UITWENDIGE SYNTAXIS VAN VOEGWOORDVERVOEGING EN WERKWOORDELIJKE INVERSIEVORMEN.

From the late middle-Ages onward, most variants of Dutch develop two new properties: double present tense paradigms (direct versus inverted) and inflected complementizers. There are two approaches that relate the two phenomena. Goeman (1980) accounts for inverted presents and complementizer inflection in terms of a encliticization from the nominal domain, i.e. the structural subject position. Zwart (1993) develops a formal analysis that casts the opposition in terms of two distinct inflections in the extended verbal domain (C and I-inflection). The diachronic and geographic distribution of both phenomena do not co-occur, however. In this paper, we make a contrastive formal analysis of Goeman's and Zwart's approach. Subsequently are discussed: non-modification of the subject, the ban on the port-manteau effects in the Comp-inflection, correlation with asymmetric V2 and with number neutralisation in the pronominal system, diachronic correlation between decay of negative comp-inflection and rise of pronominal comp-inflection. It is concluded that the origin of comp inflection must be a combined extraction from both the nominal domain and the extended verbal domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]