Nouns and Noun Phrases - University of Macau Library

932 Syntax of Dutch: nouns and noun phrases
Apparently, the category of the complement of the individual-level verb matters
when it comes to the adverbial use of veel as a degree-of-intensity quantifier. Data
confirming this conclusion are provided in (189).
(189) a. Hij hecht veel aan kwaliteit. a′. *Hij waardeert kwaliteit veel.
he attaches much to quality he appreciates quality much
b. Hij vertrouwt veel op Marie. b′. *Hij vertrouwt Marie veel.
he trusts much on Marie he trusts Marie much
The two primeless examples differ in that veel can readily receive the desired
degree-of-intensity reading in (189a), whereas it instead receives a degree-offrequency
reading in (189b); in the latter example, the degree-of-intensity is more
naturally expressed with the aid of adverbs like erg/zeer ‘very’. Be that as it may,
the fact that no reading is available for veel in the primed examples in (189) shows
that the nature of the complement is an important factor when it comes to the
distribution of adverbial veel: veel is impossible when the stage-level predicate
takes a nominal complement.
It is, however, not the nature of the complement alone that regulates the
adverbial distribution of veel; the individual-level/stage-level distinction is a crucial
factor as well. This is evident from the fact that the transitive stage-level verbs in
(190) are perfectly compatible with adverbial veel. These examples show not only
that transitivity is not the crucial factor, but also that agentivity is not implicated in
the dichotomy: the two examples in (190) differ with respect to agentivity but not in
acceptability. That agentivity is not involved is also clear from the fact that the
examples in (188b) and (190b) are both non-agentive but do contrast in acceptability.
(190) a. Hij kust Marie veel.
he kisses Marie much
b. Dat zie je hier veel.
that see you here much
‘One sees that a lot around here.’
6.3. Quantitative er
We conclude this chapter with a discussion of so-called quantitative er, which is
exemplified in the examples in (191). These examples show that quantitative er is
associated with an interpretative gap [e] contained within a noun phrase. The reason
why we discuss quantitative er in this chapter on numerals and quantifiers is that it
normally requires that some quantificational element be present: the noun phrase in
the second conjunct of example (191a), for example, contains the cardinal numeral
drie ‘three’ and the noun phrase in the second conjunct of example (191b) contains
the quantifier veel ‘many’.
(191) a. Jan heeft twee boeken en Piet heeft er [drie [e]].
Jan has two books and Piet has ER three
b. Jan heeft weinig boeken maar Marie heeft er [veel [e]].
Jan has few books but Marie has ER many