/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
    2.2.3.4.Ge-nominalizations
    quickinfo

    This section discusses complementation of ge-nominalizations. Subsection I will consider issues concerning the expression of the arguments of the input verb in the ge-nominalization and Subsection II will apply the adjunct/complement tests from Section 2.2.1 to the inherited arguments of the verbs in order to investigate whether these can indeed be considered complements of the derived nouns.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  Complementation

    This subsection discusses complementation of the derived ge-noun types shown in (382). Transitive verbs taking clausal complements also allow ge-nominalization: het geroep dat hij de beste is'calling that he is the best'. These clausal complements are discussed in Section 2.3.

    382
    Main types of ge-nominalization
    a. het gegiechel van de leerlingen
    intransitive verb
      the  giggling  of the students
    b. het getreiter van kinderen
    transitive verb
      the  bullying  of children
    c. het gegeef van cadeaus aan kinderen
    ditransitive verb
      the  giving  of presents  to children
    d. het gejaag op groot wild
    verbs with a PP-complement
      the  hunting  on big game
    e. ?? dat gekarakteriseer van zijn werk als banaal
    verbs with a complementive
      that  characterizing  of his work  as banal
    [+]  A.  Ge-nominalizations derived from intransitive verbs

    Example (383a) shows that the agent argument of an intransitive ge-nominalization appears postnominally as a van-PP; the use of an agentive door-phrase is highly questionable. The agent can also appear prenominally in the form of a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase, as in (383b). That the postnominal van-PP and the prenominal genitive form both express the agent argument is shown by the fact illustrated in (383c) that they cannot co-occur. The agent is normally obligatorily present: only in generic sentence like (383d) can it be left unexpressed; see Section 2.2.1, sub IIB1, for implicit arguments.

    383
    a. Het gegiechel van/*?door de leerlingenAgent verstoorde de les.
      the giggling  of/by the students  disrupted  the class
    b. Hun/Maries gegiechel verstoorde de les.
      their/Marieʼs giggling  disrupted  the class
    c. * Hun gegiechel van de meisjes verstoorde de les.
      their giggling  of the girls  disrupted  the class
    d. Zulk gegiechel is altijd erg irritant.
      such giggling  is always  very irritating

    In some cases the agent can be expressed by means of an attributively used relational adjective of the geographical type, like Amerikaans'American' and Russisch'Russian' in (384); cf. Section A1.3.3. This does not, however, mean that this adjective is to be interpreted as the inherited agent argument of the verbs huichelen'to feign' and blunderen'to blunder'; it may simply have the non-agentive interpretation as in, e.g., de Amerikaanse dollar'the American dollar', and allow the agent argument to remain unexpressed by making it contextually recoverable.

    384
    a. dat Amerikaanse gehuichel
      that  American  feigning
      'this American hypocrisy'
    b. dat Russische geblunder
      that  Russian  blundering
    [+]  B.  Ge-nominalizations derived from unaccusative verbs

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

    [+]  C.  Ge-nominalizations derived from monotransitive verbs

    Where the ge-nominalization is based on a transitive verb, three situations can be distinguished: one in which only the theme argument is expressed, one in which both arguments are expressed, and one in which only the agent is expressed.

    [+]  1.  Ge-nominalizations with only the theme argument expressed

    The agentive door-PP can readily be left unexpressed. The examples in (385) show that in this case the theme argument may surface as a postnominal van-PP.

    385
    a. Aan het gediscrimineer van ouderenTheme moet een einde komen.
      to the discriminating  of elderly  must  an end  come
      'The discriminating against elderly people should be stopped.'
    b. Dat getreiter van JanTheme is onaanvaardbaar.
      that bullying  of Jan  is unacceptable

    Ge-nominalizations differ from inf-nominalizations in that they do not allow their theme argument to appear pronominally as a noun phrase, and from ing-nominalizations in that they cannot take their theme argument in the form of a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. These characteristics are illustrated in, respectively, (386) and (387).

    386
    a. * HunTheme gediscrimineer moet stoppen.
      their discriminating  must  stop
    b. * JansTheme getreiter is onaanvaardbaar.
      Janʼs bullying  is unacceptable
    387
    a. * Het (deze) kinderenTheme getreiter is onaanvaardbaar.
      the  these children  bullying  is unacceptable
    b. * Dat boekenTheme gekopieer is illegaal.
      that  books  copying  is illegal

    In the case of a nonspecific theme, incorporation may sometimes be the preferred form of expression, as in example (388) with the incorporated theme boe'boo'.

