Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

1.3.1.4.Ge-nominalization

quickinfo

Deverbal nouns prefixed with ge- (from now on: ge-nominalizations) are characterized by the fact that they inherit the denotation (namely, state of affairs) and the argument structure of the verb they are derived from. In this sense, they are not fully nominal, although, unlike inf-nominalizations, they cannot assign case to a theme and/or a recipient argument. They do, however, exhibit the verbal property of expressing durative aspect. This following subsections will discuss the form of the derived noun, its relation to the base verb and the restrictions on the derivational process. In Section 2.2.3.4, a comprehensive discussion of complementation of ge-nouns can be found.

I. Form of the derived noun
II. Nominal properties
III. Relation to the base verb
IV. Restrictions on the derivational process
V. The degree of verbalness/nominalness

[+] I. Form of the derived noun

Prefixation of a verb stem with the affix ge-, resulting in the form ge-Vstem, is a reasonably productive nominalization process. Ge-nominalizations share their denotation with the verb from which they are derived, that is, they denote states of affairs. Their verbal nature is also reflected in the fact that, like inf- and ing-nominalizations, they can be said to inherit the arguments of the base verb. Some examples are given in (160).

160

a.		Het	gewandel	van de patiënten	in het Vondelpark	trok	veel aandacht.
		the	strolling	of the patients	in the Vondelpark	attracted	much attention

b.	Het	getreiter	van peuters	door grote jongens	is ontoelaatbaar.
	the	bullying	of toddlers	by big boys	is inadmissible
	'The pestering of toddlers by big boys is inadmissible.'

As in the case of ing-nominalizations, it is important to realize that not all nouns with the prefix ge- are ge-nominalizations. Some nouns starting with ge-, although morphologically similar to true ge-nominalizations and semantically still related to the base verb, have acquired a concrete meaning, and can be interpreted as result nouns. Examples are given in (161), which refer to the result of the action of building, baking and verse-writing.

161

gebouw

'building'

gebak

'cake'

gedicht

'poem'

Although in their prototypical use, the nouns in (161) denote concrete entities, it is still possible to use them as ge-nominalizations. Examples of both uses of the nouns gebouw and gebak are given in (162): in (162a) the concrete noun gebouw is modified by the PP-modifier op de hoek'on the corner'; in (162a'), the abstract noun is complemented by an (inherited) van-PP and can be replaced by an inf-nominalization. Similar examples are given in (162b&b').

162

a.	Het grote gebouw/*bouwen	op de hoek	is een bank.
	the big building	on the corner	is a bank
	'The big building at the corner is a bank.'

a'.	Er	moet	een einde	komen	aan het gebouw/bouwen	van woningen	hier.
	there	must	an end	come	to the building/build	of houses	here
	'The building of houses here ought to be put to a stop.'

b.		Het gebak	stond	op tafel.
		the cake	stood	on the.table

b'.	Het	?gebak/bakken	van deze taartjes	duurde	lang.
	the	baking/bake	of these cakesdim	took	long
	'The baking of these little cakes took a long time.'

The ge-nouns in the primeless examples in (163) are fully lexicalized; their relation with the corresponding verb is no longer obvious.

163

het geval

'the case'

het geschil

'the dispute'

het gewaad

'the gown'

The examples in (164) show that the state-of-affairs reading can be blocked by the lexicalized form in some cases, whereas in other cases it remains available.

164

a.	*	het geval	van de bladeren
		the falling	of the leaves

b.		zijn geschil	van de aardappels
		his peeling	of the potatoes

c.		het	gewaad	door koud water
		the	wading	through cold water

Ge-nominalization is fully productive with verbs denoting sound emission, both by +human or +animate and by -animate entities, as is illustrated in (165). It is not hard to find more examples for each set.

