Nouns and Noun Phrases - University of Macau Library

(252) a. Wati zouden hem nou [NP ti voor een boeken] bevallen?
what would him PRT for a books please
‘What kind of books would please him?’
b. *Wati zouden [NP ti voor een boeken]j hem nou tj bevallen?
Binominal constructions 663
When we are dealing with a monadic unaccusative verb, the wat voor split is
possible also, but only in the expletive construction. This can be accounted for by
assuming that in expletive constructions, the regular subject position is filled by the
expletive er, so the nominative argument must occupy its base position in (253a).
Example (253b) is ungrammatical since er must be present when the indefinite
subject remains in its base position. Example (253c), finally, is ungrammatical since
the nominative argument has been moved into the regular position, and hence
invokes a violation of the freezing principle.
(253) a. Wati zijn er gisteren [NP ti voor mensen] aangekomen?
what are there yesterday for people prt.-arrived
‘What kind of people have arrived yesterday?’
b. *? Wati zijn gisteren [NP ti voor mensen] aangekomen?
c. *Wati zijn [NP ti voor mensen]j gisteren tj aangekomen?
Note, however, that there is a caveat in order here. In (253) and in the examples
below, we abstract away from the fact that expletive er can be dropped when certain
adverbial phrases are present. A typical example involves the place adverb daar
‘there’ in (254); see Section 8.1.4 for discussion. The fact that the wat voor remnant
is placed after the adverb daar suggests that in this example the indefinite subject
also occupies its base position.
(254) Wat zijn (er) daar voor mensen aangekomen?
what are there there for people prt.-arrived
‘What kind of people have arrived there?’
The wat voor split can be sensitive to the semantic type of the predicate,
especially the distinction between °stage-level and individual-level predicates.
Whereas the former often allow the expletive construction, the latter do not due to
the fact that they block an existential reading of the subject noun phrase; see
Hartmann (2008: §1.4) for a review of the literature. Therefore, it is not surprising
that in a copular construction (which is always an unaccusative construction), the
adjectival predicate determines whether wat voor split is possible or not. A typical
stage-level predicate like beschikbaar ‘available’ allows the wat voor split whereas
an individual-level predicate like waterdicht ‘waterproof’ does not; see Section
5.1.5.1.3, sub I) for exceptions. Example (255b) with er is unacceptable because the
individual-level predicate waterdicht does not license an existential reading of the
noun phrase schoenen ‘shoes’ and is therefore not possible in an expletive
construction. Finally, (255b′) without er is ungrammatical due to the freezing
principle.