    388
    a. Een luid boe-geroep klonk door de zaal.
      a loud boo-shouting  sounded  through the room
      'A loud booing sounded through the room.'
    b. ? Een luid geroep van “boe” klonk door de zaal.
      a loud shouting  of boo  sounded  through the room
    [+]  2.  Ge-nominalizations with both the agent and the theme argument expressed

    There are two ways of simultaneously expressing the agent and the theme argument. The first option is illustrated by (389) and involves adding the agent in the form of a postnominal door-PP. This door-PP typically follows the van-PP, although (389b') shows that extraction of heavy theme PPs is possible.

    389
    a. Het getreiter van peutersTheme door grote jongensAgent is onaanvaardbaar.
      the bullying  of toddlers  by big boys  is unacceptable
    a'. *? Het getreiter door grote jongensAgent van peutersTheme is onaanvaardbaar.
    b. Dat gekopieer van deze boekenTheme door studentenAgent is illegaal.
      that copying  of these books  by students  is illegal
    b'. Dat gekopieer door studentenAg van die boeken op de leeslijstTh is illegaal.
      that copying  by students  of those books on the reading list  is illegal
      'That copying by students of those books that are on the reading list is illegal.'

    The second option is illustrated by the examples in (390a&b) and involves the addition of the agent in the form of a genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun. We have already seen that the theme argument cannot be realized in this way, as is illustrated again by the unacceptability of the primed examples.

    390
    a. Jans/ZijnAgent getreiter van de kinderenTheme is onaanvaardbaar.
      Janʼs/his  bullying  of the children  is unacceptable
    a'. * HunTheme getreiter door JanAgent is onaanvaardbaar.
      their  bullying  by Jan  is unacceptable
    b. PetersAgent gediscrimineer van ouderenTheme moet stoppen.
      Peterʼs  discriminating  of elderly  must stop
      'Peterʼs discriminating against elderly people should be stopped.'
    b'. * HunTheme gediscrimineer door PeterAgent moet stoppen.
      their  discriminating  by Peter  must stop

    The fact illustrated by (391) that the postnominal door-PP and the prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun cannot be used simultaneously shows that they indeed both refer to the agent argument of the input verb.

    391
    a. * Hun getreiter van peutersTheme door grote jongensAgent is onaanvaardbaar.
      their bullying  of toddlers  by big boys  is unacceptable
    b. * Zijn gediscrimineer van ouderenTheme door Peter moet stoppen.
      his  discriminating  of elderly  by Peter  must stop

          Transitive verbs that denote a telic, homogeneous action (accomplishments) are normally not allowed as input for ge-nominalization. Examples that show this are given in (392): that the verbs schrijven'write' and repeteren'rehearse' in the primeless examples are indeed accomplishments is clear from the fact that adding an adverbial phrase of frequency like elke dag gives rise to a marked result at best.

    392
    a. Hij schrijft het boek (*elke dag).
      he  writes  the book   every day
    a'. * zijn geschrijf van dat boekTheme
      his  writing  of that book
    b. Zij repeteren het toneelstuk (?elke dag).
      the  rehearse  the play   every day
    b'. * hun gerepeteer van dat toneelstukTheme
      their  rehearsing  of that play

    The verbs schrijven and repeteren can also be used as activity verbs denoting a non-telic action, in which case the theme argument appears as a PP. The verbal construction then refers to an instance out of a series of related events, which is clear from the fact that in these cases an adverbial phrase of frequency can be used, and now ge-nominalization is possible.

    393
    a. Hij schrijft (elke dag) aan het boekTheme.
      he  writes  every day  on the book
    a'. zijn geschrijf aan dat boekTheme
      his  writing  on that book
      'his working on that book'
    b. Zij repeteren (elke dag) op dat toneelstukTheme.
      their  rehearsing  every day  on that play
    b'. hun gerepeteer op dat toneelstukTheme
      their  rehearsing  on that play

    The transitive form of the verb schrijven is also non-telic if it takes a nonspecific theme, as in (394a). Ge-nominalization with expression of the theme as a van-PP is possible in this case.

    394
    a. Hij schrijft goedkope romannetjes.
      he  writes  cheap romances
    b. Het geschrijf van goedkope romannetjesTheme was onbevredigend.
      the  writing  of cheap romances  was unsatisfactory

          As in the case of ge-nouns derived from intransitive verbs, the agent can occasionally be expressed by a relational adjective, as in (395a&b), in which geographical adjectives such as Nederlands'Dutch' and Frans'French' refer to the agent of the input verb. Again, this does not imply that the adjective must be interpreted as the inherited agent argument of the input verb; it may have the same non-agentive interpretation as in, e.g., het Nederlandse parlement'the Dutch parliament', and allow the agent argument to remain unexpressed by making it contextually recoverable. Observe that the relational adjective cannot express the semantic role of theme; cf. (395b').