165

Humans: het gelach van de kinderen'the laughing of the children'; gebabbel'chattering', gefluister'whispering', gefluit'whistling', gegiechel'giggling', gehijg'panting', gehuil'crying', gejuich'cheering', gekuch'couching', gemopper'grumbling', geschater'roaring with laughter', geschreeuw'shouting', gezeur'nagging', gezwam'drivel', etc.Humans: het gelach van de kinderen'the laughing of the children'; gebabbel'chattering', gefluister'whispering', gefluit'whistling', gegiechel'giggling', gehijg'panting', gehuil'crying', gejuich'cheering', gekuch'couching', gemopper'grumbling', geschater'roaring with laughter', geschreeuw'shouting', gezeur'nagging', gezwam'drivel', etc.

Animals: het geloei van de koeien'the mooing of the cows'; geblaf'barking', gebrul'roaring', geloei'mooing', and gespin'purring', etc.Animals: het geloei van de koeien'the mooing of the cows'; geblaf'barking', gebrul'roaring', geloei'mooing', and gespin'purring', etc.

Inanimate entities: het gebonk van de machines'the pounding of the engines'; geronk'throbbing', gesnor'whirring', gesuis'rustling', and gezoem'buzzing', etc.Inanimate entities: het gebonk van de machines'the pounding of the engines'; geronk'throbbing', gesnor'whirring', gesuis'rustling', and gezoem'buzzing', etc.

For the verbs in (165), too, a distinction can be made between a state-of-affairs reading, in which case we are dealing with a ge-nominalization denoting the action in question, or a result reading, in which case we are dealing with a result noun denoting the sounds resulting from the action in question. Although in many cases the difference may be hard to discern, certain contexts can have a disambiguating effect. An example is given in (166): the (a)-example involves a ge-nominalization and expresses that it is the fact that he cries that annoys me; the (b)-example involves a result noun and expresses that it is the sound of his crying that kept me awake.

166

a.		Zijn gehuil	om niets	irriteert	mij	mateloos.
		his crying	for nothing	annoys	me	immensely

b.		Zijn gehuil	hield	mij	uit mijn slaap.
		his crying	kept	me	out my sleep

[+] II. Nominal properties

Like inf- and ing-nominalizations, ge-nominalizations can be used in all regular NP positions. Moreover, they exhibit most of the other nominal characteristics.

[+] A. Determiners

Ge-nominalizations can be both indefinite and definite, allowing all kinds of definite +neuter determiners: the definite article het, the demonstratives dit/dat'this/that' and the possessive pronouns. They can also be quantified by means of elke/iedere'each/every', alle'all', veel/weinig'many/few' etc. Examples are given in (167).

167

a.		De vergadering	ontaardde	in een oeverloos	gepraat	over politiek.
		the meeting	ended	in an endless	talking	about politics

b.		Dat/Hun oeverloze gepraat	over politiek	is nogal irritant.
		that/their endless talking	about politics	is rather irritating

c.	Elk gepraat over politiek	is volslagen zinloos.
	every talking about politics	is utterly pointless
	'All talk about politics is utterly pointless.'

[+] B. Wh-movement and Topicalization

ge-nominalizations can also be preceded by interrogative determiners like welke, and (168a) shows that they can be wh-moved as a result. Example (168b) shows that they can also be topicalized.

168

a.	Welk gepraat over politiek	is	nu	ooit	zinvol	gebleken?
	which talking about politics	has	prt	ever	useful	proved
	'What talk about politics has ever proved useful?'

b.	Het gepraat	dat op de vergadering volgde	vond	Jan zinloos.
	the talking	that on the meeting followed	found	Jan pointless
	'Jan consider the talking following the meeting pointless.'

[+] C. Pluralization

Pluralization of ge-nominalizations is not possible. This is, of course, not surprising, given that ge-nominalizations are substance nouns; cf. Section 1.2.2.1. The fact that some of the concrete ge-nouns and lexicalized nouns in (161) and (163) do allow pluralization merely confirms the view that these are not ge-nominalizations. Examples are, respectively, gebouw(en)'building(s)', gedicht(en)'poem(s)', and geschil(len)'dispute(s)' and gewaad/gewaden'gowns'.

