in a were an expletive only then b should have been grammatical (because we have seen in c that expletive is optional rather than obligatory). BUT if ER in a were prepositional only, then c would have to be ungrammatical (because b shows us that prepositional ER is obligatory. Apparently the only correct conclusion is that in 12a the expletive and prepositional features of ER are present in just one word ER. This is known as “Bech’s Probleem”; how is it possible that one word can fulfill two functions? It is now possible to calculate how many combinations are possible in principle, then how many are actually used in Dutch and then the obvious task is to explain why certain combinations (say, prepositional and expletive) are possible while others aren’t. This is a very technical and rather impossible story that we won’t bother you with here. Het Dubbele R-probleem Understanding the “Dubbele R-probleem” requires understanding of some fairly difficult Dutch sentences, with only the slightest difference in meaning, and a reasonable amount of grammatical insight. Let us try to just grasp what the problem is, and leave the possible solutions for what they are (which is very interesting and complex!). Take a look at 13: 13. Zij heeft Jan thuis vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd. She often accused Jan of unfaithfulness at home.* Zij heeft er Jan thuis vaak van beschuldigd. prep. She often accused Jan of it at home. Waar heeft zij Jan thuis vaak van beschuldigd? Of what did she accuses Jan often at home? 13b is understood to mean that ER means (refers to) ‘ontrouw’ (Just like ‘it’ refers to ‘unfaithfulness’). ER is prepositional (it’s part of ‘ervan’). ‘Waar’ in 13c is also prepositional (waar is an R-word, and it refers to the preposition ‘van’). Now look at 14: 14. Zij heeft Jan thuis vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd. She often accused Jan of unfaithfulness at home. Zij heeft er Jan vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd. loc. She often accused Jan of unfaithfulness there. Waar heeft zij Jan vaak van ontrouw beschuldigd? Where did she often accuse Jan of unfaithfulness? Notice that 14a is the same as 13a. In 14b ER is locative and not prepositional as in 13b. That is because ER refers to ‘thuis’ and not to ‘ontrouw’. ‘Waar’ in 14c is also a locative. We saw that we can replace both ‘ontrouw’ and ‘thuis’ with an R-word. What we haven’t tried yet is to replace both words in 1 sentence (so we would get 2 R-words in 1 sentence…double-R!). Bear in mind that the main sentence we’re working from is: Zij heeft Jan THUIS vaak van ONTROUW beschuldigd. She has Jan at home often of unfaithfulness accused. ‘She often accuses Jan of unfaithfulness at home’ In syntax it is common practice to try things with sentences without caring about the results, just to see if something is possible at least in theory. Let us try a little experiment! What if we replace ‘thuis’ in 13b with ‘waar’ (and then move ‘waar’ to the front of the sentence, because it is a ‘wh’ word)? We would get 13b. If we replace ‘ontrouw’ in 13c with ER we get 13c: 13b. Waar_{1 (LOC)} heeft zij er₂ Jan e₁ vaak van e₂ beschuldigd? 13c. Waar₂ heeft zij er_{1 (LOC)} Jan e₁ vaak van e₂ beschuldigd? We put the little numbers_1&2 with the words so we can keep track of what word refers to what. The ‘e’ stands for empty, as if to say we left a hole where the original word used to be. So ‘waar₁’ is supposed to refer to ‘thuis’ in 13b, because it has the same number as the ‘e₁’ that now fills the place where ‘thuis’ once used to be. In short: ‘waar’ in 13b is a LOCATIVE (and ER is prepositional). However, in 13c ER refers to ‘thuis’. In other words; ER is LOCATIVE. (Can you see why?) So far you probably think: ‘So what’s the problem? In one sentence ‘waar’ is locative, in the other ER is locative, great!’ But see what happens if we take all the numbers and ‘e’s away in 13b and 13c: in both cases we’re left with 15. 15. Waar heeft zij er Jan vaak van beschuldigd? Based on what we’ve seen in 13 we would expect this sentence to have two possible meanings (it would be >ambiguous); in one ‘waar’ refers to ‘thuis’ in the other ER refers to ‘thuis’. Just by hearing this sentence a listener can’t tell if ‘waar’ refers to e₁ or e₂. Now the problem is that sentence 15 is NOT ambiguous. ‘Waar’ in 15 can only be understood to be locative (i.e. to refer to ‘thuis’), as we can see in 15. 15a. Waar(LOC) heeft zij er Jan vaak van beschuldigd? 15b. Waar heeft zij er(LOC) Jan vaak van beschuldigd? The problem for linguists is to try and find an explanation. Why isn’t sentence 14) ambiguous? What is it about (Dutch) grammar that we cannot understand ER to be locative in 14)? Huybregts has proposed some interesting ideas and other linguists are actively debating the precise nature of the principles involved here. The theoretic problems that come with such explanations are further complicated by disagreement on the grammaticality of the sentences involved. Conclusion We have learned that ER is an R-clitic, a ‘weaker’ unstressed version of a strong R-word. However, ER can also be used for grammatical reasons in places where R-words cannot be used. We now know that ER has to be used in GRAMMATICAL and QUANTITATIVE positions. For LOCATIVES and PREPOSITIONALS we can use both ER and ‘hier/daar’. Generally speaking ‘hier/daar’* are used in cases where stress is needed (for example to indicate a contrast). R-words seem to be limited by some constraints on their use. Sometimes you only need 1 R-word to fulfill more than 1 function (for example expletive and prepositional), this is know as >Bech’s Probleem. (The problem being that we have to explain how this is possible.) Another constraint is that you cannot use an unlimited number of R-words in a sentence. In a sentence with several R-words not all theoretical possible readings are possible in ‘real life’. This is what Huybregts dubbed ‘>het Dubbele R-Probleem’. next (phonology and phonetics)