    395
    a. het NederlandseAgent geloos van giftig afval in de Maas
      the Dutch  dumping  of toxic waste  in the Maas
    b. het FranseAgent gekleineer van Nederland
      the French  belittling  of the.Netherlands
    b'. * het NederlandseTheme gekleineer door Frankrijk
      the Dutch  belittling  by France
    [+]  3.  Ge-nominalizations with only the agent argument expressed

    The theme normally can only be left unexpressed in generic contexts. This means that ge-nominalization of the form het getreiter van NP may be ambiguous between a reading in which the van-PP has the role of the theme and a reading in which this PP has the role of agent; cf. (396). Taken out of context, the default interpretation is the one with the van-PP as the theme. The theme can of course also be left out if the input verb can be used as a pseudo-intransitive. This is illustrated in (397).

    396
    a. Het getreiter van die kleine kinderenTheme is onaanvaardbaar.
      the bullying  of those little children  is unacceptable
    b. Het getreiter van die grote jongensAgent is kinderachtig.
      the bullying  of those big boys  is childish
    397
    a. Jan rookt.
      Jan smokes
    b. dat gerook van JanAgent irriteert me.
      that  smoking  of Jan  annoys  me
    [+]  D.  Ge-nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs

    The number of triadic ge-nominalizations is fairly restricted, as many ditransitive verbs (like uitreiken'to present', overdragen'to transfer/hand over', overhandigen'to hand over/deliver' and verschaffen'to provide') are prefixed and as such excluded from ge-nominalization: * geuitgereik; * geoverdraag; * geoverhandig. However, ge-nouns can be derived from ditransitive verbs like geven'to give', doneren'to donate' etc. It is possible for such ge-nominalizations to occur with all three arguments expressed, although such occurrences are very rare in actual practice. More often one (typically the agent) or two (agent and recipient) of the arguments are left unexpressed; in generic contexts none of the arguments need be expressed, as, for instance, in example (398). In the following subsections, we will consider those cases in which at least one argument appears.

    398
    Al dat gedoneer is natuurlijk bijzonder goed voor ons imago.
      all that donating  is naturally  extremely good  for our image
    [+]  1.  Ge-nominalizations with the theme argument expressed

    The theme argument of ge-nominalizations based on ditransitive verbs can only take the form of a postnominal van-PP; as in the case of ge-nominalizations derived from transitive verbs, the prenominal position is not available for themes; cf. example (390).

    399
    a. Het gegeef van cadeausTheme op 5 december is een leuke traditie.
      the  giving  of presents  on 5 December  is an old tradition
    b. Dat gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme is een dure gewoonte.
      that  donating  of large sums  is an expensive habit
    [+]  2.  Ge-nominalizations with the agent and the theme argument expressed

    The examples in (400a&b) show that the agent argument can be added either in the form of a postnominal door-PP or in the form of a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. The theme argument always takes the form of a postnominal van-PP. The agentive door-PP normally follows the theme; it can only occur between the head noun and theme argument with a “heavy” theme PP; cf. (400a').

    400
    a. ? Het gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme door multinationalsAgent is onderzocht.
      the  donating  of large sums  by multinationals  has.been  examined
    a'. Het gedoneer door multinationalsAgent van bedragen boven de € 100.000Theme is onderzocht.
      the  donating  by multinationals  of sums over  the € 100,000  has.been  examined
    b. Peters/ZijnAgent gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme is onderzocht.
      Peters/his  donating  of large sums  has.been  examined
    [+]  3.  Ge-nominalizations with the theme and the recipient argument expressed

    The recipient argument always takes the form of a postnominal aan-PP, which normally follows the theme; the reverse order in (401b), with the recipient aan-PP preceding the theme, is only possible with “heavy” theme arguments.

    401
    a. Het gedoneer van grote bedragenTh aan goede doelenRec is onderzocht.
      the  donating  of large sums  to good ends  has.been examined
      'The donating of large sums to good causes will be examined.'
    b. Het gedoneer aan goede doelenRec van bedragen boven de € 100.000Theme is onderzocht.
      the donating  to good ends  of sums over the € 100,000  has-been  examined
    [+]  4.  Ge-nominalizations with all three arguments expressed

    It is possible to express all three arguments, although the result is rather forced and will rarely be encountered even in formal language use. Example (402) gives all the relevant constructions in order of decreasing acceptability: the preferred order is that in which the theme is closest to the head, followed by the recipient and the agent, as in (402a); reversing the order of recipient and agent, as in (402b), is possible; reversing the order of theme and recipient, as in (402c), gives rise to a marked result; all other orders are severely degraded.

    402
    a. het gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme aan goede doelenRec door multinationalsAgent
      the donating  of large sums  to good ends  by multinationals
      'the donating of large sums to good causes by multinationals'
    b. het gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme door multinationalsAgent aan goede doelenRec
    c. ?? het gedoneer aan goede doelenRec van grote bedragenTheme door multinationalsAgent
    d. * het gedoneer aan goede doelenRec door multinationalsAgent van grote bedragenTheme
    e. * het gedoneer door multinationalsAgent van grote bedragenTheme aan goede doelenRec
    f. * het gedoneer door multinationalsAgent aan goede doelenRec van grote bedragenTheme

    As shown in example (403), the agent (but not the theme or recipient) can also take the form of a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun.