[+] D. Modification

Ge-nominalizations also behave like nouns with respect to adjectival modification: the fact that the adjectives prefer the suffix -e in definite constructions like (169a&b) shows that we are dealing with attributive modifiers, not with adverbial phrases. Nevertheless, the fact illustrated in the primed examples, that modification by means of adjectives expressing frequency or duration is possible, underlines the verbal quality of these nominals.

169

a.		het	luide/?luid	gepraat	over politiek
		the	loud	talking	about politics

a'.		het	oeverloze/?oeverloos	gepraat	over politiek
		the	endless	talking	about politics

b.		het	kinderachtige/??kinderachtig	getreiter	van kleine kinderen
		the	childish	bullying	of little children

b'.		het	voortdurend/??voortdurend	getreiter	van kleine kinderen
		the	constant	bullying	of little children

[+] III. Relation to the base verb

Ge-nominalization can be said to inherit the argument structure of the input verb. Apart from the change in syntactic category (from v to ge-n), the argument structure of the input verb remains unaffected by the derivational process: both the number of arguments and their thematic functions remain essentially the same. The only difference is that while the arguments of the input verb normally are obligatorily present, those of the derived noun are not. We will illustrate this in the following subsections for a number of verb types.

[+] A. Intransitive verbs

Example (170) provides a ge-nominalization with an intransitive input verb: both the verb wandelen'to stroll' and the ge-nominalization gewandel'strolling' have an argument structure with a position for an agent argument. As can be seen from (170b&b'), the agent can appear either postnominally as a van-PP or prenominally as a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. Observe that the derived form is given the label ge-n, rather than N, in order to express the special nature of the derived noun, with its combination of nominal and verbal features.

170

a.		gewandelGE-N (Agent)
		strolling

b.		het	gewandel	van de patiëntenAgent
		the	strolling	of the patients

b'.		hun/PetersAgent	gewandel
		their/Peterʼs	strolling

[+] B. Transitive verbs

Ge-nominalizations can also take a transitive verb like treiteren'to bully' as input. Despite the change in syntactic category, the argument structure of the verb is inherited in an essentially unchanged form by the derived form getreiter: both the number of arguments and their thematic functions remain the same. The verb and the derived noun do differ, however, in that the arguments are obligatorily expressed with the former, but can be left implicit with the latter. The (c)-examples in (171) further show that the theme argument of a ge-nominalization can only be realized in the form of a postnominal van-PP; it can appear neither in the form of a prenominal noun phrase (in contrast to inf-nominalizations), nor in the form of a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase (in contrast to er- and ing-nominalizations).

171

a.		getreiterGE-N (Agent, Theme)
		bullying

b.		JansAgent	getreiter	van peutersTheme	is onaanvaardbaar.
		Janʼs	bullying	of toddlers	is unacceptable

c.	*	het	peutersTheme	getreiter	van/door JanAgent
		the	toddlers	bullying	of Jan

c'.	*	hunTheme	getreiter	door JanAgent
		their	bullying	by Jan

[+] C. Ditransitive verbs.

The examples in (172a&b) show that ge-nominalizations of ditransitive verbs also leave the argument structure essentially unchanged, although instances of such nominalizations where all three arguments are expressed are fairly rare. The (c)-examples show that, just like the theme argument, the recipient must be expressed as a postnominal PP; it can neither be realized as a prenominal noun phrase nor as a possessive pronoun.

