Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.5.6.Application of the complement/adjunct tests

quickinfo

Now that we have discussed the status of the PPs that occur with noun phrases headed by a picture/story noun and established that extraction of PP-complements is only possible from indefinite noun phrases selected by non-affective verbs, we can apply the four tests provided in Section 2.2.1 to distinguish complement PPs from adjunct PPs to picture/story noun constructions. As these tests are designed to distinguish between complements and adjuncts within the noun phrase, we will restrict ourselves to those cases in which the van/over-PPs can be assumed to form part of the noun phrase; see Section 2.2.5.5 for discussion.

I. Obligatoriness of the PPs
- A. Picture nouns
- B. Story Nouns
II. Occurrence of the van-PPs in postcopular predicative constructions
- A. Picture nouns
- B. Story nouns
III. R-pronominalization
- A. Picture nouns
- B. Story nouns
IV. Extraction of PP

[+] I. Obligatoriness of the PPs

Complements are normally obligatorily present, whereas adjuncts are optional. This subsection will show, however, that this test does not provide conclusive evidence for assuming that the agent and theme act as arguments of the picture/story noun.

[+] A. Picture nouns

As illustrated in example (562) the agent argument of a picture noun need not be overtly expressed, even though it will always be semantically implied.

562

a.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van de Westertoren	(van Rembrandt)	gekocht.
	I	have	a drawing	of the Westertoren	of Rembrandt	bought
	'Iʼve bought a drawing of the Westertoren by Rembrandt.'

b.	Jan heeft	een tekening	van zijn broer	gemaakt.
	Jan has	a drawing	of his brother	made
	'Jan has made a drawing of his brother.'

Example (563) shows that theme PPs can sometimes be left out as well, even in cases in which the picture noun is derived from a transitive verb requiring a theme complement, such as schilderij'painting' or tekening'drawing'.

563

a.	Ik	heb	gisteren	een schilderij	(van Leiden)	gezien.
	I	have	yesterday	a painting	of Leiden	seen
	'I saw a painting (of Leiden) yesterday.'

b.	Jan heeft	een tekening	(van de Westertoren)	gemaakt.
	Jan has	a drawing	of the Westertoren	made
	'Jan has made a drawing (of the Westertoren).'

Leaving out the theme arguments does not always yield an acceptable result: with a noun like afbeelding'picture' in (564) leaving out the theme normally gives rise to a degraded result. The difference between (563) and (564) is probably related to the degree of lexicalization: picture nouns like schilderij and tekening'drawing' are highly lexicalized as a result of which they may have lost their argument structure; the picture noun afbeelding'picture', on the other hand, exhibits a lower degree of lexicalization and can be said to have retained the argument structure of the verb, even though its denotation has changed. For more a detailed discussion of this issue, see Section 2.2.5.2.

564

a.	Ik	heb	een afbeelding	*?(van de Westertoren)	aan de muur	gehangen.
	I	have	a picture	of the Westertoren	on the wall	hung
	'Iʼve put a picture (of the Westertoren) on the wall.'

b.	Jan heeft	een afbeelding	*?(van de Westertoren)	gekocht.
	Jan has	a picture	of the Westertoren	bought
	'Jan has bought a picture (of the Westertoren).'

[+] B. Story Nouns

As pointed out in Section 2.2.5.2, sub II, in some cases the complements of story nouns with a verbal counterpart cannot felicitously be left out, whereas in others explicit mention of the complement(s) is not required. Thus, where the noun has abstract reference, that is, refers to the contents of some object, mention of at least one argument is preferred. This argument need not be the subject matter (theme), but may instead be the creator (agent). This is illustrated in example (565a). In cases such as (565b), where the referent is a concrete object, on the other hand, there is no need for an argument. Finally, in (565c), where the creator of the story noun is also the agent of the whole construction, the story noun can appear without complements.

565

a.	Ik	heb	naar een lezing	??(over/van Mulisch)	geluisterd.
	I	have	to a lecture	about/of Mulisch	listened
	'Iʼve listened to a lecture (on/by Mulisch).'

b.	Ik	heb	een lezing	(over/van Mulisch)	uitgetypt.
	I	have	a lecture	about/of Mulisch	typed.out
	'Iʼve typed out a lecture (on/by Mulisch).'

c.	Ik	heb	een voordracht	(over Mulisch)	gehouden.
	I	have	a lecture	about Mulisch	kept
	'Iʼve given a lecture (on Mulisch).'

Where the story noun does not have a verbal counterpart, both the agent and the theme arguments can normally be left out, even if it is the contents of the story noun that is relevant. This is illustrated in example (566).

566

a.	Ik	heb	gisteren	een boek/artikel	(over/van Mulisch)	gelezen.
	I	have	yesterday	a book/article	about/of Mulisch	read
	'I've read a book/article (about/by Mulisch) yesterday.'

b.	Ik	heb	gisteren	een film	(over Nixon/van Hitchcock)	gezien.
	I	have	yesterday	a film	about Nixon/of Hitchcock	seen
	'Iʼve seen a film (about Nixon)/a (Hitchcock) film yesterday.'

Sentences like the ones in (566) are quite common with modified story nouns, as in (567a). Such sentences typically serve to start a discourse, with the speaker waiting for encouragement from the hearer, and evoke questions like (567b) from the addressee concerning the identity of the agent or the theme of the story noun, which shows that these are still somehow implied.

567

a.	Ik	heb	gisteren	een interessant artikel	gelezen.	speaker A
	I	have	yesterday	an interesting article	read
	'I read an interesting article yesterday.'

b.	O ja?	Van wie/Waarover?	speaker B
	oh yes	of who/what.about
	'Did you? Who by/What about?'

[+] II. Occurrence of the van-PPs in postcopular predicative constructions

This subsection shows that both possessive and agentive van-PPs behave like adjuncts in being able to occur in the postcopular predicative position. The theme, on the other hand, behaves more like a complement.

[+] A. Picture nouns

Since Section 2.2.1, sub III, has shown that van-PPs in postcopular predicative constructions are typically interpreted as possessors, it does not come as a surprise that example (568a) can be interpreted with Jan as the possessor of the painting. What is surprising, however, is that Jan can also be interpreted as the agent of the construction. In fact, the examples in (568b&c) are also ambiguous with regard to the distribution of the agent and possessor roles: the preferred interpretation indicated by the labels and given in the translations is entirely based on our knowledge of the world.

568

a.	Dit schilderij	van de WestertorenTheme	is van JanPoss/Agent.
	this painting	of the Westertoren	is of Jan
	'This painting of the Westertoren belongs to/is made by Jan.'

b.	JansPoss	schilderij	van de WestertorenTheme	is van RembrandtAgent.
	Janʼs	painting	of the Westertoren	is of Rembrandt
	'Janʼs painting of the Westertoren was made by Rembrandt.'

c.	RembrandtsAgent	schilderij	van de WestertorenTheme	is van JanPoss.
	Rembrandt's	painting	of the Westertoren	is of Jan
	'Rembrandt's painting of the Westertoren belongs to Jan/was made by Jan.'

Example (569a) shows that placing a theme PP in predicative postcopular position normally yield a degraded result (although some people do accept this example). Examples such as this improve, however, in contrastive contexts with strong emphasis on the subject noun phrase, as is shown in (569b); they are especially acceptable if the agent argument is present.

569

a.	??	Het schilderij	is van de WestertorenTheme.
		the painting	is of the Westertoren

b.	Dit schilderij	?(van RembrandtAgent)	is van de WestertorenTheme	(en dat van de Zuidertoren).
	this painting	of Rembrandt	is of the Westertoren	and that of the Zuidertoren
	'This painting (by Rembrandt) depicts the Westertoren (and that one the Zuidertoren).'

[+] B. Story nouns

As expected, the possessor of story noun constructions can be used as the predicative part of copular constructions. As with picture nouns, however, the van-PP in this position can also be interpreted as the agent argument. Examples are given in (570). As in the case of picture nouns, knowledge of the world will affect the preference for one interpretation or the other; cf. example (568).

570

a.	Dit boek	(over de oorlogTheme)	is van JanPoss/MulischAgent.
	this book	about the war	is of Jan/Mulisch
	'This book (about the war) is Janʼs/by Mulisch.'

b.	Deze film	(over NixonTheme)	is van mijPoss/Oliver StoneAgent.
	this film	about Nixon	is of me/Oliver Stone
	'This film (about Nixon) is mine/by Oliver Stone.'

This test cannot be used in order to establish whether the theme of story nouns functions as a complement of the noun given that it does not have the form of a van-PP. Example (571) shows, however, that the theme-PP can be used in constructions with the verb gaan'to go'.

571

Dit boek/Deze film	gaat/*is	over de oorlogTheme.
this book /this film	goes/is	about the war
'This book/film is about the war.'

[+] III. R-pronominalization

According to this test the impossibility of R-pronominalization indicates adjunct status.

[+] A. Picture nouns

That PP-adjuncts cannot undergo this pronominalization process is illustrated in (572): example (572b) is only acceptable if the phrase er ... mee is construed as an independent instrumental adverbial phrase.

572

a.	Ik	heb	een schilderij	met een vergulde lijst	gezien/beschadigd.
	I	have	a painting	with a gilded frame	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged some painting with a gilded frame.'

b.	#	Ik	heb	<er>	een schilderij <er>	mee	gezien/beschadigd.
		I	have	there	a painting	with	seen/damaged

The fact that it is impossible to pronominalize possessive van-PPs, illustrated in (573b), therefore supports the conclusion from Subsection I that these van-PPs function as adjuncts.

573

a.	Ik	heb	enkele beelden	van dit museumPoss	gezien.
	I	have	some sculptures	of this museum	seen
	'Iʼve seen some of this museumʼs sculptures.'

b.	*	Ik	heb	<er>	enkele beelden <er>	van	gezien.
		I	have	there	some sculptures	of	seen

The acceptability of R-pronominalization in (574a'&b') with the verb zien'to see', on the other hand, may be taken as evidence in favor of the claim that van-PPs with the role of agent and theme function as complements of the picture noun. However, the fact that both the unsplit and the split patterns are acceptable suggests that, at least in the latter case, we may be dealing with a restrictive adverbial phrase; cf. Section 2.2.1, sub IV. That the examples may not involve PP-complements of the picture noun is also suggested by the fact that the acceptability of the examples decreases when we use affective verbs like beschadigen'to damage', which normally do not license the presence of dependent PPs; cf. Section 2.2.5.5. The results of the test are therefore not conclusive.

574

a.	Ik	heb	enkele beelden	van dit kunstenaarscollectiefAg	gezien/beschadigd.
	I	have	some sculptures	of this artistsʼ collective	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged some sculptures by this group of artists.'

a'.	Ik	heb	<er>	enkele beelden <er>	van	gezien/??beschadigd.
	I	have	there	some sculptures	of	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged some sculptures by them.'

b.	Ik	heb	een	tekening	van de WestertorenTheme	gezien/beschadigd.
	I	have	a	drawing	of the Westertoren	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing of the Westertoren.'

b'.	Ik	heb	<er>	een	tekening <er>	van	gezien/*?beschadigd.
	I	have	there	a	drawing	of	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing of it.'

[+] B. Story nouns

That PP-adjuncts cannot undergo this pronominalization process is illustrated in (575): (575b) is acceptable, but only if the phrase er ... mee is construed as an independent instrumental adverbial phrase.

575

a.	Ik	heb	een boek	met een harde kaft	gelezen.
	I	have	a book	with a hard cover	read
	'Iʼve read a book with a hard cover.'

b.	#	Ik	heb	<er>	een boek <er>	mee	gelezen.
		I	have	there	a book	with	read

Again, the finding that it is impossible to pronominalize possessive van-PPs with story nouns, illustrated in (576), supports the conclusion from Subsection I that these van-PPs function as adjuncts.

576

a.	Ik	heb	enkele boeken	van deze bibliotheekPoss	gelezen.
	I	have	some books	of this library	read
	'Iʼve read some books from this library.'

b.	*?	Ik	heb	<er>	enkele boeken <er>	van	gelezen.
		I	have	there	some books	of	read

The acceptability of R-pronominalization in (577a'&b') with the verb lezen'to read', on the other hand, may be taken as evidence that PPs with the roles of agent and theme do function as complements of the story noun. However, the fact that both the unsplit and the split pattern are acceptable suggests that, at least in the latter case, we may be dealing with a restrictive adverbial phrase; cf. Section 2.2.1, sub IV. That the examples do not involve PP-complements of the story noun is also suggested by the fact that the acceptability of the examples decreases when we use affective verbs like verscheuren'to tear up', which do not license the presence of dependent PPs; cf. Section 2.2.5.5. The results of the test are therefore not conclusive.

577

a.	Ik	heb	enkele boeken	van dit schrijversduoAgent	gelezen/verscheurd.
	I	have	some book	of this writerʼs duo	read/torn.up
	'Iʼve read/torn up some books by these writers.'

a'.	Ik	heb	<er>	enkele boeken <er>	van	gelezen/??verscheurd.
	I	have	there	some books	of	read/torn.up
	'Iʼve read/torn up some books by them.'

b.	Ik	heb	een boek	over de middeleeuwenTheme	gelezen/verscheurd.
	I	have	a book	about the Middle Ages	read/torn.up
	'Iʼve read/torn up a book about the Middle Ages.'

b'.	Ik	heb	<er>	een boek <er>	over	gelezen/??verscheurd.
	I	have	there	a book	about	read/torn.up
	'Iʼve read/torn up a book about it.'

[+] IV. Extraction of PP

According to this test adjunct PPs cannot be extracted from noun phrases. That this also holds for noun phrases headed by a picture/story noun is illustrated by the examples in (578), which involve topicalization of adjunct PPs introduced by, respectively, met'with' and uit'from'.

578

a.		Ik	heb	twee schilderijen	met een vergulde lijst	gezien.
		I	have	two paintings	with a gilded list	seen

a'.

Met een vergulde lijst heb ik twee schilderijen gezien.

b.	Ik	heb	vorige week	een boek	uit 1986	vertaald.
	I	have	last week	a book	from 1986	translated
	'Last week I translated a book from 1986.'

b'.

Uit 1986 heb ik vorige week een boek vertaald.

[+] A. Topicalization

Preposing the possessor van-PP of a picture or story noun always leads to unacceptable or, at best, questionable results. In example (579a), for instance, the preposed van-PP can only be interpreted as the theme or the agent of the picture noun. On the intended reading, the examples in (579b&c) are at best marginally acceptable on a contrastive reading.

579

a.	*	Van JanPoss	heb	ik	een tekening	gezien.
		of Jan	have	I	a drawing	seen

b.	??	Van JanPoss	heb	ik	een tekening	van RembrandtAgent	gezien.
		of Jan	have	I	a drawing	of Rembrandt	seen
		'Iʼve seen a drawing by Rembrandt belonging to Jan.'

c.	??	Van JanPoss	heb	ik	een tekening	van de WestertorenTheme	gezien.
		of Jan	have	I	a drawing	of the Westertoren	seen
		'Iʼve seen a drawing of the Westertoren belonging to Jan.'

In (580) we provide similar examples with the story noun boek'book': in (580a), the preposed van-PP can only be interpreted as the agent (the author), not as the possessor of the book. Examples (580b&c) are again at best marginally acceptable on a contrastive reading.

580

a.	*	Van JanPoss	heb	ik	een boek	gelezen/verbrand.
		of Jan	have	I	a book	read/burnt

b.	??	Van JanPoss	heb	ik	een boek	van HuizingaAgent	gelezen/verbrand.
		of Jan	have	I	a book	of Huizinga	read/burnt

c.	??	Van JanPoss	heb	ik	HuizingaʼsAgentboek	gelezen/verbrand.
		of Jan	have	I	Huizingaʼs book	read/burnt

Section 2.2.5.5 already came to the conclusion that PP-complements of picture/story nouns can be topicalized provided that the noun phrase is selected by a non-affective verb like zien'to see'. However, several other factors apparently seem to influence the acceptability of extraction of the postnominal PPs in picture/story noun constructions: we will discuss the role of focus, the choice of the determiner, and the presence of numerals/quantifiers or other arguments. Given that picture and story nouns exhibit more or less the same behavior we will discuss them simultaneously.

[+] 1. Focus constituents

Section 2.2.1, sub V, has discussed a number of contexts that may allow topicalization of (sometimes alleged) argument PPs in nominalizations that would otherwise not be eligible for this form of extraction. Similar exceptions seem to be found in the case of picture/story nouns. The examples in (581), for example, show that, if the fronted constituent has contrastive or restrictive focus, topicalization of apparently agentive van-PPs is even possible with affective verbs like beschadigen'to destroy' or verbranden'to burn'.

581

a.	Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	een tekening	beschadigd	(niet van Frans Hals).
	of Rembrandt	have	I	a drawing	damaged	not of Frans Hals
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing by Rembrandt (not by Frans Hals).'

b.	Van Huizinga	heb	ik	een boek	verbrand	(niet van Pleij).
	of Huizinga	have	I	a book	burnt	not of Pleij
	'Iʼve burnt a book by Huizinga (not by Pleij).'

The examples in (582) show, however, that the van-PPs should not be considered agents of the noun phrases given that we have seen that only independent PPs can be preceded by the negator niet, so that it is only the negated form of these independent PPs that can be topicalized. This suggests that the affective verbs can be combined with a restrictive adverbial phrase after all, provided at least that it is assigned contrastive focus.

582

a.	Niet van Rembrandt	heb	ik	een tekening	beschadigd	(maar van F. Hals).
	not of Rembrandt	have	I	a drawing	damaged	but of Frans Hals
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing not by Rembrandt but by Frans Hals.'

b.	Niet van HuizingaAgent	heb	ik	een boek	verbrand	(maar van Pleij).
	not of Huizinga	have	I	a book	burnt	but of Pleij
	'Iʼve burnt a book not by Huizinga (but by Pleij).'

The impression that we are dealing with topicalization of the agent argument of the noun phrase is probably due to the fact that the restrictive adverbial phrase provides the context from which the identity of the agent can be deduced. Note that the unacceptability of the examples in (583) shows that a restrictive adverbial PP apparently does not succeed in making the theme of the noun phrase recoverable.

583

a.	*	Niet van de Westertoren	heeft	Jan een schilderij	beschadigd	(maar van de Zuidertoren).
		not of the Westertoren	has	Jan a painting	damaged	but of the Zuidertoren

b.	*	Niet over de middeleeuwen	heeft	Jan	een boek	verbrand	(maar over de Oudheid).
		not about the Middle Ages	has	Jan	a book	burnt	but about the antiquity

[+] 2. The choice of determiner

The choice of determiner also seems to influence the acceptability of PP-topicalization. The contrast between some of the primeless and primed examples in (584) and (585) suggests that dependent PPs can be more easily extracted from indefinite noun phrases than from definite ones and that, as a result, variation in the degree of acceptability of topicalized constructions occurs even between constructions with the same verb. The examples in (584) and (585) further illustrate that the difference in acceptability mainly show up with theme van/over-PPs, as in the (b)-examples; topicalization of agent van-PPs from the (a)-examples does not seem sensitive to the choice of determiner.

584

a.		Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	een prachtig schilderij/al veel schilderijen	gezien.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	a beautiful painting/already many paintings	seen

a'.		Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	het onlangs beschadigde schilderij	gezien.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	the recently damaged painting	seen

b.		Van de Amstel	heb	ik	een prachtig schilderij/veel schilderijen	gezien.
		of the Amstel	have	I	a beautiful painting/many paintings	seen

b'.	?	Van de Amstel	heb	ik	gisteren	het onlangs beschadigde schilderij	gezien.
		of the Amstel	have	I	yesterday	the recently damaged painting	seen

585

a.	Van Oliver Stone	heb	ik	een spannende film/al drie films	gezien.
	of Oliver Stone	have	I	a exciting film/already three films	seen
	'Iʼve seen an exciting film/three films by/*?belonging to Oliver Stone.'

a'.	Van Oliver Stone	heb	ik	gisteren	de nieuwste film	gezien.
	of Oliver Stone	have	I	yesterday	the newest film	seen
	'I saw the latest film by Oliver Stone yesterday.'

b.	Over Nixon	heb	ik	een spannende film/al drie films	gezien.
	about Nixon	have	I	a very exciting film/already three films	seen
	'Iʼve seen a very exciting film/three films already about Nixon.'

b'.	?	Over Nixon	heb	ik	de nieuwste film	(nog niet)	gezien.
		about Nixon	have	I	the newest film	not yet	seen
		'Iʼve (not yet) seen the latest film about Nixon.'

The contrast between agents/possessors and themes seems even clearer if the noun phrase contains a demonstrative determiner: the (a)-examples in (586) and (587) show that topicalization of the apparently agentive van-PP is possible, provided that the demonstrative noun phrase is given a contrastive or deictic reading; topicalization of the theme PP in the (b)-examples, on the other hand, yields a questionable construction, although contrastive emphasis on both the theme ( Westertoren/Nixon) and the demonstrative ( dat/dit'that/this') may somewhat improve the result. Bear in mind that these differences are real but subtle.

586

a.		Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	dat schilderij	nog nooit	gezien.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	that painting	yet never	seen

b.	??	Van de Amstel	heb	ik	dat schilderij	nog nooit	gezien.
		of the Amstel	have	I	that painting	yet never	seen

587

a.	Van Oliver StoneAgent	heb	ik	die film	(nog niet)	gezien.
	of Oliver Stone	have	I	that film	not yet	seen
	'Iʼve (not yet) seen that film by Oliver Stone.'

b.	??	Over NixonTheme	heb	ik	deze film	al	gezien.
		about Nixon	have	I	this film	already	seen
		'Iʼve already seen this film about Nixon.'

The apparent contrast between topicalization of the agent/possessor and the theme may be due to fact that only in the latter case are we dealing with a complement of the picture/story noun. That this is probably the case is clear from the fact, illustrated in the (a)-examples in (588) and (589), that the apparently agentive/possessive van-PP in initial position can be combined with a coreferential possessive pronoun. The unacceptability of the (b)-examples shows that in this case the van-PP cannot have been extracted from the noun phrase, as it cannot occur in what would have been its original position. Consequently, the van-PP must be regarded as a restrictive adverbial phrase.

588

a.	(?)	Van Rembrandti	heb	ik	zijni laatste schilderij	gezien.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	his last painting	seen

b.	*	Ik	heb	zijni laatste schilderij	van Rembrandti	gezien.
		I	have	his last painting	of Rembrandt	seen

589

a.	(?)	Van Oliver Stonei	heb	ik	zijni laatste film	nog niet	gezien.
		of Oliver Stone	have	I	his last film	not yet	seen

b.	*	Ik	heb	zijni laatste film	van Oliver Stonei	nog niet	gezien.
		I	have	his last film	of Oliver Stone	not yet	seen

The idea suggested earlier that the restrictive adverbial phrase makes the agent of the noun phrase recoverable may also account for the somewhat marked status of the (a)-examples in (588) and (589); since the agent is contextually recoverable, explicit mention of it in the form of a possessive pronoun is not needed and may therefore be disfavored. On this account the degraded status of (584b') and (585b') may also fall out given that example (583) has already established that restrictive adverbial PPs do not readily succeed in making the theme of the noun phrase recoverable.
With affective verbs like verbranden'to burn' and vernietigen'to destroy', the possibilities for topicalization are far more restricted than with non-affective verbs. Only the apparent agent PP can be topicalized, and then only in constructions like (590a'') and (591a''), with a demonstrative determiner and on a highly contrastive reading. The contrast between the (a)- and (b)-examples in this respect again suggests that the topicalized phrase is actually not a dependent PP, but functions as a restrictive adverbial phrase.

590

a.	*	Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	een kostbaar schilderij/al drie schilderijen	vernietigd.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	a valuable painting/already three paintings	destroyed

a'.	*	Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	het onlangs herstelde schilderij	vernietigd.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	the recently restored painting	destroyed

a''.		Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	dit schilderij	vernietigd	(en een ander beschadigd).
		of Rembrandt	have	I	this painting	destroyed	and some other damaged

b.	*	Van de Amstel	heb	ik	een kostbaar schilderij/al drie schilderijen	vernietigd.
		of the Amstel	have	I	a valuable painting/already three paintings	destroyed

b'.	*	Van de Amstel	heb	ik	het onlangs herstelde schilderij	vernietigd.
		of the Amstel	have	I	the recently restored painting	destroyed

b''.	*	Van de Amstel	heb	ik	dit schilderij	vernietigd	(en een ander beschadigd).
		of the Amstel	have	I	this painting	destroyed	and some other damaged

591

a.	*	Van Huizinga	heb	ik	een heel saai boek/al drie boeken	verbrand.
		of Huizinga	have	I	a very dull/already three books	burnt

a'.	*	Van Huizinga	heb	ik	net	het nieuwste boek	verbrand.
		of Huizinga	have	I	just	the newest book	burnt

a''.	?	Van Huizinga	heb	ik	dit boek	verbrand	(en alle andere verscheurd).
		of Huizinga	have	I	this book	burnt	and all others torn.up

b.	*	Over de middeleeuwen	heb	ik	een heel slecht boek	vertaald.
		about the Middle Ages	have	I	a very bad book	translated

b'.	*	Over de middeleeuwen	heb	ik	het nieuwste boek	(nog niet)	vertaald.
		about the Middle Ages	have	I	the newest book	not yet	translated

b''.	*	Over de middeleeuwen	heb	ik	dit boek	verbrand	(en nog twee andere weggegooid).
		about the Middle Ages	have	I	this book	burnt	and yet two others thrown away

[+] 3. Numerals and quantifiers

Topicalization of van/over-PPs seems possible from noun phrases containing a quantifier or a numeral. The fact that topicalization of the agent and theme PPs is even possible in clauses with affective verbs like beschadigen'to damage' and vernietigen'to destroy', which normally do not allow PP-topicalization, strongly suggests that we are actually dealing with restrictive adverbial phrases in these cases. This is also supported by the contrast in acceptability between the (a)- and (b)-examples in (592) and (593); restrictive adverbial PPs do not readily succeed in making the theme of the noun phrase recoverable.

592

a.	Van Rembrandt	zijn	nu	al	veel/negen schilderijen	beschadigd.
	of Rembrandt	are	now	already	many/nine paintings	damaged
	'Various paintings (owned) by Rembrandt have been damaged by now.'

b.	?	Van de Amstel	zijn	nu	al	verschillende schilderijen	beschadigd.
		of the Amstel	are	now	already	various paintings	damaged
		'Various paintings of the Westertoren have been damaged by now.'

593

a.	Van Oliver Stone	hebben	we	alle/drie films	vernietigd.
	of Oliver Stone	have	we	all/three films	destroyed
	'We have destroyed all/three films by Oliver Stone.'

b.	?	Over Nixon	hebben	we	alle/drie films	vernietigd.
		about Nixon	have	we	all/three films	destroyed
		'We have destroyed all/three films about Nixon.'

[+] 4. Possessors and noun phrase-internal arguments

The examples in (594) show that the acceptability of examples with fronted PPs may also depend on the presence of a possessor; if present, preposing of the agent or theme PP is excluded. This need not come as a surprise given that these possessed noun phrases are definite, and definite noun phrases do not readily allow extraction. It is, however, not entirely clear what blocks the independent use of the fronted PP as a restrictive adverbial phrase.

594

a.	*	Van RembrandtAg	heb	ik	JansPoss	tekening	gezien.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	Janʼs	drawing	seen
		'Iʼve seen Janʼs drawing of the Westertoren by Rembrandt.'

a'.	*	Van de AmstelTh	heb	ik	JansPoss	tekening	(van RembrandtAgent)	gezien.
		of the Amstel	have	I	Janʼs	drawing	of Rembrandt	seen

b.	*?	Van MulischAgent	heb	ik	JansPoss	boek	gelezen.
		of Mulisch	have	I	Janʼs	book	read

b'.	*	Over de oorlogTheme	heb	ik	JansPoss boek	gelezen.
		about the war	have	I	Janʼs book	read

We have seen earlier that the agent allows topicalization if it is the only argument present. The primed examples in (595) show that in the presence of a theme argument, topicalization of the agent PP is only acceptable in contrastive contexts.

595

a.	Van RembrandtAgent	heb	ik	een prachtig schilderij	gezien.
	of Rembrandt	have	I	a beautiful painting	seen
	'Iʼve seen a beautiful painting by Rembrandt.'

a'.	Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	een prachtig tekening	van de Amstel	gezien.
	of Rembrandt	have	I	a beautiful drawing	of the Amstel	seen
	'Iʼve seen a beautiful drawing by Rembrandt of the Amstel.'

b.	Van Mulisch	heb	ik	al	heel wat boeken	gelezen.
	of Mulisch	have	I	already	quite some books	read
	'Iʼve read quite some books by Mulisch already.'

b'.	Van Mulisch	heb	ik	een boek over de oorlog	gelezen.
	of Mulisch	have	I	a book about the war	read
	'Iʼve read a book about the war by Mulisch already.'

We have also seen that the theme allows topicalization if it is the only argument present. The primed and doubly-primed examples in (596) show, however, that theme extraction in the presence of an agent PP is marked, even on a contrastive reading.

596

a.	Van de AmstelTheme	heb	ik	een prachtige tekening	gezien.
	of the Amstel	have	I	a beautiful drawing	seen
	'Of the Amstel Iʼve seen a beautiful drawing.'

a'.	??	Van de Amstel	heb ik een prachtige tekening	van RembrandtAgent	gezien.
		of the Amstel	have I a beautiful drawing	of Rembrandt	seen
		'Iʼve seen a beautiful drawing of the Amstel by Rembrandt.'

a''.	??	Van de Amstel	heb	ik	RembrandtsAgent	prachtige tekening	gezien.
		of the Amstel	have	I	Rembrandtʼs	beautiful drawing	seen
		'Iʼve seen Rembrandtʼs beautiful drawing of the Amstel.'

b.		Over de middeleeuwenTheme	heb	ik	heel wat boeken	gelezen/verscheurd.
		about the Middle Ages	have	I	quite some books	read/torn.up

b'.	??	Over de middeleeuwen	heb	ik	een boek	van HuizingaAgent	gelezen.
		about the Middle Ages	have	I	a book	of Huizinga	read

b''.	??	Over de middeleeuwen	heb	ik	HuizingaʼsAgent boek	gelezen.
		about the Middle Ages	have	I	Huizingaʼs book	read

The need of a contrastive context and the difference in acceptability between the primed “agent” examples in (595), on the one hand, and the primed “theme” examples in (596), on the other, suggest again that the fronted PPs are not arguments of the noun but independent restrictive adverbial phrases.

[+] 5. Conclusion

The discussion in the previous subsections have shown that there may be various cases in which apparent PP-extraction from picture/story noun constructions actually involves topicalization of independent PPs. The only genuine cases of PP-extraction seem to involve indefinite noun phrases that are selected by non-affective verbs like zien'to see'. The discussion of PP-extraction in the remainder of this section will therefore be restricted to such cases.

[+] B. Relativization and questioning

This subsection shows that relativization and questioning point in the same direction as topicalization. Possessors resist extraction and therefore clearly function as adjuncts. Extraction of agent and theme seems possible at first sight but may in fact involve fronting of an independent restrictive adverbial phrase.
The judgments on relativization and questioning of the possessor are perhaps less sharp than those on topicalization, but still the most salient readings of the primed examples in (597) are again those in which the van-PP refers to the agent or the theme. This suggests that possessors cannot be extracted and hence function as adjuncts.

597

a.	??	Dit is de vriendPoss	van wie	ik	een tekening	heb gezien.
		this is the friend	of who	I	a drawing	have seen
		'This is the friend of whom Iʼve seen a drawing.'

a'.	??	Van wiePoss	heb	jij	een schilderij	gezien?
		of who	have	you	a painting	seen
		'By whom have you seen a painting?'

b.	??	Dit is de vriendPoss	van wie	ik	een boek	heb	vertaald.
		this is the friend	of who	I	a book	have	translated
		'This is the friend of whom Iʼve translated a book.'

b'.	??	Van wiePoss	heb	jij	een boek	vertaald?
		of who	have	you	a book	translated
		'Of whom have you translated a book?'

Relativization and questioning of the agent and the theme are easily possible if they are the only arguments present. The examples in (598) show that extraction of the agent does not seem sensitive to the presence of the theme argument.

598

a.	Dit is de schilderAgent	van wie	ik	een schilderij	(van de Amstel)	heb gezien.
	this is the painter	of who	I	a painting	of the Amstel	have seen
	'This is the painter by whom Iʼve seen a painting (of the Amstel).'

a'.	Van wieAgent	heb	jij	een schilderij	(van de Amstel)	gezien?
	of who	have	you	a painting	of the Amstel	seen
	'By whom have you seen a painting (of the Amstel)?'

b.	de auteurAgent	van wie	ik	een boek	(over WO IITheme)	heb	vertaald
	the writer	of who	I	a book	about WW II	have	translated
	'the writer of whom Iʼve translated a book (about WW II)'

b'.	Van wieAgent	heb	jij	een boek	(over WO IITheme)	vertaald?
	of who	have	you	a book	about WW II	translated
	'Of whom have you translated a book (about WW II)?'

Relativization of the theme is more restricted in the sense that the results degrade considerably as soon as the agent is added; examples in which the agent appears in the form of a van-PP are perhaps slightly better than those in which it appears as a prenominal genitive noun phrase. The fact that the differences in judgments on the primeless examples in (598) and the primed examples in (599) resemble those on the primed examples in (595) and (596) suggests again that we may be dealing with independent restrictive adverbial phrases rather than with complements of the noun.

599

a.		de jongenTheme	van wie	ik	een portret	heb	gezien
		the boy	of who	I	a portrait	have	seen

a'.	?	de jongen	van wie	ik	een portret	van RembrandtAgent	heb	gezien
		the boy	of who	I	a portrait	of Rembrandt	have	seen

a''.	*	de jongen	van wie	ik	RembrandtsAgent	portret	heb	gezien
		the boy	of who	I	Rembrandtʼs	portrait	have	seen

b.	het onderwerpTheme	waarover	ik	een boek	heb	vertaald
	the subject	where-about	I	a book	have	translated
	'the subject Iʼve translated a book about'

b'.	??	het onderwerp	waarover	ik	een boek	van HuizingaAgent	heb vertaald
		the subject	where-about	I	a book	of Huizinga	have translated
		'the subject Iʼve translated a book by Huizinga about'

b''.	*?	het onderwerp	waarover	ik	HuizingaʼsAgent boek	heb	vertaald
		the subject	where-about	I	Huizingaʼs book	have	translated

The examples in (600) simply show that we find similar judgments in the case of questioning the theme. The differences in judgments on the primed examples in (598) and the primed examples in (600) resemble those on the primed examples in (595) and (596), which yet again suggests that we may be dealing with independent restrictive adverbial phrases rather than with complements of the noun.

600

a.		Van welke jongenTheme	heb	jij	een portret	gezien?
		of which boy	have	you	a portrait	seen

a'.	??	Van welke jongen	heb	jij	een portret	van RembrandtAgent	gezien?
		of which boy	have	you	a portrait	of Rembrandt	seen

a''.	*	Van welke jongen	heb	jij	Rembrandts Agent	portret	gezien.
		of which boy	have	you	Rembrandtʼs	portrait	seen

b.	Over welk onderwerp	heb	jij	een boek	vertaald?
	about which subject	have	you	a book	translated
	'About which subject have you translated a book?'

b'.	??	Over welk onderwerp	heb	jij	een boek	van Huizinga	vertaald?
		about which subject	have	you	a book	of Huizinga	translated

b''.	*	Over welk onderwerp	heb	jij	Huizingaʼs boek	vertaald?
		about which subject	have	you	Huizingaʼs book	translated

[+] C. PP-over-V

PP-over-V does not seem a very good test for establishing the complement or adjunct status of the agent, theme and possessor, since the examples in (601) show that, under certain conditions, adjunct PPs also seem to allow PP-over-V in picture/story noun constructions. For the sake of completeness, we will nevertheless discuss the relevant constructions.

601

a.	Ik	heb	een schilderij	<met een vergulde lijst>	gezien <met een vergulde lijst>.
	I	have	a painting	with a gilded frame	seen
	'Iʼve seen a painting with a gilded frame.'

b.	?	Ik	heb	een boek	< uit 1932>	vertaald <uit 1932>.
		I	have	a book	from 1932	translated
		'Iʼve translated a book from 1932.'

PP-over-V of the possessor argument is possible in picture noun constructions such as (602a), in which the agent and the theme are absent. As soon as the theme or the agent is added the result degrades, as is shown by examples (602b&c), which are at best marginally possible on a non-appositive reading. When the agent argument is expressed in the form of a genitive noun phrase, as in example (602c'), PP-over-V of the possessor is entirely impossible. The examples in (603) give the corresponding story noun constructions.

602

a.	Ik	heb	een schilderij	gezien/beschadigd	van JanPoss.
	I	have	a painting	seen/damaged	of Jan
	'I saw/damaged a painting of Janʼs.'

b.	??	Ik	heb	een schilderij	van de WestertorenTheme	gezien	van JanPoss.
		I	have	a painting	of the Westertoren	seen	of Jan

c.	??	Ik	heb	een schilderij	van RembrandtAgent	gezien	van JanPoss.
		I	have	a painting	of Rembrandt	seen	of Jan

c'.	*	Ik	heb	RembrandtsAgent schilderij	gezien	van JanPoss.
		I	have	Rembrandtʼs painting	seen	of Jan

603

a.	?	Ik	heb	een boek	vertaald	van JanPoss.
		I	have	a book	translated	of Jan

b.	??	Ik	heb	een boek	over de middeleeuwenTheme	vertaald	van JanPoss.
		I	have	a book	about the Middle Ages	translated	of Jan

c.	??	Ik	heb	een boek	van HuizingaAgent	vertaald	van JanPoss.
		I	have	a book	of Huizinga	translated	of Jan

c'.	*	Ik	heb	HuizingaʼsAgent	boek	vertaald	van JanPoss.
		I	have	Huizingaʼs	book	translated	of Jan

As is shown by (604), PP-over-V of the adjunct PPs in (601) is blocked under the same circumstances (unless the adjunct is given an appositive reading). This suggests that we may interpret the degraded status of the (b)- and (c)-examples in (602) and (603) as evidence for adjunct status of the possessor.

604

a.	??	Ik heb	een schilderij van Rembrandt/van de Amstel	gezien	met een vergulde lijst.
		I have	a painting of Rembrandt/of the Amstel	seen	with a gilded frame

a'.	*?	Ik	heb	Rembrandts schilderij	gezien	met een vergulde lijst.
		I	have	Rembrandtʼs painting	seen	with a gilded frame

b.	??	Ik	heb	een boek van Huizinga/over de middeleeuwen	vertaald	uit 1932.
		I	have	a book of Huizinga/about the Middle Ages	translated	from 1932

b'.	*	Ik	heb	Huizingaʼs boek over de middeleeuwen	vertaald	uit 1932.
		I	have	Huizingaʼs book about the Middle Ages	translated	from 1932

Example (605) shows that PP-over-V of the agent of a picture noun is possible both if the agent is the only argument or if it is accompanied by the theme, but impossible if the possessor is expressed, regardless of the form and position of the latter.

605

a.		Ik	heb	een schilderij	(van de WestertorenTheme)	gezien	van RembrandtAgent.
		I	have	a painting	of the Westertoren	seen	of Rembrandt

b.	*	Ik	heb	een schilderij	van JanPoss	gezien	van RembrandtAgent.
		I	have	a painting	of Jan	seen	of Rembrandt

b'.	*	Ik	heb	JansPoss schilderij	gezien	van RembrandtAgent.
		I	have	Janʼs painting	seen	of Rembrandt

Example (606a) shows that PP-over-V of the agent of a story noun is possible if it is the only argument expressed; if the theme is also present, the result seems grammatical although somewhat marked. If the possessor is expressed, the result is again highly questionable; the examples in (606b&b') are only possible with an appositive reading of the agent.

606

a.		Ik	heb	een boek	(?over de M.E.Theme)	vertaald	van HuizingaAgent.
		I	have	a book	about the M.A.	translated	of Huizinga

b.	*	Ik	heb	een	boek	van JanPoss	vertaald	van HuizingaAgent.
		I	have	a	book	of Jan	translated	of Huizinga

b'.	*	Ik	heb	JansPoss	boek	vertaald	van HuizingaAgent.
		I	have	Janʼs	book	translated	of Huizinga

PP-over-V of the theme of a picture noun is acceptable if it is the only argument present, as in (607a), and somewhat marked if the agent is expressed in the form of a van-PP, as in (607b). Surprisingly, however, the result seems acceptable in the presence of an agentive or possessive genitive noun phrase, as in (607b').

607

a.	Ik heb	een schilderij	gezien	van de WestertorenTheme.
	I have	a painting	seen	of the Westertoren
	'I saw a painting of the Westertoren.'

b.	?	Ik heb	een schilderij	van RembrandtAgent	gezien	van de WestertorenTheme.
		I have	a painting	of Rembrandt	seen	of the Westertoren
		'I saw a painting (owned) by Rembrandt of the Westertoren.'

b'.	Ik heb	RembrandtsAgent/JansPoss	schilderij	gezien	van de WestertorenTheme.
	I have	Rembrandtʼs/Janʼs	painting	seen	of the Westertoren
	'I saw Rembrandtʼs/Janʼs painting of the Westertoren.'

The theme of a story noun behaves somewhat differently. Just like with the picture nouns, PP-over-V of the theme is possible if the theme is the only argument, and perhaps somewhat marked if the agent is expressed as a postnominal van-PP. However, if an agentive or possessive genitive noun phrase is present, the result is highly marked. This can be seen in (608b').

608

a.		Ik	heb	een beroemd boek	vertaald	over de MiddeleeuwenTheme.
		I	have	a famous book	translated	about the Middle Ages

b.	(?)	Ik	heb	een boek	van HuizingaAgent	vertaald	over MiddeleeuwenTheme.
		I	have	a book	of Huizinga	translated	about the Middle Ages

b'.	??	Ik	heb	HuizingaʼsAgent/JansPoss	boek	vertaald	over de MiddeleeuwenTheme.
		I	have	of Huizingaʼs	book	translated	about the Middle Ages

Finally, extraposing both the theme and the agent/possessor of a picture noun is possible, but acceptability depends on the order of the elements in extraposed position: (609a) seems acceptable on a non-appositive reading, although an appositive reading of the theme is perhaps more favored (hence the question mark); example (609b), on the other hand, is unacceptable on a non-appositive reading — the only available reading is that with Rembrandt as the possessor of the Westertoren.

609

a.	?	Ik	heb	een schilderij	gezien	van RembrandtAg/Poss	van de WestertorenTh.
		I	have	a painting	seen	of Rembrandt	of the Westertoren
		'I saw a painting by Rembrandt of the Westertoren.'

b.	*	Ik	heb	een schilderij	gezien	van de WestertorenTh	van RembrandtPoss/Ag.
		I	have	a painting	seen	of the Westertoren	of Rembrandt
		'I saw a painting of the Westertoren by Rembrandt.'

Similarly, extraposing both the theme and the agent/possessor of a story noun is possible, again depending on the order of the elements in extraposed position: example (610a) is acceptable, although an appositive reading of the theme is more likely (hence the question mark); example (610b), with the theme preceding the agent, on the other hand, is unacceptable on a non-appositive reading — the only available reading is that with Huizinga as the possessor in a complex noun phrase de middeleeuwen van Huizinga referring to, e.g., the medieval period as described by Huizinga.

610

a.	?	Ik	heb	een boek	vertaald	van HuizingaAgent/Poss	over de M.E.Theme.
		I	have	a book	translated	of Huizinga	about the M.A.

b.	*	Ik	heb	een boek	vertaald	over de M.E.Theme	van HuizingaAgent/Poss.
		I	have	a book	translated	about the M.A.	of Huizinga

[+] D. Scrambling

Judgments on scrambling of the possessor are again less sharp than those on topicalization. However, the most salient reading of the primeless examples in (611) is the one in which the van-PP refers to the agent. This is consistent with the fact that this example becomes completely unacceptable if we add the agent in the form of a postnominal van-PP or prenominal genitive noun phrase, as in the primed examples. From this we conclude that scrambling of possessors is impossible.

611

a.	??	Ik	heb	van JanPoss	een tekening	(van de WestertorenTheme)	gezien.
		I	have	of Jan	a drawing	of the Westertoren	seen

a'.	??	Ik	heb	van JanPoss	een tekening	van RembrandtAgent	gezien.
		I	have	of Jan	a drawing	of Rembrandt	seen

a''.	*?	Ik	heb	van JanPoss	RembrandtsAgent tekening	gezien.
		I	have	of Jan	Rembrandtʼs drawing	seen

b.	??	Ik	heb	van JanPoss	een boek	(over de middeleeuwenTheme)	vertaald.
		I	have	of Jan	a book	about the Middle Ages	translated

b'.	*?	Ik	heb	van JanPoss	een spannend boek	van HuizingaAgent	vertaald.
		I	have	of Jan	an exciting book	of Huizinga	translated

b''.	*	Ik	heb	van JanPoss	HuizingaʼsAgent boek	vertaald.
		I	have	of Jan	Huizingaʼs book	translated

Scrambling of the agent leads to acceptable results if it is the only argument expressed or where it is accompanied by the theme, as in the primeless examples of (612). As is shown in the primed and doubly-primed example, however, scrambling of the agent is impossible if the possessor is expressed, regardless of the form and position of the latter.

612

a.		Ik	heb	van RembrandtAgent	een tekening	(van de AmstelTheme)	gezien.
		I	have	of Rembrandt	a drawing	of the Amstel	seen

a'.	*?	Ik	heb	van RembrandtAgent	een tekening	van JanPoss	gezien.
		I	have	of Rembrandt	a drawing	of Jan	seen

a''.	*	Ik	heb	van RembrandtAgent	JansPoss tekening	gezien.
		I	have	of Rembrandt	Janʼs drawing	seen

b.		Ik	heb	van HuizingaAgent	een boek	(over de M.E.Theme)	vertaald.
		I	have	of Huizinga	a book	about the M.A.	translated

b'.	*?	Ik	heb	van HuizingaAgent	een boek	van JanPoss	vertaald.
		I	have	of Huizinga	a book	of Jan	translated

b''.	*	Ik	heb	van HuizingaAgent	JansPoss boek	vertaald.
		I	have	of Huizinga	Janʼs book	translated

Examples (613a) and (614a) show that scrambling of the theme leads to an acceptable (though slightly marked) result if the theme is the only argument expressed. If the agent or the possessor is also present, scrambling of the theme leads to questionable or unacceptable results, depending on the presence and form of the agent/possessor. This is shown in the (b)-examples.

613

a.		Ik heb	van de AmstelTheme	een heel beroemde tekening	gezien.
		I have	of the Amstel	a very famous drawing	seen

b.	??	Ik heb	van de AmstelTheme	RembrandtsAgent tekening	gezien.
		I have	of the Amstel	Rembrandtʼs drawing	seen

b'.	*?	Ik heb	van de AmstelTheme	JansPoss tekening	gezien.
		I have	of the Amstel	Janʼs drawing	seen

b''.	*	Ik heb	van de AmstelTheme	JansPoss tekening	van RembrandtAgent	gezien.
		I have	of the Amstel	Janʼs drawing	of Rembrandt	seen

614

a.		Ik	heb	over de M.E.Theme	een erg beroemd boek	vertaald.
		I	have	about the M.A.	a very famous book	translated

b.	??	Ik	heb	over de M.E.Theme	HuizingaʼsAgent	boek	vertaald.
		I	have	about the M.A.	Huizingaʼs	book	translated

b'.	*?	Ik	heb	over de M.E.Theme	JansPoss	boek	vertaald.
		I	have	about the M.A.	Janʼs	book	translated

b''.	*	Ik	heb	over de M.E.Theme	JansPoss	boek	van HuizingaAgent	vertaald.
		I	have	about the M.A.	Janʼs	book	of Huizinga	translated

Unlike with PP-over-V, scrambling of more than one argument is impossible. This is illustrated in (615). Note that the primed examples are acceptable on the irrelevant reading in which the second van-PP functions as the modifier of the noun phrase embedded in the first van-PP. In (615a') this leads to the unlikely interpretation of Rembrandt as the possessor of the Amstel, and in (615b') to the more readily available reading “the Middle Ages as described by Huizinga”.

615

a.	*	Ik heb	van RembrandtAgent	van de AmstelTheme	een mooie tekening	gezien.
		I have	of Rembrandt	of the Amstel	a beautiful drawing	seen

a'.	*	Ik heb	van de AmstelTheme	van RembrandtAgent	een mooie tekening	gezien.
		I have	of the Amstel	of Rembrandt	a beautiful drawing	seen

b.	*	Ik heb	van HuizingaAgent	over de M.E.Theme	een spannend boek	vertaald.
		I have	of Huizinga	about the M.A.	an exciting book	translated

b'.	*	Ik heb	over M.E.Theme	van HuizingaAgent	een spannend boek	vertaald.
		I have	about the M.A.	of Huizinga	an exciting book	translated

[+] E. Conclusion

The results of the four tests for distinguishing between adjuncts and complements of the noun, summarized in Table 13, unequivocally show that possessors behave as adjuncts. The results for the agent van-PP point in the same direction: the first two tests clearly provide evidence against assuming complement status; the result of the R-pronominalization test are less clear given that the relevant cases can perhaps be reanalyzed as involving a restrictive adverbial phrase. The results of extraction test seem to indicate that we may be dealing with a complement of the noun (although it was shown that the PP-over-V test is probably not a very good test).
The results for the theme argument are far from clear. The first test points in the direction of complement status in some but not all cases: whereas a picture nouns like afbeelding'picture' must have a complement, other picture nouns like tekening'picture' can readily be used without it. In the case of the story nouns, only noun referring to abstract content obligatory take a complement; nouns referring to the physical object do not. The second test is only relevant for the picture nouns given that story nouns do not take a van- but an over-PP, and even for the picture nouns the results are far from conclusive: although in neutral contexts using the theme PP in postcopular position is marked, the judgments are certainly not such that they constitute a firm fundament for assuming complement status. R-pronominalization is apparently possible, but the availability of the split pattern may indicate that we are in fact dealing with an independent restrictive adverbial phrase. Finally, the results of extraction tests 4A&B seem to indicate that we may be dealing with a complement of the noun.

Table 13: Picture/story nouns: results of the tests

	possessor		agent		theme
Test 1: PP obligatory	—	negative	—	negative	+/—	?
Test 2: Post-copular position	+	negative	+	negative	?/n.a	?/n.a
Test 3: R-pronominalization	—	negative	?	?	?	?
Test 4A: Topicalization	—	negative	+	positive	+	positive
Test 4B: Relativization/Questioning	—		+		+
Test 4C: PP-over-V	+		+		+
Test 4D: Scrambling	—		?		?

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ComplementContrastive FocusFocusR-pronominalizationRestrictive FocusScramblingTopicalizationWh-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:

introduction
references
related articles