    403
    a. hun/UnileversAgent gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme aan goede doelenRec
      their/Unileverʼs  donating  of large sums  to good ends
      'their/Unileverʼs donating of large sums to good causes'
    b. * hunTheme gedoneer aan goede doelenRec door multinationalsAgent
      their  donating  to good ends  by multinationals
    c. * hunRec gedoneer van grote bedragenTheme door multinationalsAgent
      their  donating  of large sums  by multinationals
    [+]  E.  Ge-nominalizations of verbs with prepositional arguments

    ge-nominalizations can also inherit PP-themes from verbs like jagen op'to hunt for' and zoeken naar'to search for'. This is shown for the ge-noun gejaag in (404a), which inherits the preposition selected by the base verb jagen. The agent can be realized postnominally either as a door- or as a van-PP, and prenominally as a genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. The agent can also be expressed by means of a relational adjective like Noors'Norwegian'.

    404
    a. Het gejaag op groot wildTheme door/van adellijke herenAgent is verachtelijk.
      the hunting  on big game  by/of noble gentlemen  is despicable
      'The hunting of big game by noble gentlemen is despicable.'
    b. HunAgent gejaag op groot wildTheme is verachtelijk.
      their  hunting  on big game  is despicable
    c. Het Noorse gejaag op walvissenTheme is verachtelijk.
      the  Norwegian  hunting  on whales  is despicable
    [+]  F.  Ge-nominalizations of verbs taking a complementive

    Like ing-nominalizations, ge-nominalizations do not accept as input constructions involving a complementive adjective. This is illustrated by the examples in (405), which show that these constructions are unacceptable regardless of the position (post- or prenominal) of the predicate.

    405
    a. De regering acht inmenging ongewenst.
      the government  deems  intervention  undesirable
    a'. * Het <ongewenst> geacht van inmenging <ongewenst> verraste ons niet.
      the   undesirable  deeming  of intervention  surprised us not
    b. Zij noemt alle mensen dom.
      she  calls  all people  stupid
    b'. * Haar <dom> genoem van alle mensen <dom> lost niets op.
      her  stupid  calling  of all people  solves  nothing  prt.

    If the complementive is introduced by a preposition like tot or als, the ge-nominalization is marked but still more or less acceptable if the complementive occurs postnominally. This is illustrated in examples (406a&b).

    406
    a. Het <*tot keizer> gekroon van mensen <?tot keizer> is uit de tijd.
      the     to emperor  crowning  of people  is out the time
      'The crowning of people emperor is out-of-date.'
    b. Peters <*als geniaal> gekarakteriseer van haar werk <??als geniaal> begint me te vervelen.
      Peterʼs    as brilliant  characterization  of her work  begins  me to bore
      'Peterʼs characterization of her work as brilliant is getting on my nerves.'
    [+]  G.  Conclusion

    The previous subsections have discussed the form and distribution of the various arguments of ge-nominalizations. Just like with inf- and ing-nominalizations, the theme argument is normally obligatory; it must appear as a postnominal van-PP, preferably in the position immediately adjacent to the head. Recipients may (but need not) be expressed as a postnominal aan-PP, which typically follows the theme. The agent can also be expressed by means of a postnominal PP, which typically follows the theme and the recipient, if present. The form of the agentive PP depends on the type of input verb: if the input verb is intransitive the agent is obligatorily realized as a van-PP; if the input verb is (di-)transitive, it is realized as a door-PP; if the input verb takes a PP-complement, the agent can be expressed by either a van- or a door-PP. The agent can also appear in the form of a genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, provided that it has a +human referent. Table 10 summarizes the discussion of ge-nominalizations derived from intransitive, transitive and ditransitive verbs.

    Table 10: The form and position of the complements of ge-nominalizations
    type of verb pattern examples
    intransitive N + van-PPAgent (383a)
      NPs/pronounAgent + N (383b)
    transitive N + van-PPTheme (+ door-PPAgent) (385)/(389)
      *NPs/pronounTheme + N (+ door-PPAgent) (386)/(390')
      NPs/pronounAgent + N + van-PPTheme (390)
    ditransitive N + van-PPTheme (+ aan-PPRec) (+ door-PPAgent) (399)/(400)/ (401a)/(402)
      *NPs/pronounTheme + N (+ aan-PPRec) (+  door-PPAgent) (403b)
      NPs/pronounAgent + van-PPTheme (+ aan-PPRec) (403a)

    When we compare this table to Table 8, which gives the basic patterns of ing-nominalizations, we see two important differences. First, the monadic verbs are unaccusative in the case of ing- but intransitive in the case of ge-nominalizations. Second, prenominal realization of the theme as a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase is possible with ing- but not with ge-nominalizations.

    [+]  II.  Application of the complement/adjunct tests

    The preceding subsection has shown that ge-nouns typically combine with PPs that correspond to the arguments of the input verb. However, since in many cases complements and adjuncts are not formally distinguished within the noun phrase, it is conceivable that some of these PPs are adjuncts. This subsection therefore applies the four tests that have been proposed in Section 2.2.1 to distinguish complements and adjuncts within the noun phrase to ge-nominalizations. We will see that the results of these tests confirm our assumption that the inherited arguments of ge-nominalizations are complements rather than adjuncts of the head.

    [+]  A.  Obligatoriness of PP

    Ge-nominalizations can be seen as inheriting the argument structure of the input verb, with the nominal construction resembling the verbal construction as regards the number of arguments and their thematic functions. However, whereas the arguments of verbs must be explicitly expressed, this is not equally true of the inherited arguments of the corresponding ge-nouns. If the base verb is intransitive, the agent is normally expressed, but it can still be left implicit when it is somehow implied, as in the primed examples of (407); in (407b'), for example, it is clear from the context that the giggling was done by people attending the class.

    407
    a. Jan keek naar het gewandel *(van de patiënten).
      Jan looked  at the strolling     of the patients
      'Jan watched the strolling of the patients.'
    a'. Jan keek naar het gewandel in het park.
      Jan looked  at the strolling  in the park
      'Jan watched the strolling (of the patients) in the park.'
    b. De docent ergerde zich aan het gegiechel *(van de meisjes).
      the teacher  annoyed  refl  at the giggling     of the girls
      'The teacher was annoyed by the giggling of the girls.'
    b'. De docent ergerde zich aan het gegiechel tijdens de les.
      the teacher  annoyed  refl  at the giggling  during the lesson
      'The teacher was annoyed by the giggling during the lesson.'

    Example (408a) shows that in ge-nominalizations derived from a transitive verb the theme argument must normally be present, whereas the agent can quite felicitously be left out. However, if the theme is somehow implied, it need not be expressed: in (408b), for example, it is clear from the context that at least one student in the class is being bullied by some other person(s) in the class, and this makes it possible to leave the theme implicit.

    408
    a. Peter maakte een einde aan het getreiter *(van de kinderen) (door Jan).
      Peter made  an end  to the bullying     of the children    by Jan
      'Peter put a stop to the/Janʼs bullying of the children.'
    b. Peter maakte een einde aan het getreiter in de klas.
      Peter made  an end  to the bullying  in the class
      'Peter put a stop to the bullying in the class.'

    If the input verb is ditransitive, as in (409), the recipient may normally also be left unexpressed, just as in the corresponding verbal construction. Observe that, if they are left out, the presence of the agent and recipient arguments is still implied and must be recoverable or inferable from the context.

    409
    De economische crisis beëindigde het gedoneer *(van grote bedragen) (aan goede doelen) (door multinationals).
      the economic crisis  stopped  the donating  of large sums to good ends  by multinationals
    'The crisis stopped the donating of large sums to good causes by multinationals.'

    Ge-nominalizations derived from verbs selecting a PP-complement pattern with those derived from transitive verbs; the PP-theme can only be left out if it can be recoverable or inferable from the context. This is illustrated in (410).

    410
    a. De regering verbood het gejaag *(op groot wild) (door amateurs).
      the government  prohibited  the hunting     on big game  by amateurs
      'The government prohibited the hunting of big game by amateurs.'
    b. De regering verbood het gejaag in de buurt van de bebouwde kom.
      the government  prohibited  the hunting  in the neighborhood of built-up areas
      'The government prohibited the hunting nearby built-up areas.'

    In short, it seems that the arguments of the ge-nouns can only be left out if they are recoverable or inferable from the context. If this is not possible, leaving out these arguments is likely to lead to marked results, unless the construction in question is generic; see Section 2.2.1, sub II, for these and other exceptions.

    [+]  B.  Occurrence of the PP in postcopular predicative position

    The examples in (411) show that the van-PPs that can be found in ge-nominalizations cannot occur in postcopular position. This is, of course, hardly surprising, as van-PPs in postcopular position are interpreted as possessive elements and states of affairs, the denotation of ge-nominalizations, cannot be possessed. This is also true for inherited PP-arguments, as illustrated in example (411f).

    411
    a. * Het gewandel is van de patiënten.
    agent
      the strolling  is of the patients
    b. # Het gegiechel is van de meisjes.
    agent
      the giggling  is of the girls
    c. * Het getreiter is van de kinderen.
    theme
      the bullying  is of the children
    d. * Het gekopieer is van dure boeken.
    theme
      the copying  is of expensive books
    e. * Het gedoneer is van geld (aan goede doelen).
    theme & recipient
      the donating  is of money   to good ends
    f. * Het gejaag is op groot wild.
    PP-theme
      the hunting  is on big game

    Note that constructions such as (411b), in which the ge-noun is derived from a verb of sound emission, are acceptable under a slightly different interpretation, namely one in which the postcopular van-PP provides the source of the sound in question, in which case we are no longer dealing with arguments of the ge-nominalization, but with modifiers (the same thing is suggested by the English renderings). The examples in (412) show that in constructions like these the verb zijn can be replaced by the verb komen (van).

    412
    a. Het gegiechel dat je nu hoort is/komt van de meisjes in B103.
      the giggling  that you now hear  is /comes  from the girls in B103
      'The giggling you hear now is made by the girls in B103.'
    b. Het gebonk dat je nu hoort is/komt van de motoren.
      the pounding  that you now hear  is/comes  from the engines
      'The pounding you hear now is made by the engines.'
    [+]  C.  R-pronominalization

    Example (413a) shows that R-pronominalization of the theme of a ge-noun derived from a transitive verb gives rise to a fully acceptable result. R-pronominalization of the theme argument of a ge-noun derived from a ditransitive verb seems somewhat marked but is acceptable, and the same thing holds for R-pronominalization of theme arguments headed by prepositions other than van.

    413
    a. Het gekopieer ervan kost veel tijd.
      the  copying  there-of  costs  much time
      'Their copying takes a lot of time.'
    b. ? Het gedoneer ervan aan goede doelen moet gestimuleerd worden.
      the  donating  there-of  to good ends  must  stimulated  be
    c. ?? Het gejaag erop is verboden.
      the  hunting  there-on  is prohibited

    If the van-PP expresses the agent, R-pronominalization gives rise to a marked result, which may be due to the fact that agents are typically +animate; PPs with animate noun phrases do not much favor R-pronominalization. R-pronominalization of agentive door-PPs or aan-PPs expressing a recipient gives rise to a completely unacceptable result.

    414
    a. ?? Het gewandel ervan is erg gezond.
      the walking  there-of  is very healthy
    b. * Het gebijt van kleine kinderen erdoor zou strafbaar moeten zijn.
      the  biting  of little children  thereby  should  punishable  must  be
    c. * Het gedoneer van grote bedragen eraan moet gestimuleerd worden.
      the  donating of large sums  there-to  should  stimulated  be

    R-pronominalization is possible with inherited subjects of verbs of sound-emission, provided at least that they are preceded by the article het'the'; the result with the expressive demonstrative dat seems degraded. It is not clear, however, what we can conclude from this given that our discussion of the examples in (417) and (421) in the next subsection suggests that ge-nouns derived from these verbs have a special status.

    415
    a. Het/*Dat geblaf van dat soort hondjes/ervan kan heel hinderlijk zijn.
      the/that  barking  of that sort dogsdim/there-of  can  very irritating  be
      'The barking of that kind of dog/it can be very irritating.'
    b. Het/*Dat gezoem van de wekker/ervan is amper te horen.
      the/that  buzzing  of the alarm.clock/there-of  is hardly  to hear
      'The buzzing of the alarm clock/it can hardly be heard.'
    [+]  D.  Extraction of PP

    The PP-extraction tests yield results that are far from unequivocal. The acceptability of extraction often depends on the ease with which a contrastive interpretation can be construed, and on the type of base verb.

    [+]  1.  Topicalization

    Application of the topicalization test gives rise to mixed results. First of all, the acceptability of these sentences depends on the ease with which a contrastive interpretation can be construed. This may suggest that the topicalized phrase is actually not an argument of the clause, but an independently generated restrictive adverbial phrase.

    416
    a. ? Van die patiënten heb ik het gewandel nauwlettend gadeslagen.
      of those patients  have  I  the strolling  closely  prt.-followed
      'I have closely followed the strolling of those patients.'
    b. ?? Van deze peuters vind ik het getreiter (door Jan) onaanvaardbaar.
      of these toddlers  find  I  the bullying  by Jan  unacceptable
      'I consider Janʼs bullying of these toddlers unacceptable.'
    c. * Van die dure boeken is het gekopieer (door studenten) begrijpelijk.
      of those expensive books  is the copying   by students  understandable
      'The copying of those expensive books by students is understandable.'
    d. * Van dergelijke bedragen is het gedoneer (aan goede doelen) een dure hobby.
      of such sums  is the donating  to good ends  an expensive hobby
      'The donating (to good causes) of such sums is an expensive habit.'
    e. ?? Op deze dieren neemt het gejaag steeds meer af.
      on these animals  takes  the hunting  every time  more  prt.
      'The hunting of these animals is diminishing more and more.'

    Moreover, in the case of ge-nominalizations derived from verbs of sound-emission, preposing of the agentive van-PP is more acceptable than the ge-nominalizations derived from other intransitive verbs. This will become clear by comparing example (416a) to those in (417). The meanings of these examples strongly suggest that we actually are dealing with a restrictive adverbial phrase. It is also interesting to note that examples like those in (417) become considerably worse if the definite article het is replaced by the expressive demonstrative dat'that', which is normally preferred with ge-nominalizations carrying a negative meaning aspect. This might be due to the fact that ge-nominalizations with expressive dat are less referential than those with the article het.

    417
    a. Van het jongetje kunnen we het/*?dat gestotter haast niet verstaan.
      of the boydim  can  we the/that  stuttering  almost not  hear
      'We can hardly hear the stuttering of the little boy.'
    b. Van dat soort hondjes kan het/*dat geblaf heel hinderlijk zijn.
      of that sort dogsdim  can  the/that  barking  very irritating  be
      'The barking of that kind of dog can be very irritating.'
    c. Van deze wekker kun je het/*?dat gezoem haast niet horen.
      of this alarm clock  can  you  the/that buzzing  almost not  hear
      'You can hardly hear the buzzing of this alarm clock.'
    d. Van deze klokken is het/*dat gelui in heel Amsterdam te horen.
      of these bells  is the/that chiming  in whole Amsterdam  to hear
      'The chiming of these bells can be heard all over Amsterdam.'

          The examples in (418) show that extraction of non-theme PPs is never possible: neither extraction of the agent nor of the recipient PP leads to acceptable results.

    418
    a. * Door grote jongens heb ik het getreiter van peuters altijd kinderachtig gevonden.
      by big boys  have  I  the bullying  of toddlers  always childish  found
    b. * Aan goede doelen is het gedoneer van grote bedragen (door multinationals) een dure gewoonte.
      to good ends  is the donating  of large sums  by internationals  an expensive habit

    Observe, however, that with the agent expressed by means of a van-PP instead of a door-PP, it seems quite acceptable for the agent to appear in initial position, especially if it contains a focus particle, like ook'also' or zelfs'even'. This would be compatible with the suggestion in Section 2.2.1, sub VB1, that restrictive focus creates a more tolerant environment for topicalization. Alternatively, it may be the case that we are dealing here with an independent restrictive adverbial phrase, which would be supported by the fact that agentive van-PPs normally cannot co-occur with van-phrases expressing the theme: an analysis in which the van-PPs in clause-initial position originates within the noun phrase is therefore not very likely.

    419
    Ook/Zelfs van Jan heb ik het getreiter van peuters nooit geaccepteerd.
      also/even of Jan  have  I  the bullying  of toddlers  never  accepted
    'Of Jan too/Even of Jan Iʼve never accepted the bullying of toddlers.'
    [+]  2.  Relativization and questioning

    Relativization and questioning of the PP-complement yields results comparable to those of topicalization. This is illustrated in example (420) for some of the constructions discussed in (416).

    420
    a. ? de patiënten van wie het gewandel nauwlettend werd gadegeslagen
      the patients  of who  the strolling  closely  was  observed
      'the patients whose strolling was closely observed'
    a'. ? Van welke patiënten werd het gewandel nauwlettend gadegeslagen?
      of which patients  was  the strolling  closely  observed
      'Of which patients was the strolling closely observed?'
    b. * de bedragen waarvan het gedoneer een dure gewoonte is
      the sums  where-of  the donating  an expensive habit  is
    b'. * Van welke bedragen is het gedoneer een dure gewoonte?
      of which sums  is the donating  an expensive habit
    c. ?? het soort wild waarop het gejaag verboden zou moeten worden
      the sort wild  where-on  the hunting  prohibited  should  must  be
      'the kind of game the hunting of which should be prohibited'
    c'. ?? Op welk soort wild zou het gejaag verboden moeten worden?
      on which sort wild  should  the hunting  prohibited  must  be
      'Of which kind of game should the hunting be prohibited?'

    Again, ge-nominalizations based on verbs of sound emission, like geblaf'barking' in (421), at least superficially seem to be most flexible with regard to preposing of the theme argument. But, as in (417), it is very likely that we actually are dealing here with a (restrictive) adverbial phrase.

    421
    a. het soort hondjes waarvan het geblaf heel hinderlijk kan zijn
      the sort of dog  where-of  the barking  very irritating  can  be
      'the kind of dog the barking of which can be very irritating'
    b. Van welk soort hondjes kan het geblaf heel hinderlijk zijn?
      of which sort dog  can  the barking  very irritating  be
      'Of which kind of dog can the barking be very irritating?'
    [+]  3.  PP-over-V and Scrambling

    The examples in (422) show that, as with inf- and ing-nominalizations, PP-over-V leads to unacceptable results. Example (422a') shows that this also holds for van-PPs that seemingly express the agent of ge-nominalizations based on verbs of sound emission. This is not really surprising given that restrictive adverbial phrases normally cannot follow the verbs in clause-final position either.

    422
    Test 4C: PP-over-V
    a. * Ik heb het gewandel nauwlettend gadegeslagen van deze patiënten.
      I  have  the strolling  closely  observed  of these patients
    a'. ?? Ik heb het geblaf altijd hinderlijk gevonden van dit soort hondjes.
      I  have  the barking  always  annoying  found  of this sort dogs
      'I have always considered the barking of these dogs very annoying.'
    b. *? De regering zou het gejaag moeten verbieden op dat soort wild.
      the government  should  the hunting  must  prohibit  on that sort game
    c. ? Men zou het gedoneer moeten stimuleren van dat soort bedragen.
      one  should  the donating  must stimulate  of that sort sums
      'The donating of this kind of sums ought to be stimulated.'

    The acceptability of the examples in (423) shows that scrambling is possible for agentive van-PPs and all theme PPs, regardless of the preposition used or the type of construction (dyadic/triadic) in question. All resulting sentences are, however, highly contrastive, which may suggest that they all involve a restrictive adverbial phrase rather than an extracted argument of the noun.

    423
    Test 4D: Scrambling
    a. Ik heb van deze patiënten het gewandel nauwlettend gadegeslagen.
      I  have  of these patients  the strolling  closely  observed
      'It is of these patients that I have closely observed the strolling.'
    a'. Ik heb van dit soort hondjes het geblaf altijd hinderlijk gevonden.
      I  have  of this sort dogs  the barking  always  annoying  found
      'It is of this kind of dog that I have always considered the barking annoying.'
    b. De regering zou op dat soort wild het gejaag moeten verbieden.
      the government  should  on that sort game  the hunting  must  prohibit
      'It is on that kind of game that the government should prohibit the hunting.'
    c. Men zou van dat soort bedragen het gedoneer moeten stimuleren.
      one should  of that sort sums  the donating  must  stimulate
      'It is of that kind of sums that the donating ought to be stimulated.'

    With agentive door-PPs and other non-theme PP arguments, both PP-over-V and scrambling are clearly impossible, as illustrated by the unacceptability of the examples in (424).

    424
    a. * Men moet het gedoneer (door multinationals) stimuleren aan goede doelen.
      one  must  the donating  by multinationals  stimulate  to good ends
    a'. * Men moet aan goede doelen het gedoneer (door multinationals) stimuleren.
    b. * Men moet dat gekopieer van dure boeken verbieden door studenten.
      one  must  that copying  of expensive books  prohibit  by students
    b'. * Men moet door studenten dat gekopieer van dure boeken verbieden.
    [+]  E.  Conclusion

    Table 11 summarizes the results of the four tests for inherited theme arguments of ge-nouns. The third and fifth columns indicate whether the results provide evidence for or against the assumption that we are dealing with complements. The first three tests provide unequivocal evidence for complement status both of the van-PPs and theme-PPs headed by other prepositions. There is a marked difference in behavior between van-PPs and PPs headed by other prepositions with respect to the possibility of extraction: the conclusion that inherited theme PPs function as complements receives, at best, weak support from the extraction facts. However, since we have seen that the PP-extraction tests are problematic in various respects, and may not be suitable for establishing complement status of PPs, it seems we can still safely conclude that both types of theme-PP function as an argument of the derived noun.

    Table 11: Theme complements of ge-nominalization: outcome of Tests 1-4
      van-PPs other PPs
    Test 1: PP obligatory + positive + positive
    Test 2: Post-copular position — positive n.a. n.a.
    Test 3: R-pronominalization + positive + positive
    Test 4A: Topicalization ?? ? ?? ?/negative
    Test 4B: Relativization/questioning ??   ??  
    Test 4C: PP-over-V ??   —  
    Test 4D: Scrambling ?   ?  

    For recipient aan-PPs and agentive door-PPs it is more difficult to establish whether they are arguments of the noun. Only the first test is relevant for them, and it seems that this test provides evidence against assuming argument status: recipients and agents normally need not be expressed. However, given that recipients and agentive door-phrases are normally also optional in verbal constructions, this is not conclusive. We will therefore assume that they have a status similar to the theme, which clearly does behave as an argument.

    References:
      About this article
      Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer
      Category: Dutch Syntax
      Keywords: ComplementComplementiveDemonstrative PronounDitransitive VerbFocusFocus ParticleNominalizationPronounPseudo-intransitive VerbR-pronominalizationScramblingSpurious Demonstrative PronounTopicalizationTransitive VerbUnaccusative VerbVerbWh-movement
      Version: 1.0, December 2015
      Version history:
      version editor(s) date remarks
      1.0 Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer December 2015
      report errorprintcite
      Jump to:
      X