172

a.		gegeefGE-N (Agent, Theme, Recipient)
		giving

b.		het	gegeef	van cadeausTheme	aan kinderenRec	door SinterklaasAgent
		the	giving	of presents	to children	by Santa Claus

c'.	*	het	kinderenRec	cadeausTheme	gegeef	door SinterklaasAgent
		the	children	presents	giving	by Santa Claus

c'.	*	hunRec	gegeef	van cadeausTheme	door SinterklaasAgent
		their	giving	of presents	by Santa Claus

[+] D. Unaccusative verbs

Unaccusative verbs cannot be the input for ge-nominalization; cf. Section 1.3.1.4, sub IV.

[+] E. Verbs with a PP-complement

ge-nominalizations can be formed on the basis of verbs selecting a PP-argument. Example (173b) shows that the preposition selected by the verb is inherited by the ge-nominalization.

173

a.		gejaag opGE-N (Agent, Theme)
		hunting for

b.	JansAgent	gejaag	op groot wild	is onaanvaardbaar.
	Janʼs	hunting	on big game	is unacceptable
	'Janʼs hunting of big game is unacceptable.'

[+] F. The pejorative effect of ge-nominalization

Unlike other forms of nominalization, the process of ge-nominalization may add specific aspects of meaning to the meaning of the input verb; see Tálasi (2009), who also discusses the diachronic development of this type of nominalization. Thus the result of ge-nominalization are durative substance nouns like gestaar'staring', gedraaf'running' or gepraat'talking' that expresses that the eventuality expressed by the base verb occurs frequently. In addition, such nouns often have a negative connotation—they typically express a certain amount of irritation, condescension or “unfavorable connotation” (Kruisinga 1949) on the part of the speaker. That this pejorative effect is indeed a result of the nominalization process and not due to the semantics of the base verb is illustrated in (174), where ge-nominalization has a negative effect on such neutral base verbs as praten'to talk', regelen'to regulate/arrange' and wandelen'to walk'. Note that use of the expressive demonstrative dat'that' has the effect of enhancing the negative connotation of the deverbal noun.

174

a.	dat	gepraat	over politiek
	that	talking	about politics
	'this talk about politics'

b.	dat	geregel	van bovenaf
	that	regulating	from the top
	'this control from up-high'

c.	dat	gewandel	van patiënten
	that	strolling	of patients
	'this strolling of patients'

Naturally, the pejorative effect cannot be detected with ge-nominalizations derived from verbs already carrying a negative meaning aspect, like jengelen'to whine', klagen'to complain', leuteren'to drivel', mekkeren'to yammer', zeuren'to nag', zwammen'to twaddle', etc.; it appears, however, that such verbs are particularly popular as input to ge-nominalizations (Mackenzie 1985a). Ge-nominalizations derived from verbs of sound emission are exceptional in that they lack this negative connotation (except for those cases in which the input verb already contains such a meaning aspect); the meaning of nouns like gefluister'whispering', gefluit'whistling', geronk'throbbing', gezoem'buzzing, humming', etc., can but need not be negatively affected by the nominalization process. For a detailed discussion of this type of nominalization.

[+] IV. Restrictions on the derivational process

Although a large number of verbs do allow the formation of a ge-nominalization, certain verb classes do not allow this type of nominalization. Among these are the object-experiencer verbs, the auxiliary/modal verbs, and the raising verbs, which do not allow any form of nominalization; cf. Section 1.3.1.1. In addition, there are a number of restrictions that apply specifically to ge-nominalizations.

[+] A. Unaccusative verbs

Unaccusative verbs cannot be nominalized by means of ge-prefixation; cf., e.g., Hoekstra (1984a) and Knopper (1984). This is not only true of dyadic unaccusative (object-experiencer) verbs like ontgaan'to escape', bevallen'to please' and lukken'to succeed', but also for monadic unaccusatives. This means that the nouns in (175) are all ungrammatical.

175

gaan

'to go'

a'.

*gega

komen

'to come'

b'.

*gekom

sterven

'to die'

c'.

*gesterf

vallen

'to fall'

d'.

*geval

zinken

'to sink'

e'.

*gezink

stijgen

'to rise'

f'.

*gestijg

This conclusion is supported by the fact that with those motion verbs that have both an unaccusative and an intransitive use, only the latter use allows ge-nominalization. This becomes clear from the examples in (176). The verb in example (176a) can be construed as the intransitive form of the verb springen'to jump', with the PP functioning as a locational adjunct, and (176a') shows that ge-nominalization is possible. Since the postpositional phrase in (176b) must be construed as an complementive, the verb can only be interpreted as an unaccusative verb, and (176b') shows that ge-nominalization is excluded.

176

a.	Jan springt	op het bed.
	Jan jumps	on the bed
	'Jan is jumping on the bed.'

a'.		Jans	gespring	op het bed
		Janʼs	jumping	on the bed

b.	Jan springt	het bed in.
	Jan jumps	the bed into
	'Jan jumps into the bed.'

b'.	*	Jans	gespring	het bed in
		Jan	jumping	the bed into

An exception is formed by generic contexts like (177a&b), in which it is at least marginally possible for unaccusative verbs like sterven'to die' and trouwen'to marry' to undergo ge-nominalization. In these cases, the nouns obtain an iterative meaning aspect: the primed examples are unacceptable, since they do not allow an iterative reading.

177

a.	?	het	gesterf	van varkens
		the	dying	of pigs

a'.	*	Haar	gesterf	duurde	erg lang.
		her	dying	took	very long

b.	We	zouden	dat getrouw	op jonge leeftijd	moeten	ontmoedigen.
	we	should	that marrying	on young age	must	discourage
	'We ought to discourage this marrying at a young age.'

b'.	*	Zijn	getrouw	met mijn zus	bevalt	me niet.
		his	marrying	with my sister	pleases	me not

[+] B. Controllability

The impossibility for unaccusative verbs to function as the input for ge-nominalization might be related to the fact that ge-nominalization is also disallowed with verbs denoting events that cannot be controlled by the participants in the event. As a result, verbs of expressing opinion such as menen'to think' (# gemeen), achten'to consider' (# geacht), and vinden'to consider' (* gevind) are excluded from ge-nominalization.
The same thing is true for such typically -controlled verbs as slapen'to sleep' (* geslaap), liggen'to lie' (* gelig), zitten'to sit' (* gezit), kennen'to know' (* geken), blijven'to stay' (* geblijf), weten'to know' (* geweet). It is important to realize, however, that ge-nominalization is only excluded on the regular use of these verbs. If, in a certain context, the verbs can be given a +controlled interpretation, ge-nominalization is allowed. Due to a clash between the specific meaning aspect of ge-nominalizations and the base verbs, the resulting nouns are necessarily marked and, moreover, a negative connotation is almost inevitably present. The illustrations in (178) only acceptable if the states of affairs denoted by the nouns are interpreted as controlled by a participant in the event, which is therefore typically +human.

178

a.	dat	geslaap/gelig	van hem	de hele dag	pejorative
	that	sleeping/lying	of him	the whole day
	'this sleeping/lying of his all day long'

a'.	*	het	gelig	van dat boek	op tafel
		the	lying	of that book	on the.table

b.	dat	gehang	voor de televisie	pejorative
	that	hanging	in.front.of the television
	'this slouching in front of the television'

b'.	*	het gehang	van die schilderijen	aan de muur
		the hanging	of those paintings	on the wall

[+] C. Inseparable complex verbs

Another group of verbs that is systematically excluded from ge-nominalization is that of verbs with Germanic prefixes like be-, ver-, ont-, her-, which have a participial form without the prefix ge-; cf. Schultink (1978). Historically speaking, we are dealing with the same prefix.

179

prefix	infinitive	ge-nominalization	past/passive participle
be-	bespreken‘to discuss’	*gebespreek	(*ge)besproken‘discussed’
ver-	verbieden‘to prohibit’	*geverbied	(*ge)verboden‘prohibited’
ont-	ontkennen‘to deny’	*geontken	(*ge)ontkend‘denied’
her-	herlezen‘to re-read’	*geherlees	(*ge)herlezen‘re-read’

There seems to be a motivated relation between the possibility of ge-nominalization and the form of the past/passive participle: particle verbs, which do form their past participles by mean of affixation with ge-, also allow ge-nominalization, although it should be noted that the result is sometimes marked and a negative connotation is always present. Some examples are given in Table (180).

180

infinitive	ge-nominalization	past/passive participle
doordrammen‘to nag/push’	?doorgedram‘nagging, pushing’	doorgedramd
uitzoeken‘to figure out’	??uitgezoek‘figuring out’	uitgezocht
aanmoedigen‘to encourage’	??aangemoedig‘encouraging’	aangemoedigd
tegensputteren‘to protest’	tegengesputter‘protesting’	tegengesputterd

The same thing can be illustrated by means of verbs with non-Germanic prefixes: they also have a past/passive participle preceded by ge-, and in most cases ge-nominalization does not seem to give rise to an outright ungrammatical result in the way the ge-nouns derived from verbs with a Germanic prefix are ungrammatical. At worst, they are unusual, which is clear from the fact that the cases marked as fully acceptable in Table (181) can be readily found on the internet and that the cases marked with a single question mark do occur on the internet, but are rare. Note that the case with two question marks has not been attested, but this might be due to the fact that it belongs to a more elevated register.

181

infinitive	ge-nominalization	past/passive participle
introduceren‘to introduce’	?geïntroduceer	geïntroduceerd
diskwalificeren‘to disqualify’	?gediskwalificeer	gediskwalificeerd
protesteren‘to protest’	geprotesteer	geprotesteerd
repatriëren‘to repatriate’	??gerepatrieer	gerepatrieerd
analyseren‘to analyze’	geanalyseer	geanalyseerd
sympathiseren‘to sympathize’	?gesympathiseer	gesympathiseerd

A potential problem for the suggested relation between the possibility of ge-nominalization and the form of the past/passive participle is that example (182) shows that the ge- prefix can be found with verbs like herhalen'to repeat'; we found more than 50 occurrences of the form geherhaal on the internet. The relative acceptability of this example may be due to the fact that herhalen (unlike herlezen in (179)) is not interpreted as consisting of a base verb ( halen'to fetch') and a prefix her-, but as a monomorphemic verb.

182

		dat	eindeloze	geherhaal	van	oude tv-series	in de zomermaanden
		that	endless	repeating	of	old TV-series	in the summer months

An obvious problem with this suggestion is, however, that we would expect that the past participle form geherhaald is also quite common, but this does not seem to be borne out; we found only 28 occurrences of this form on the internet, whereas the past participle form herhaald occurred over one million times.

[+] D. Inherently reflexive verbs

It does not really come as a surprise that ge-nominalization of inherently reflexive verbs is rare. First, many inherently reflexive verbs are prefixed and for this reason excluded from ge-nominalization: zich vergissen'to be mistaken', zich begeven naar'to make oneʼs way to', zich bevinden'to be (located)', zich vergewissen van'to make sure of', zich bedrinken'to get drunk', zich uitleven'to live it up'). Second, we have seen that the reflexive pronoun cannot occur postnominally in inf-nominalizations but must be realized in prenominal position; cf. Section 1.3.1.2, sub IV. Given that ing-nominalizations only take post-nominal complements, the impossibility of the ing-nominalizations of inherently reflexive verbs in (183) is exactly what one would expect.

183

a.	Hij	schaamde	zich	over/voor zijn gedrag.
	he	was ashamed	refl	about/for his behavior
	'He was ashamed of his behavior.'

a'.	*	Zijn	geschaam	van zich(zelf)	over/voor zijn gedrag	was terecht.
		his	being ashamed	of refl	about/for his behavior	was right

b.	Hij	haastte	zich	om	de trein	te halen.
	he	hurried	refl	comp	the train	to catch
	'He hurried to catch the train.'

b'.	*	Zijn	gehaast	van zich(zelf)	om	de trein te halen	was tevergeefs.
		his	hurried	of refl	comp	the train to catch	was in vain

However, it seems at least marginally possible to use the corresponding ing-nominalizations if the postnominal PP containing the reflexive is dropped, as is shown in the examples in (184), which are both adapted versions of examples found on the internet.

184

a.	?	Ik	ben	moe	van dat geschaam.
		I	am	fed up	with that being ashamed

b.	Rustig aan,	dat gehaast	is	nergens	goed	voor.
	easy	that hurrying	is	nowhere	good	for
	'Easy, as that rushing is good for nothing.'

Example (185b) shows that with non-inherently reflexive verbs, ge-nominalization is possible; zichzelf can be treated as a regular argument comparable to Marie.

185

a.	Hij	prijst	zichzelf/Marie	voortdurend.
	he	praises	himself/Marie	continuously
	'He praises himself/Marie all the time.'

b.		Zijn voortdurende geprijs	van zichzelf/Marie	is irritant.
		his continuous praising	of himself/Marie	is irritating

[+] V. The degree of verbalness/nominalness

We conclude with a discussion of the syntactic category of ge-nominalizations. Table 13 shows that ge-nominalizations exhibit partially verbal and partially nominal properties. On the basis of this overview, we conclude that ge-nominalizations take their place in between inf- and ing-nominalizations on a scale of verbal/nominalness.

Table 13: The degree of verbalness/nominalness of ge-nominalizations

verbal properties	presence of arguments	yes
	prenominal theme/recipient with objective case	no
	prenominal recipient-PP	no
	adverbial modification	yes?
nominal properties	adjectival modification	yes
	theme with genitive case	no
	theme/recipient realized as postnominal PP	yes
	definiteness	yes
	indefiniteness	yes
	quantification	yes
	pluralization	no

Like inf- and ing-nominalizations, ge-nominalizations are verbal in the sense that they denote abstract entities, namely states of affairs. Moreover, like inf-nominalizations, they are verbal in that they can be modified by means of an adverb (although this may be marked), and that their theme argument cannot occur prenominally as a pronoun or genitive noun phrase.
Like ing-nominalizations, however, they behave in many respects like true nominals: their arguments appear typically as PPs in postnominal position, and the agent can occur prenominally as a pronoun or a genitive noun phrase. Furthermore, they allow modification by means of adjectives and can take all sorts of definite and indefinite determiners and quantifiers; only pluralization is impossible.

References:

Hoekstra, Teun1984Transitivity. Grammatical relations in government-binding theoryDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications
Knopper, Rob1984On the morphology of ergative verbs and the polyfunctionality principleBennis, Hans & Lessen Kloeke, W.U.S. van (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984DordrechtForis Publications119-127
Kruisinga, E1949A grammar of modern DutchLondonAllen Unwin
Mackenzie, Lachlan1985GenominaliseerValentie in Functionele Grammatica. Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap5177-198
Schultink, Henk1978The prefix ge- in Dutch and German past participlesJazayery, M.A., Polomé, E.C. & Winter, W. (eds.)Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald H. HillDen HaagMouton
Zsófia Tálasi2009Het Nederlandse prefix ge- in historisch perspectief. Ge-+werkwoordstam afleidingen in grammatica's, woordenboeken en tekstenUniversity of LeidenThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: NominalizationAffixArgumentDemonstrative PronounDeverbal Nominalizing AffixDitransitive VerbInherently Reflexive VerbInseparable Complex VerbIntransitive VerbNominalizationNominalizing AffixNounParticle VerbPronounResult NounSpurious Demonstrative PronounTransitive VerbUnaccusative VerbVerbVerb with a PP-complement

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles