Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.5.1.3.Object experiencer psych-verbs

quickinfo

This section discusses object experiencer verbs. Object experiencers can be either accusative or dative. In the former case we are dealing with causative psych-verbs, which can generally be used in two different ways: (i) they may take a causer subject, in which case they behave more or less like regular transitive verbs, or (ii) they may take a cause subject, in which case they exhibit behavior that is not typical for regular transitive verbs. To avoid lengthy descriptions like "causative psych-verb with a causer/cause subject", we will sometimes distinguish the two types by referring to them as transitive and nom-acc psych-verbs, respectively, as in the (a)-examples in (457). Object experiencer verbs with a dative object, like behagen'to please' in (457b), do not differ syntactically from the nom-dat verbs discussed in Section 2.1.3. Recall that the notion "object of emotion" in (457b) is used as a cover term for subject matter and target of emotion.

457

a.		PeterCauser	ergert	MarieExp.	transitive
		Peter	annoys	Marie

a'.		Die opmerkingenCause	ergeren	MarieExp.	nom-acc
		those remarks	annoy	Marie

b.		Zulk onbeleefd gedragObject of emotion	behaagt	henExp	niet.	nom-dat
		such impolite behavior	pleases	them	not

Because the nom-dat psych-verbs in (457b) simply constitute a semantic subclass of the nom-dat verbs, we begin with a very brief discussion of these in Subsection I, subsection II provides a more lengthy discussion of the transitive and nom-acc psych-verbs. Since transitive/nom-acc psych-verbs have been claimed to have an underlying structure similar to that of the periphrastic causative psych-construction in (458a), Subsection III compares these constructions and argue that this claim is indeed well founded.

458

a.		JanCauser	maakt	Marie boos.	periphrastic causative psych-verb
		Jan	makes	Marie angry

b.		Die opmerkingCause	maakt	Marie boos.	periphrastic causative psych-verb
		that remark	makes	Marie angry

Subsection IV concludes with a discussion of the inherently reflexive counterparts of causative psych-verbs like ergeren'to annoy'; an example is given in (459).

459

JanExp	ergert	zich	erg	(aan zijn oude auto).	reflexive psych-verb
Jan	annoys	refl	very	of his old car
'Jan is much ashamed (of his old car).'

I. nom-dat psych-verbs
II. Causative (transitive and nom-acc) psych-verbs
III. Periphrastic causative psychological constructions
IV. Inherently reflexive psych-verbs
V. A note on causative non-experiencer object verbs

[+] I. nom-dat psych-verbs

Objects of nom-dat verbs are normally assumed to be experiencers. It will therefore not come as a surprise that many of these verbs can be characterized as psych-verbs. Example (460) provides some examples that may be given this characterization.

460

Nom-dat psych-verbs selecting zijn'to be': bevallen'to please', meevallen'to turn out better than was expected', tegenvallen'to disappoint', (goed/slecht) uitkomen'to suit well/badly'Nom-dat psych-verbs selecting zijn 'to be': bevallen'to please', meevallen'to turn out better than was expected', tegenvallen'to disappoint', ( goed/slecht) uitkomen'to suit well/badly'

Nom-dat psych-verbs selecting hebben'to have': aanspreken'to appeal', aanstaan'to please', behagen'to please', berouwen'to regret', bevreemden'to surprise', spijten'to regret', tegenstaan'to pall on', voldoen'to satisfy', (niet) zinnen'to dislike'Nom-dat psych-verbs selecting hebben 'to have': aanspreken'to appeal', aanstaan'to please', behagen'to please', berouwen'to regret', bevreemden'to surprise', spijten'to regret', tegenstaan'to pall on', voldoen'to satisfy', (niet) zinnen'to dislike'

The verbs in (460) differ from causative psychological verbs in that the subject of the construction is not a causer/cause. Instead, it seems more appropriate to characterize the subject as the object (target/subject matter) of emotion. This is compatible with the conclusion reached in Section 2.1.2 that the subject of a nom-dat verb is a DO-subject given that an object (subject matter/target) of emotion is normally an internal argument of the verb; cf. (421) in Section 2.5.1.1, sub ID.

461

a.		Dat pretparkObject of emotion	bevalt	JanExp.
		that amusement park	pleases	Jan

b.	Deze laffe daadObject of emotion	stond	ElsExp	erg	tegen.
	this cowardly deed	palled	Els	much	on
	'That cowardly deed disgusted Els.'

Since the verbs in (460) constitute a subset of the verbs in (88), we refer the reader to Section 2.1.2 for a more detailed discussion of them. Note, however, that the subject of a nom-dat verb is characterized as a theme there, because the notion of object of emotion is not directly relevant in that discussion.

[+] II. Causative (transitive and nom-acc) psych-verbs

This subsection is devoted to psych-verbs with an accusative experiencer. The claim that the experiencer is assigned accusative case cannot be directly substantiated for Dutch given the lack of morphological case marking, but can be made plausible by comparing the relevant Dutch verbs to their German counterparts (which normally do take an accusatively marked experiencer object) and/or by investigating the syntactic behavior of these verbs (e.g., by considering the question as to whether the experiencer can be promoted to subject by passivization). The verbs under consideration are causative in the sense that their subjects generally refer to a causer or a cause of the event. The causer and cause can be expressed simultaneously, but in that case the cause must be expressed in the form of an adjunct-PP; cf. example (462c). Experiencer objects are normally obligatory; they can only marginally be omitted in generic examples like ?dat soort opmerkingen kwetst'that kind of remark hurts'.

462

a.		JanCauser	kwetste	MarieExp.
		Jan	hurt	Marie

b.		Die opmerkingCause	kwetste	MarieExp.
		that remark	hurt	Marie

c.		JanCauser	kwetste	Marie met/door die opmerkingCause.
		Jan	hurt	Marie with/by that remark

Example (463) provides a representative sample of causative object experiencer verbs. The verbs in (463a) can all be used in a way similar to kwetsen in (462), that is, with either a causer or a cause subject. The causative object experiencer verbs in (463b), on the other hand, tend to prefer a cause subject (although some may occasionally occur with a causer).

463

Causative object experiencer verbs with a causer/cause subject: afstoten'to repel', alarmeren'to alarm', amuseren'to amuse', beledigen'to offend', bemoedigen'to encourage', boeien'to fascinate', ergeren'to annoy', fascineren'to fascinate', grieven'to hurt', hinderen'to bother', imponeren'to impress', interesseren'to interest', intrigeren'to intrigue', irriteren'to irritate', kalmeren'to calm', krenken'to hurt', kwetsen'to hurt', motiveren'to motivate', ontmoedigen'to discourage', ontroeren'to move', opfleuren'to cheer up', opmonteren'to cheer up', opvrolijken'to cheer up', opwinden'to excite', overrompelen'to take by surprise', overtuigen'to convince', overvallen'to take by surprise', prikkelen'to annoy', storen'to disturb', shockeren/choqueren'to shock', verbazen'to amaze', verbijsteren'to bewilder', verblijden'to make happy', vermaken'to entertain', verrassen'to surprise', vertederen'to move', vervelen'to annoy'Causative object experiencer verbs with a causer/cause subject: afstoten'to repel', alarmeren'to alarm', amuseren'to amuse', beledigen'to offend', bemoedigen'to encourage', boeien'to fascinate', ergeren'to annoy', fascineren'to fascinate', grieven'to hurt', hinderen'to bother', imponeren'to impress', interesseren'to interest', intrigeren'to intrigue', irriteren'to irritate', kalmeren'to calm', krenken'to hurt', kwetsen'to hurt', motiveren'to motivate', ontmoedigen'to discourage', ontroeren'to move', opfleuren'to cheer up', opmonteren'to cheer up', opvrolijken'to cheer up', opwinden'to excite', overrompelen'to take by surprise', overtuigen'to convince', overvallen'to take by surprise', prikkelen'to annoy', storen'to disturb', shockeren/ choqueren'to shock', verbazen'to amaze', verbijsteren'to bewilder', verblijden'to make happy', vermaken'to entertain', verrassen'to surprise', vertederen'to move', vervelen'to annoy'

Causative object experiencer verbs with (preferably) a cause subject: aangrijpen'to move', beangstigen'to frighten', bedaren'to calm down', bedroeven'to sadden', benauwen'to oppress', bevreemden'to surprise', deprimeren'to depress', frustreren'to frustrate', opkikkeren'to cheer up', raken'to affect', verbitteren'to embitter', verheugen'to rejoice', verontrusten'to alarm', verwonderen'to surprise'Causative object experiencer verbs with (preferably) a cause subject: aangrijpen'to move', beangstigen'to frighten', bedaren'to calm down', bedroeven'to sadden', benauwen'to oppress', bevreemden'to surprise', deprimeren'to depress', frustreren'to frustrate', opkikkeren'to cheer up', raken'to affect', verbitteren'to embitter', verheugen'to rejoice', verontrusten'to alarm', verwonderen'to surprise'

The following subsections will extensively discuss the properties of these verbs. Special attention will be paid to the differences between the constructions in (462a&b) with a causer and a cause subject, respectively.

[+] A. The verb does not select an object of emotion

A remarkable fact about causative object experiencer verbs is that they do not occur with a subject matter of emotion. Whereas we have seen in (418), repeated here as the (a)-examples in (464), that constructions with the psych-adjective bang'afraid' may contain a causer, a cause and a subject matter of emotion, the (b)-examples in (464) show that a subject matter of emotion cannot be used with the almost synonymous causative verb beangstigen'to frighten'.

464

a.		PeterCauser	maakt	JanExp	met zijn verhalenCause	bang	voor spokenSubjM.
		Peter	makes	Jan	with his stories	afraid	of ghosts

a'.		Peters verhalenCause	maken	JanExp	bang	voor spokenSubjM.
		Peterʼs stories	make	Jan	afraid	of ghosts

b.		PeterCauser	beangstigt	JanExp	met zijn verhalenCause	(*voor spokenSubjM).
		Peter	frightens	Jan	with his stories	of ghosts

b'.		Peters verhalenCause	beangstigen	JanExp	(*voor spokenSubjM).
		Peterʼs stories	frighten	Jan	of ghosts

Perhaps we can even generalize this and claim that causative psych-verbs cannot occur with any object (subject matter/target) of emotion. If so, the verb interesseren'to interest' is an exception to the general rule, given that it seems to allow a voor-PP expressing the target of emotion.

465

PeterCauser/het verhaalCause	interesseerde	JanExp	voor dat onderwerpTarget.
Peter/the story	interested	Jan	for that topic
'Peter/the story interested the boys in that topic.'

Note in this connection that Pesetsky (1995: 61/283) claims that causative psych-verbs with a particle are able to select an object of emotion in English, whereas in Dutch this seems to be completely excluded. This can be seen by comparing the Dutch examples in (466) to their English renderings in the primed examples, which Pesetsky gives as fully acceptable.

466

a.		Het nieuws	vrolijkte	Sue op	(*over haar toestand).
		the news	cheered	Sue up	about her plight

a'.

The news cheered Sue up about her plight.

b.		De lezingen	wonden	Bill op	(*over klassieke muziek).
		the lectures	turned	Bill on	about classical music

b'.

The lectures turned Bill on to classical music.

[+] B. The verb is possibly a derived form

Subsections C to I below will show that the psych-verbs in (463) differ from regular transitive verbs in various respects. It has been suggested that these differences are due to the fact that causative object experiencer verbs are not simple forms but morphologically complex ones. Although this claim is not always easy to substantiate, the following subsections will show that there are reasons for assuming that it is indeed correct for a large number of these verbs.

[+] 1. Verbs derived from an adjective

That the causative psych-verbs in (463) are morphologically complex is, of course, uncontroversial for the deadjectival verbs in (467). Note that the prefixes ver- and be- may also express causation when the base adjective does not refer to a mental state, as is clear from ver-edel-en'to ennoble' and be-vochtig-en'to moisten'.

467

prefixed with ver-: blij'happy'-verblijden'to make happy', bitter'bitter'-verbitteren'embitter', teder'tender/soft'-vertederen'to move/soften'prefixed with ver-: blij'happy'- verblijden'to make happy', bitter'bitter'- verbitteren'embitter', teder'tender/soft'- vertederen'to move/soften'

prefixed with be-: angst'fear'-beangstigen'to frighten', droef'sad'-bedroeven'to sadden', moed'courage'- bemoedigen'to encourage', nauw'narrow'-benauwen'to oppress', vreemd'strange'-bevreemden'to surprise'prefixed with be-: angst'fear'- beangstigen'to frighten', droef'sad'- bedroeven'to sadden', moed'courage'- bemoedigen'to encourage', nauw'narrow'- benauwen'to oppress', vreemd'strange'- bevreemden'to surprise'

The fact that many of the verbs in (463) are prefixed with ver-, be- and ont- might be better understood if we assume that these affixes are responsible for the causative meaning aspect in all these cases.

[+] 2. The causative-inchoative alternation

There are verbs that can be used both as unaccusative and as transitive verbs. A prototypical verb that exhibits this alternation is breken'to break', which can be used both as an inchoative, unaccusative verb and as a causative, transitive verb. It has been claimed that the causer is introduced by a zero-morpheme that attaches to the (simple) unaccusative verb; see Section 3.2.3 for more discussion.

468

a.		Het glasTheme	breekt.
		the glass	breaks

b.		JanCauser	breekt	het glasTheme.
		Jan	breaks	the glass

Although Section 2.5.1.2, sub III, has shown that there are only a few unaccusative psych-verbs, the same alternation can be found with psych-verbs. The (a)- and (b)-examples of (469) show this for the verbs kalmeren/bedaren'to calm down' in (448a&b). The unaccusative verb schrikken'to get frightened' in (448c) does not participate in this alternation, but it is nevertheless possible to derive a causative form of it by making use of the prefix ver-, which results in the perhaps somewhat obsolete verb verschrikken'to frighten' (causative verschrikken is mainly known in its adjectival participial form verschrikt'frightened' and as part of the instrumental compound noun vogelverschrikker'scarecrow'). The somewhat formal example in (469c') is relevant, however, in that the prefix ver- is perhaps an overt counterpart of the postulated phonetically empty causative morpheme that derives the causative forms in the primed (a)- and (b)-examples in (469).

469

a.		Zijn boze vriendExp	kalmeerde	snel.
		his angry friend	calmed.down	quickly

a'.		JanCauser	kalmeerde	zijn vriend	snel.
		Jan	calmed.down	his friend	quickly

b.		MarieExp	bedaarde	snel.
		Marie	calmed.down	quickly

b'.		Zijn vriendelijke woordenCause	bedaarden	MarieExp	snel.
		his kind words	calmed.down	Marie	quickly

c.		JanExp	schrok	van de plotselinge verschijning van de geestCause.
		Jan	got.frightened	of the sudden appearance of the ghost

c'.	$	De plotselinge verschijning van de geestCause	verschrok Jan.
		the sudden appearance of the ghost	frightened Jan

Unaccusative psych-verbs with particles all have causative counterparts. Since the particle is claimed to function as a kind of predicate, the primed examples in (470) can probably be considered to be on a par with the causative non-psych-construction Jan breekt het glas in stukken'Jan breaks the glass to pieces'.

470

a.		JanExp	montert	helemaal	op.
		Jan	cheers	completely	up

a'.		PeterCauser	montert	JanExp	helemaal	op.
		Peter	cheers	Jan	completely	up

b.		PeterExp	fleurt	helemaal	op.
		Peter	cheers	completely	up

b'.		Maries opmerkingCause	fleurt	PeterExp	helemaal	op.
		Marieʼs remark	cheers	Peter	completely	up

c.		JanExp	kikkert	helemaal	op.
		Jan	cheers	completely	up

c'.		Die lekkere soepCause	kikkert	JanExp	helemaal	op.
		that tasty soup	cheers	Jan	completely	up

Note that it is not the case that all causative psych-verbs have an unaccusative counterpart; the other verbs in (463) do not or only with difficulty.

[+] 3. Verbs ending in -eren

Many causative psych-verbs are Latinate, or at least Romance, forms ending in -eren. Although there are no attested words from which these verbs are derived, it seems plausible that they are derived from non-verbal stems by means of affixation with the causative morpheme -eren. Table (471) shows that these postulated non-verbal stems can also be used to derive nouns and adjectives; cf. De Haas & Trommelen (1993:348) and Booij (2002:127-8).

471

stem	derived verb	derived noun	derived adjective
amus-	amus-eren to amuse	amus-ement amusement	amus-ant amusing
frustr-	frustr-eren to frustrate	frustr-atie frustration	frustr-erend frustrating
intrig-	intrig-eren to make curious	intrig-e intrigue	intrig-erend intriguing
irrit-	irrit-eren to irritate	irrit-atie irritation	irrit-ant irritating
stimul-	stimul-eren to stimulate	stimul-atie stimulation	stimul-erend stimulating

The idea that -eren is or can act as a causative morpheme is supported by the fact illustrated in (472) that it also derives causative object experiencer verb from nouns.

472

Denominal causative psych-verbs ending in -eren: alarm'alarm'-alarmeren'to alarm', charme'charm' - charmeren'to charm', motief'motive'-motiveren'to motivate', shock'shock'-shockeren'to shock'Denominal causative psych-verbs ending in -eren: alarm'alarm'- alarmeren'to alarm', charme'charm' - charmeren'to charm', motief'motive'- motiveren'to motivate', shock'shock'- shockeren'to shock'

[+] 4. Conclusion and caveat

The previous subsections have shown that for many causative psych-verbs there is reason for assuming that some causative affix is present, and that the verb is therefore complex, subsection III will show that, syntactically seen, causative psych-verbs resemble periphrastic causative constructions such as (473b), which might be considered as additional evidence for the assumption that the causative psych-verbs are morphologically complex.

473

a.		JanExp	is bang.
		Jan	is afraid

b.		De schaduwen op de muurCause	maken	Jan bang.
		the shadows on the wall	make	Jan afraid

It should be noted, however, that the presence of a (possibly phonetically empty) causative morpheme is not immediately plausible in all cases. The psych-verbs in (474a), for example, are probably denominal, but to our knowledge, there is no reason for assuming that the verbal ending -en is causative in nature. Moreover, the psych-verbs in (474b) do not seem to be derived at all as there does not seem to exist a base form that may be considered the input of the verb (in present-day Dutch, at least).

474

prikkel'stimulus'- prikkelen'to stimulate', schok'shock' schokken'to shock'

ergeren'to annoy', krenken'to offend', kwetsen'to hurt'

Of course, we may adopt a similar assumption for the verbs in (474b) as for Latinate verbs like irriteren'to irritate', and claim that they are derived from stems that only occur as bound morphemes. The adjectives and nouns in (475) can then be seen as derived directly from this stem. On this assumption, the two sets of verbs in (474a&b) would form a single class of problem for the assumption that all causative psych-verbs are complex.

475

erger-lijk'annoying', krenk-end'offensive', kwets-end'hurtful'

erger-nis'annoyance', krenk-ing'offence', kwets-uur'hurt'

[+] C. The semantic role of the subject

We have already noted that (in the majority of cases) the subject of an object experiencer verb can have the semantic role of causer or cause; cf. the discussion of (463). A question that should be raised is whether the role of causer can or should be distinguished from the thematic role of agent, since in many respects causers and agents behave in the same way. For example, agent-oriented adverbs like opzettelijk'deliberately' can readily be used with a causer subject; cf. the primeless examples in (476). In addition, the primed examples show that causative psych-verbs with a causer subject can readily be embedded under the volitional verb willen'want' or the causative verb laten'to make', which suggests that the causer is not only agent-like but also has control over the event.

476

a.		JanCauser	irriteert	MarieExp	opzettelijk.
		Jan	irritates	Marie	deliberately

a'.		JanCauser	wil	MarieExp	irriteren.
		Jan	wants	Marie	irritate

a''.		Peter laat	JanCauser	MarieExp	irriteren.
		Peter makes	Jan	Marie	irritate

b.		JanCauser	kwetst	zijn vriendExp	opzettelijk.
		Jan	hurts	his friend	deliberately

b'.		JanCauser	wil	zijn vriendExp	kwetsen.
		Jan	wants	his friend	hurt

b''.		Peter laat	JanCauser	zijn vriendExp	kwetsen.
		Peter makes	Jan	his friend	hurt

The examples in (477) show that causative psych-verbs with a cause subject behave totally differently in this respect: they do not allow the agent-oriented adverb opzettelijk, and they cannot be embedded under volitional willen or the causative verb laten, which shows that the cause subject certainly cannot be considered agentive.

477

a.	*	Jans jaloezieCause	irriteert	zijn vriendExp	opzettelijk.
		Janʼs jealousy	irritates	his friend	deliberately

a'.	*	Jans jaloezieCause	wil	zijn vriendExp	irriteren.
		Janʼs jealousy	wants	his friend	irritate

a''.	*	Peter laat	Jans jaloezieCause	zijn vriendExp	irriteren.
		Peter makes	Janʼs jealousy	his friend	irritate

b.	*	Jans opmerkingCause	kwetst	zijn vriendExp	opzettelijk.
		Janʼs remark	hurts	his friend	deliberately

b'.	*	Jans opmerkingCause	wil	zijn vriendExp	kwetsen.
		Janʼs remark	wants	his friend	hurt

b''.	*	Peter laat	Jans opmerkingCause	zijn vriendExp	kwetsen.
		Peter makes	Janʼs remark	his friend	hurt

It is important to note that the unacceptability of the examples in (477) has nothing to do with the inanimateness of the subject. In order to see this it should be noted that examples with a +human subject, like Jan irriteert MarieExp'Jan irritates Marie', are actually ambiguous between two readings; on the first reading the subject functions as the causer, and the example expresses that the irritation on the part of Marie is caused by some action of Jan; on the second reading, the subject functions as the cause and under this reading the example expresses that it is simply Jan's presence that irritates Marie. In the primed examples of (476), it is only the causer subject reading that survives. This can be illustrated in a slightly different way by means of the examples in (478), in which the +human subject is preferably construed as a cause: the preferred reading of this example is that it is the whining of the children that irritates the father. As long as we stick to this interpretation, the constructions in (478b-d) are unacceptable: these examples are only (marginally) acceptable under the less prominent interpretation of (478a) that the cause of the irritation is something other than the whining.

478

a.		Kinderen die jengelenCause	irriteren	hun vaderExp.
		children that whine	irritate	their father

b.	#	Kinderen die jengelenCause	irriteren	hun vader	opzettelijk.
		children that whine	irritate	their father	deliberately

c.	#	Kinderen die jengelenCause	willen	hun vader	irriteren.
		children that whine	want	their father	irritate

d.	#	Jan laat	kinderen die jengelenCause	hun vaderExp	irriteren.
		Jan makes	children that whine	their father	irritate

The examples in (478) therefore show that it is agentivity that is at stake: the cause subject of a causative psych-verb is not agentive. Another indication that cause subjects are non-agentive is that they may take the form of a clause, which is never possible with agentive subjects. The clause can be placed in sentence-initial or in sentence-final position; in the latter case, the subject position is normally occupied by the anticipatory subject pronoun het.

479

a.	[Dat	de muziek	zo hard	staat]Cause,	irriteert	de jongensExp.
	that	the music	so loud	is	irritates	the boys
	'The fact that the music is so loud is irritating the boys.'

b.	Het	irriteert	de jongensExp	[dat	de muziek	zo hard	staat]Cause.
	it	irritates	the boys	that	the music	so loud	is
	'It is irritating the boys that the music is so loud.'

Note in passing that the causative psych-verb bedaren'calm down' in (480) seems exceptional in not allowing a clausal subject; although we do not see any relation at this moment, it may be useful to note that bedaren is also special in that it can be used in the imperative and as a nominalized form in the complement of the preposition tot; see the discussion of the examples in (453).

480

a.		Dat de interviewer ook een vrouw was,	kalmeerde/*bedaarde	Marie snel.
		that the interviewer also a woman was	calmed.down	Marie rapidly

b.		Het	kalmeerde/*bedaarde	Marie	dat de interviewer ook een vrouw was.
		it	calmed.down	Marie	that the interviewer also a woman was

For completeness' sake, we want to note that causative psych-verbs generally do not give rise to er-nominalization, irrespective of whether the referent of the er-noun is construed as a causer or a cause.

481

a.	*	amuseerder
		amus-er

d.	*	frustreerder
		frustrat-or

b.	*	boeier
		fascinat-or

e.	*	irriteerder
		irritat-or

c.	*	fascineerder
		fascinat-or

f.	*	kwetser
		hurt-er

[+] D. Passive

It is often claimed that passivization of causative psych-verbs is unrestricted; cf. Everaert (1982), Den Besten (1985), and Pesetsky (1995:36). Examples like the primed ones in (482) are given as crucial evidence in favor of this claim and intend to show that causative psych-verbs can be passivized, regardless of whether the subject of the corresponding active construction is a causer or a cause.

482

a.		De narCauser	amuseert	de koningExp	met zijn grappenCause.
		the jester	amuses	the king	with his jokes

a'.		De koningExp	wordt	door de narCauser	met zijn grappenCause	geamuseerd.
		the king	is	by the jester	with his jokes	amused

b.		Zijn grappenCause	amuseren	de koningExp.
		his jokes	amuse	the king

b'.		De koningExp	wordt	geamuseerd	door zijn grappenCause.
		the king	is	amused	by his jokes

Although the argument seems sound at first sight, it may nevertheless be flawed; it is based on the presupposition that the door-PPs in the primed examples are passive door-phrases, whereas we have seen that they can also have the function of expressing the cause; cf. Section 2.5.1.1, sub ID. The examples in (450a-c), repeated here as (483), have shown that the cause must then be inanimate.

483

a.		MarieExp	bedaarde	door zijn rustige optredenCause/*JanCause.
		Marie	calmed.down	by his quiet way.of.acting /Jan

b.		Zijn boze vriendExp	kalmeert door zijn vriendelijke woordenCause/*JanCause.
		his angry friend	calmed.down by his friendly words/Jan

c.		PeterExp	schrok	door het plotselinge lawaaiCause/*JanCause.
		Peter	got.frightened	by that sudden noise/Jan

Given this inanimacy restriction on causative door-PPs, we can safely conclude that (482a') is a genuine example of the passive construction, and this need not surprise us given that causative constructions with a causer subject, like Jan brak het glas'Jan broke the glass', can generally be passivized: Het glas werd door Jan gebroken'The glass was broken by Jan'. The situation is different, however, in the case of (482b'). One reason for doubting that this example is the passive counterpart of the active construction in (482b) is that active constructions with an inanimate subject normally do not passivize: if (482b') is really the passive counterpart of (482b), this would be pretty exceptional. This leaves us with two alternatives: the first option is to assume that (482b') is a passive construction, but one that is derived from an active sentence with a causer subject; the second option is to assume that we are not dealing with a passive construction, but with a copular construction in which the past/passive participle is actually an adjective, the so-called adjectival passive. We will discuss these two options in the following subsections.

[+] 1. The first option

The first option, according to which we are dealing with a passive construction derived from an active sentence with a causer subject, implies that the passive door-phrase corresponding to the causer is suppressed; this would lead to the wrong prediction that example (484a) should be acceptable. Another prediction is that the participle is verbal, and must hence be able to appear after the finite verb in clause-final position (which is impossible with predicative adjectives); judgments on example (484b) seem to vary from speaker to speaker, but we tend to think that this prediction is indeed correct. If example (484b) is indeed grammatical, we end up with an ambiguous result. One way of solving this is by saying that apparently, the unacceptability of (484a) is due to the fact that there is a problem with having two door-phrases in a single clause.

484

a.	*?	De koningExp	wordt	door de narCauser	geamuseerd	door zijn grappenCause.
		the king	is	by the jester	amused	by his jokes

b.	%	dat	de koning	door zijn grappen	wordt	geamuseerd.
		that	the king	by his jokes	is	amused

Another prediction that would follow from the first option is that passivization of a causative psych-verb is possible only if the verb is able to take a causer subject. Since the verbs in (463b) cannot readily take a causer subject, these verbs can be used to test this prediction. And, indeed, it seems that at least some of these verbs categorically resist passivization; the unacceptability of the examples in (485) therefore supports the suggestion that (482b') is derived from an active construction with a causer subject. Observe that we placed the participle after the finite verb in the primed examples in (485) in order to exclude the adjectival passive reading.

485

a.		dat	zijn dood/??Jan	mij	bedroeft.
		that	his death/Jan	me	saddens

a'.	*	dat	ik	word	bedroefd	door zijn dood.
		that	I	am	saddened	by his death

b.		dat	zijn gedrag/??Jan	mij	bevreemdt.
		that	his behavior/Jan	me	surprises

b'.	*	dat	ik	word	bevreemd	door zijn gedrag.
		that	I	am	surprised	by his behavior

[+] 2. The second option

The fact that the first option is (at least partly) supported by the facts in (484) and (485) does not exclude the possibility that (482b') could also be an adjectival passive, that is, a construction in which the past/passive participle is used as a predicative adjective. Such an analysis is certainly viable, given that the verb worden is not only used as a passive auxiliary, but also as a copular verb. That it may be the correct analysis in many cases is also supported by the fact that many participles of causative psych-verbs can enter copular constructions headed by the verb raken'to get', which is never used as a passive auxiliary.

486

a.		Jan	raakt/?wordt	geïrriteerd	door zijn gezeur.
		Jan	gets/is	irritated	by his nagging

b.		Jan	raakt/wordt	geboeid	door het schouwspel.
		Jan	gets/is	fascinated	by the spectacle

c.		Jan	raakt/wordt	gedeprimeerd	door dit donkere weer.
		Jan	gets/is	depressed	by this dark weather

d.		Jan	raakt/?wordt	verbitterd	door zijn ontslag.
		Jan	gets/is	embittered	by his discharge

That we are not dealing with passive constructions in (486) but with adjectives is also supported by the fact that the participles can readily be coordinated with true adjectives as, for example, in Jan raakt/wordt [gedeprimeerd en angstig] door dit donkere weer'Jan is getting depressed and frightened by this dark weather'. Note, finally, that examples (486c&d) involve causative psych-verbs that (preferably) take a cause subject, so that for this reason also these examples cannot be analyzed as passive constructions; see the discussion of (485).

[+] 3. Conclusion

The discussion in the previous subsections suggests that passivization of causative psych-verbs is only possible if the subject is a causer, not if it is a cause. Observe that the issue at stake is not whether or not the subject is animate. In (487a), the subject is animate, but what is actually expressed is that it is the whining of the children that irritates the speaker, which suggests that we are dealing with a cause. As long as we stick to this interpretation, the passive construction in (487b) is excluded (it is marginally acceptable if the cause of the irritation is something other than the whining). The adjectival construction in (487c) is fully acceptable.

487

a.		dat	kinderen die jengelenCause	mijExp	irriteren.
		that	children that whine	me	irritate

b.	#	dat	ik	word	geïrriteerd	door kinderen die jengelenCause.
		that	I	am	irritated	by children that whine

c.		dat	ik	geïrriteerd	raak	door kinderen die jengelenCause.
		that	I	irritated	get	by children that whine

[+] E. Attributive and predicative use of present participles

This subsection discusses the attributive and predicative use of present participles derived from causative psych-verbs. It will be shown that causers and causes systematically differ in that attributive modification of nouns that correspond to causers require the present participles to be verbal in nature, whereas causes can be modified both by verbal and by adjectival present participles; see Section A9.2.1 for the distinction between verbal and adjectival present participles. We will also see that predicatively used present participles, which are always adjectival in nature, can only be predicated of noun phrases that correspond to causes. This is of course in line with the first finding.

[+] 1. Attributive use

Generally speaking, present participles of verbs can be used attributively to modify nouns that correspond to the subject of the verb. The examples in (488) show that the verb can be intransitive, (di-)transitive, or monadic/dyadic unaccusative.

488

a.		de	lachende	jongen	intransitive
		the	laughing	boy

b.		de	het meisje	kussende	jongen	transitive
		the	the girl	kissing	boy

b'.		het	de koningin	bloemen	aanbiedende	meisje	ditransitive
		the	the queen	flowers	prt.-offering	girl

c.		de	vallende	bladeren	monadic unaccusative
		the	falling	leaves

c'.		de	haar	goed	bevallende	vakantie	dyadic unaccusative
		the	her	well	pleasing	holiday

Causative psych-verbs simply follow this pattern: The examples in (489) show that the modified noun can correspond to a causer or a cause subject. Since the experiencer object is realized in the primed examples of (489), we can safely assume that the present participles are verbal in nature. This conclusion is also consistent with the fact that these examples are interpreted as referring to an ongoing event; cf. the English renderings of these examples.

489

a.		De jongenCauser	kwetst	haarExp	met zijn opmerkingenCause.
		the boy	hurts	her	with his remarks

a'.	de	haar	met zijn opmerkingen	kwetsende	jongenCauser
	the	her	with his remarks	hurting	boy
	'the boy who is hurting her with his remarks'

b.		De opmerkingenCause	kwetsten	haarExp.
		the remarks	hurt	her

b'.	de	haar	kwetsende	opmerkingenCause
	the	her	hurting	remarks
	'the remarks that are hurting her'

Present participles of causative psych-verbs have the special property that they can also be used purely adjectivally, that is, as property denoting elements (without any aspectual meaning). In such cases, however, the modified noun cannot correspond to a causer; if the modified noun corresponds to the cause, on the other hand, the result is fully acceptable. This is illustrated in (490).

490

a.	*	een	erg kwetsende	jongenCauser
		a	very hurting	boy

b.		een	erg kwetsende	opmerkingenCause
		a	very hurting	remark

Note in passing that we used the modifier erg to highlight the adjectival nature of the present participle kwetsend. If it is left out, example (490a) may be marginally acceptable for some speakers with a verbal reading; the marginality is then due to the omission of the experiencer argument. In this context, it might be interesting to note that we found a small number of occurrences of kwetsende ouders'hurting parents' with this agentive reading, where the experiencer was clearly the implied internal argument of the relational noun ouders (which in fact was sometimes overtly expressed by means of a possessive pronoun).
That the present participles in (490) are purely adjectival can be supported by the fact that present participles of a well-defined set of psych-verbs cannot obtain a purely adjectival reading. One example is the present participle irriterend: regardless of whether or not the arguments are expressed, this form is interpreted with a verbal reading–the adjectival reading is blocked by the fact that there already exists an adjective that expresses this meaning, viz. irritant'irritating'. The noun modified by this adjective is always interpreted as a cause, which is indicated by the number sign before example (491a''); this example is acceptable but only if jongen is construed as a cause.

491

a.		De jongenCauser	irriteert	haarExp.
		the boy	irritates	her

b.		De opmerkingenCause	irriteren	haarExp.
		the remarks	irritate	her

a'.	de	?(haar)	irriterende	jongenCauser
	the	her	irritating	boy
	'the boy who is irritating her'

b'.	de	?(haar)	irriterende	opmerkingCause
	the	her	irritating	remarks
	'the remarks that are irritating her'

a''.	#	de	irritante	jongenCauser
		the	irritating	boy

b''.		de	irritante	opmerkingen
		the	irritating	remarks

[+] 2. Predicative use of present participles

Present participles of most verb types cannot be used in predicative position, which is shown in (492) for the same set of present participles that were used attributively in (488).

492

a.	*	De jongen	iscopular	lachend.	intransitive
		the boy	is	laughing

b.	*	De jongen	iscopular	(het meisje)	kussend.	transitive
		the boy	is	the girl	kissing

b'.	*	Het meisje	iscopular	(de koningin	bloemen)	aanbiedend.	ditransitive
		the girl	is	the queen	flowers	prt.-offering

c.	*	De bladeren	zijncopular	vallend.	monadic unaccusative
		the leaves	are	falling

c'.	*	De vakantie	iscopular	(haar	goed)	bevallend.	dyadic unaccusative
		the holiday	is	her	well	pleasing

The present participles of causative psych-verbs, on the other hand, do allow predicative use of the present participle. Given our conclusion from the previous subsection that present participle of causative psych-verbs can be truly adjectival, this need not surprise us as this simply predicts that present participles like kwetsend'hurting' can be used in the same way as an adjective like irritant. In (493), the noun phrase that the adjective is predicated of is necessarily interpreted as a cause, just as in (490) and the doubly-primed examples in (491).

493

a.		Die opmerkingCause/*JanCauser	iscopular	erg kwetsend.
		that remark/Jan	is	very hurting

a'.		Wij	vinden	die opmerkingCause/*JanCauser	erg kwetsend.
		we	consider	that remark/Jan	very hurting

b.		Die opmerkingCause/#JanCauser	iscopular	erg irritant.
		that remark/Jan	is	very irritating

b'.		Wij	vinden	die opmerkingCause/#JanCauser	erg irritant.
		we	consider	that remark/Jan	very irritating

[+] F. Attributive and predicative use of the past/passive participle

This subsection discusses the attributive and predicative use of past/passive participles derived from causative psych-verbs. We will show that attributively used participles are somewhat special in that they are preferably construed as purely adjectival. A similar tendency can be detected in clauses that are expected to be ambiguous between a passive and a copular construction; the latter interpretation seems to be the preferred one.

[+] 1. Attributive use

Example (494) shows that the past/passive participles of causative psych-verbs can be used attributively to modify a noun that corresponds to the experiencer object in the corresponding verbal construction. Both the causer and the cause subject of the verb can optionally be expressed as the complement of a door-phrase.

494

a.	de	(door Peter/die opmerkingen)	gekwetste	vrouw
	the	by Peter/those remarks	hurt	woman
	'the woman that is hurt (by Jan/those remarks)'

b.	de	(door Peter/die opmerkingen)	geïrriteerde	vrouw
	the	by Peter/those remarks	irritated	woman
	'the woman that is irritated (by Jan/those remarks)'

Since attributively used past/passive participles are normally used to modify a noun that corresponds to the theme argument of the verb, this raises the question as to whether the object in the causative psych-verbs should be characterized as an experiencer or whether it would be more appropriate to simply characterize it as a theme. This question seems to become more urgent once we take into account that past/passive participles of nom-dat verbs modify the DO-subject, and not the experiencer object, of the verb; see examples (105) and (106) in Section 2.1.3, sub D.
We may argue, however, that the question is irrelevant and that objects of causative psych-verbs are, in fact, neither experiencers nor themes. This claim is related to the suggestion discussed in Section 2.5.1.3, sub V, that causative psych-verbs have a similar underlying structure as periphrastic causative constructions such as (495a). If it is true that causative psych-verbs are always morphologically complex, it seems plausible that the object is not an internal argument of the verbalizing suffix -eer, but an inherited external argument of the non-verbal stem irrit-; this gives rise to the underlying structure in (495b). This structure is very similar to that of the periphrastic causative construction in (495a), in which the object is likewise an external argument of the adjective kwaad'angry', and not an internal argument of the verb maken. Since this decomposition analysis of the causative psych-verbs voids the question as to whether we are dealing with a theme or experiencer of any theoretical or descriptive significance, we will not address this question any further and simply continue to use the label "experiencer" for the object of these causative psych-verbs.

495

a.		dat	Jan/die opmerking [VP [AP	Marie kwaad]	maakte].
		that	Jan/that remark	Marie angry	made

b.		dat	Jan/die opmerking [VP [XP	Marie irrit-] -eert].
		that	Jan/that remark	Marie stem caus

For completeness' sake, example (496) shows that the complex phrase boos gemaakt'made angry' can be used attributively and behaves in this respect like geïrriteerd in (494b), which, according to the proposal under discussion, is likewise a complex phrase.

496

de	(door Jan/die opmerkingen)	boos	gemaakte	vrouw
the	by Jan/those remarks	angry	made	woman
'the woman that was made angry (by Jan/those remarks)'

We will not discuss here in detail the various technical ways that will ensure that the stem irrit - and affix -eert in (494b) surfaces as a single verb form, but simply note that it is often assumed nowadays that vocabulary items are inserted post-syntactically on the basis of more abstract information provided by the syntax; for more information we refer the reader to the brief introduction to Distributed Morphology at ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/dm by Rolf Noyer.

[+] 2. Predicative use

Past/passive participles can be used predicatively, provided that they are truly adjectival in nature; cf. Section A9.3. The examples in (497) show that virtually all past/passive participles of causative psych-verbs have this option; since raken'to get' cannot be used as a passive auxiliary, it must function as a copular and, therefore, the participles in these examples cannot be verbal but must be truly adjectival in nature. The examples in (497b&c) further show that these adjectival participles differ from causative psych-verbs in being able to take a PP expressing the subject matter of emotion; cf. the discussion of the examples in (464).

497

a.		De	jongenExp	raakte	geïrriteerd	(door die opmerkingCause).
		the	boy	got	irritated	by that remark

b.		JanExp	raakte	verbijsterd	(over zijn weigeringSubjM).
		Jan	got	interested	in that topic

c.		JanExp	raakt	gedeprimeerd	(over zijn ontslagSubjM).
		Jan	got	depressed	about his dismissal

Showing that past/passive participles can be truly adjectival is somewhat harder with verbs like zijn'to be', which can be used both as a copular verb and as a passive auxiliary; cf. the discussion of worden in Subsection D above. Recall from Subsection A that the verb interesseren is special in allowing a voor-PP that expresses a target of emotion; we show this again in (498a). Now consider the construction with zijn in (498b), in which it is also possible to use the preposition in to introduce a target of emotion (we will return to the reason for the marked status of the voor-PP in the next subsection). The fact that in is the only option in the adjectival passive construction in (498c) shows that the past/passive participle in (498b) can be truly adjectival.

498

a.	PeterCauser/het verhaalCause	interesseerde	JanExp	voor/*in dat onderwerpTarget.
	Peter/the story	interested	Jan	for/in that topic
	'Peter/the story interested the boys for that topic.'

b.		Jan is geïnteresseerd	in/??voor dat onderwerpTarget.
		Jan is interested	in/for that topic

c.		JanExp	raakte	geïnteresseerd	(in/*voor dat onderwerpTarget).
		Jan	got	interested	in/for that topic

More evidence that shows that the choice of the PP signals whether we are dealing with a verbal or an adjectival past/passive participle is given in (499). If we are dealing with an in-PP the participle clearly shows adjectival behavior: it can be modified by the adverbial modifiers heel'very' and zeer'very', as in (499a), and allows a comparative/superlative form, as in (499b); it can be prefixed with the negative affix on-, as shown by (499c); finally, the PP-complement in zijn verhaal can be placed between the participle and the finite verb in clause-final position, as in (499d), which is never possible if the participle is verbal. All examples in (499) become unacceptable if the preposition in is replaced by voor.

499

a.		De toeschouwers	zijn	heel/zeer	geïnteresseerd	in/*voor zijn verhaal.
		the spectators	are	very/very	interested	in/for his story

b.		De toeschouwers	zijn	meer/het meest	geïnteresseerd	in/*voor zijn verhaal.
		the spectators	are	more/the most	interested	in/for his story

c.		De toeschouwers	zijn	ongeïnteresseerd	(?in/*voor zijn verhaal).
		the spectators	are	uninterested	in/for his story

d.		dat	de toeschouwers	geïnteresseerd	in/*voor zijn verhaal	zijn.
		that	the spectators	interested	in/for his story	are

[+] 3. The verbal and adjectival reading of the past/passive participle

The previous two subsections have shown that past/passive participles of causative psych-verbs can have either a verbal or an adjectival reading. There is, however, a strong tendency to construe the participle as non-verbal (which also accounts for the marked status of example (498b) with the preposition voor). In order to show this, we will discuss the outcome of two tests that were developed in A9.3.1, sub I to distinguish the two readings.
The first test involves temporal modification. The main difference between verbal and adjectival past/passive participles is that the former denote perfective events whereas the latter denote a property of a noun phrase. This is reflected in that the two types of participle co-occur with different kinds of temporal adverbial phrases; verbal participles may combine with adverbial phrases like gisteren'yesterday' that refer to a certain time interval during which the event was completed, whereas adjectival participles instead combine with adverbial phrases like al jaren'for years' that refer to a larger continuous span of time at which the property denoted by the participle holds. When we consider the data in (500), it turns out that the attributively used participles are preferably construed as adjectival.

500

a.	de	al jaren/*gisteren	geïrriteerde	jongens
	the	for years/yesterday	irritated	boys
	'the boys that have been irritated for years'

b.	het	al jaren/*gisteren	geïnteresseerde	publiek
	the	for years/yesterday	interested	audience
	'the audience that has been interested for years'

The verbal reading of the attributively used participles may arise if they are accompanied by an agentive or a causative door-phrase, but even then the examples in (501) seem somewhat marked.

501

a.	?	de	gisteren	door die opmerking	geïrriteerde	jongen
		the	yesterday	by that remark	irritated	boys
		'the boys that were irritated/annoyed yesterday at that remark'

b.	?	de	gisteren	door dat feit	verbaasde	man
		the	yesterday	by that fact	surprised	man
		'the man that was surprised by that fact yesterday'

It should be noted, however, that not all past/passive participles of psych-verbs allow modification by means of al jaren. Exceptions are the verbs raken'to affect' and treffen'to move' and verrassen'to surprise', which may be related to the fact that these psych-verbs denote punctual events, that is, events that do not have an extension in time: since properties normally hold for a longer period of time, the formation of an adjectival participle on the basis of these verbs arguably results in a semantically incoherent meaning. The number sign in (502a) indicates that gisteren is possible on the reading "hit (by, e.g., a bullet)"; construal as a causative psych-verb is impossible.

502

a.		de	*al jaren/#gisteren	getroffen/geraakte	man
		the	for years/yesterday	hit/hit	man

b.		de	*al jaren/??gisteren	verraste	man
		the	for years/yesterday	surprised	man

The second test involves the position of the participle in clause-final position. Examples with the verb zijn'to be' are expected to be ambiguous between a passive reading and a reading in which the participle is predicative; cf, subsection D. Under the passive reading, we are dealing with a verbal participle, and we hence predict that it can be placed after the finite verb in clause-final position. The examples in (503) show, however, that this prediction is not correct: the participle must precede the finite verb, from which we can conclude that it is adjectival.

503

a.		dat	de koning	verrast/geamuseerd/geïrriteerd/verbaasd	was.
		that	the king	surprised/amused/irritated/amazed	was

a'.

dat de koning was verrast/geamuseerd/geïrriteerd/verbaasd.

b.		dat	het publiek	geïnteresseerd/geboeid	was.
		that	the audience	interested/fascinated	was

b'.

dat het publiek was geïnteresseerd/geboeid.

The unacceptable examples in (503) improve somewhat if a passive door-phrase is added, as in the primeless examples in (504), but even then the result is often dubious. The primed examples show that the addition of a causative door-phrase cannot be used to evoke the verbal reading of the participle. Note that acceptability judgments may differ from case to case and speaker to speaker.

504

a.	dat	de koning	door de nar	was verrast/geamuseerd/geïrriteerd/verbaasd.
	that	the king	by the jester	was surprised/amused/irritated/amazed
	'that the king has been surprised/amused/irritated/amazed by the jester.'

a'.		dat de koning	door die grap	was ?verrast/?geamuseerd/geïrriteerd/verbaasd.
		that the king	by that joke	was surprised/amused/annoyed/irritated/amazed

b.	?	dat	het publiek	door die docent	voor taalkunde	was geïnteresseerd.
		that	the audience	by that professor	for linguistics	was interested
		'that the audience has been interested for linguistics by that professor.'

b'.	*	dat	het publiek	door die lezing	voor taalkunde	was	geïnteresseerd.
		that	the audience	by that lecture	for linguistics	was	interested

The passive reading is only fully acceptable if the passive auxiliary worden is used. Note that the passive door-phrase is optional then. The primed examples show that using a causative door-phrase often has a degrading effect on the passive construction. This seems to support our earlier conclusion from Subsection D that causative psych-verbs with a cause subject cannot be passivized; those cases that are acceptable are cases of adjectival passives.

505

a.	dat de koning	(door de nar)	werd	verrast/geamuseerd/geïrriteerd/verbaasd.
	that the king	by the jester	was	surprised/amused/annoyed/irritated/amazed
	'that the king has been surprised/amused/irritated/amazed (by the jester).'

a'.		dat de koning	door die grap	werd	verrast/?geamuseerd/?geïrriteerd/verbaasd.
		that the king	by that joke	was	surprised/amused/irritated/amazed

b.	dat	het publiek	door die docent	voor taalkunde	werd	geïnteresseerd.
	that	the audience	by that professor	for linguistics	was	interested
	'that the audience has been interested for linguistics by that professor.'

b'.	??	dat	het publiek	door die lezing	voor taalkunde	werd	geïnteresseerd.
		that	the audience	by that lecture	for linguistics	was	interested

[+] G. Argument order

This subsection discusses the relative order of the subject and the direct object of the causative experiencer verbs. Consider the examples in (506). Nothing special needs be said about the primeless examples: as usual the subject precedes the object of the clause. Example (506a') is special, however, in that it is not the subject that precedes the object but the object that precedes the subject. This order is possible with all causative experiencer verbs provided that the subject is -animate; examples such as (506b') are generally considered degraded.

506

a.	dat	die grapjesnom	de koningacc	amuseren.
	that	those jokes	the king	amuse
	'that those jokes amuse the king.'

a'.

dat de koningacc die grapjesnom amuseren.

b.	dat	de narrennom	de koningacc	(met hun dolle fratsen)	amuseren.
	that	the jesters	the king	with their silly pranks	amuse
	'that the jesters amuse the king (with their silly pranks).'

b'.

dat de koningacc de narrennom??(*met hun dolle fratsen) amuseren.

There are at least two ways to account for the degraded status of (506b'). The first way would be to say that, since Dutch has no morphological case marking, the order acc-nom with an animate subject gives rise to parsing problems on part of the speaker since the experiencer object is also animate. This account is severely weakened by the fact that these parsing difficulties are apparently not resolved by the fact that the number marking on the verb in principle provides sufficient information to correctly interpret the sentence. That this should be sufficient to resolve the problem can be illustrated by means of the contrast in (507). The infelicity of the use of the third person plural pronoun ze in (507b) can plausibly be attributed to parsing problems given that it can be used both as a subject and an object pronoun. The parsing problem does not, however, occur in (507a) due to the fact that number agreement on the verb unambiguously shows that ze must be interpreted as an object pronoun.

507

a.		Zijn verhaal	interesseert	hen/ze.
		his story	interests	them/them

b.		Zijn verhalen	interesseren	hen/*?ze.
		his stories	interest	them/them

The second way of accounting for the degraded status of (506b') would be to say that the difference in acceptability is related to the fact that the inanimate subject DP de grapjes in the (a)-examples of (506) can only be interpreted as the cause, whereas the animate subject DP de narren in the (b)-examples is preferably construed as a causer. Support for such an approach is that the addition of a causative met-PP makes (506b') completely unacceptable: whereas the DP de narren could in principle be interpreted as a cause if the met-PP is absent, this is totally impossible if it is present. This second approach to the difference in acceptability between the two primed examples in (506) implies that there is a syntactic difference between causative experiencer verbs with a causer and those with a cause subject: the former simply behave like regular transitive verbs, whereas the latter do not.
Evidence for the second, syntactic, approach is provided by the verbs treffen/raken and boeien. In the primeless examples in (508) these verbs are used as regular transitive verbs with the meanings "to hit" and "to chain", respectively. In the primed examples, on the other hand, these verbs receive an interpretation as causative experiencer verbs. Only under the latter reading, in which the subject is interpreted as a cause, can the order of the subject and the object be inverted. Observe that (508a) shows that it is not sufficient for nom-acc inversion that the subject is inanimate.

508

a.	dat	<de stenen>	de politicusacc <*de stenen>	troffen/raakten.
	that	the stones	the politician	hit/hit
	'that the stones hit/hit the politician.'

a'.	dat	<die opmerkingen>	de politicusacc <die opmerkingen>	troffen/raakten.
	that	those remarks	the politician	hit/hit
	'that those remarks affected the politician.'

b.	dat	<de agent>	de studentenacc <*de agent>	boeit.
	that	the policeman	the students	chains
	'that the policeman chains the students.'

b'.	dat	<dat onderwerp>	de studentenacc <dat onderwerp>	boeit.
	that	that subject	the students	fascinates
	'that that subject fascinates the students.'

For completeness' sake, note also that, just as in the case of inversion with the nom-dat and passive ditransitive verbs, the information-structural status of the two noun phrases may affect the order possibilities. For example, if the subject is a weak pronoun it always precedes the object.

509

a.	dat	<het>	de koningacc <*het>	amuseert.
	that	it	the king	amuses
	'that it amuses the king.'

b.	dat	<het>	de jongensacc <*het>	boeit.
	that	it	the boys	fascinates
	'that it fascinates the boys.'

[+] H. Binding

Example (510a) shows that, not surprisingly, the causer argument is able to bind an anaphoric experiencer. The same thing seems to be the case if the subject is a cause, but this is of course less evident since the cause subject must be +animate in this case in order to be able to serve as an antecedent of the +animate experiencer, so example (510b) is actually ambiguous between a cause and a causer reading; the binding relation in these examples is indicated by italics.

510

a.		Die jongensCauser	irriteren	elkaarExp	met die opmerkingenCause.
		those boys	irritate	each other	with those remarks

b.		Die jongensCause/Causer	irriteren	elkaarExp.
		those boys	irritate	each other

Given that an experiencer object may also precede a cause subject, it need not come as a surprise that it can function as the antecedent of an anaphor embedded in the subject in (511a); note that the subject itself cannot be realized as an anaphor since, for some reason, anaphors cannot be marked with nominative case. As is shown by (511b), the binding relation is maintained if the cause subject precedes the experiencer object. Note that we added a percentage sign to example (511a) because some speakers report that they consider the order in this example marked compared to the order in (511b). It is not clear what causes this effect.

511

a.	%	dat	die jongensExp	elkaars opmerkingenCause	irriteren.
		that	those boys	each otherʼs remarks	irritate

dat

elkaars opmerkingenCausedie jongensExp irriteren.

The question that we will address now is whether binding relations like those in (511) are also possible if the subject is a causer. Example (512) is an attempt to construct an example comparable to (511a). Not surprisingly, this example is unacceptable under the intended reading given that experiencers never precede causers (cf, subsection G); this sentence only allows the reading in (511a), in which elkaars ouders is interpreted as experiencer.

512

a.	*	dat	die jongensExp	elkaars oudersCauser	met hun opmerkingenCause	irriteren.
		that	those boys	each otherʼs parents	with their remarks	irritate

b.	dat	die jongensCauser	elkaars oudersExp	met hun opmerkingenCause	irriteren.
	that	those boys	each otherʼs parents	with their remarks	irritate
	'that those boys irritate each otherʼs parents with their remarks.'

The interesting cases are therefore constructions in which the causer subject contains a reciprocal and precedes the experiencer. Examples such as (513a) have been extensively discussed in the literature and are generally given as grammatical; cf. Hoekstra (1991:150) and references cited there. This example cannot, however, be used for our purpose because +animate subjects can in principle also be interpreted as the cause argument of a psych-verb, and thus illustrate the same point as (511b). What we need to find out is therefore whether the noun phrase elkaars ouders can be used as a causer. We may force this reading by adding the causative met-phrase in (513b). Giving a judgment of this example seems a tricky matter, but to us it seems that the sentence is degraded compared to the fully acceptable example in (513a).

513

a.	dat	elkaars ouders?	die jongensExp	irriteren.
	that	each otherʼs parents	those boys	irritate
	'that each otherʼs parents irritate those boys.'

b.	??	dat	elkaars oudersCauser	die jongensExp	irriteren	met hun opmerkingenCause.
		that	each otherʼs parents	those boys	irritate	with their remarks
		'that each otherʼs parents irritate those boys with their remarks.'

A difficulty in judging (513b) is that the hearer may start interpreting this example such as (513a), that is, with a subject that functions as a cause; only if the met-PP is pronounced does the hearer reinterpret the subject as a causer, but by then the intended interpretation of the anaphor may already have been grasped. This problem can be avoided, however, if we place the met-PP in clause-initial position, as in (514), and we believe that the resulting example is indeed unacceptable.

514

*	Met hun opmerkingenCause	irriteren	elkaars oudersCauser	die jongensExp.
	with their remarks	irritate	each otherʼs parents	those boys
	'that each otherʼs parents irritate those boys with their remarks.'

We do realize that the complexity of the examples above makes it difficult to provide reliable judgments, and that a more careful investigation than we can conduct here is welcome. Nevertheless, we will provisionally conclude on the basis of the discussion above that experiencers of causative psych-verbs can only bind an anaphor embedded in the subject if the latter is a cause, not if it is a causer.
We want to conclude this subsection on a more technical note. The fact that (511b) is grammatical has led to the claim that the order in (511a) represents the underlying order and that (511b) is derived from this order by moving the cause into the regular subject position, that is, that examples like these have a similar derivation as the nom-dat verbs; cf. Den Besten (1985). An analysis of this sort is problematic, however, given that D, will show that we find similar facts with periphrastic causative constructions, in which the experiencer originates as the logical subject of a predicative adjective. The base structure of these periphrastic constructions is therefore something like what is shown in (515a). If constructions with a causative experiencer verb indeed have a similar structure as the periphrastic construction, the assumption that (511a) is the base order cannot be maintained: the base structure should then be as given in (515b). We refer the reader to Subsection III for more discussion.

515

[... DPCause ... [ DPExp APRED] maken]

[...DPCause ... [ DPExp irrit-] -eren]

[+] I. Nominalization

The previous subsections have discussed several differences between causative experiencer verbs with, respectively, a causer and a cause subject. This subsection discusses a final difference concerning nominalization. The examples in (516) suggest that the possibility of nominalization depends on whether the base verb is of the type amuseren and beledigen in (516a&b), which may take a causer subject, or whether it is of the type bedroeven and verheugen in (516c&d), which preferably take a cause subject; cf. the samples in (463).

516

a.		het amuseren	van de koningExp
		the amusing	of the king

c.	??	het bedroeven	van JanExp
		the saddening	of Jan

b.		het beledigen	van de mannenExp
		the insulting	of the men

d.	??	het verheugen	van JanExp
		the rejoicing	of Jan

The idea that only causative experiencer verbs with a causer subject can be the input for nominalization is also supported by the fact that the examples in (516a&b) become unacceptable if a door-pharse expressing a cause is added; if the door-phrase expresses a causer, on the other hand, the result is fully acceptable (although somewhat marked).

517

a.	*	het amuseren	van de koningExp	door die grapjesCause
		the amusing	of the king	by those jokes

a'.	het amuseren	van de koning	door de narrenCauser
	the amusing	of the king	by the jesters
	'the entertaining of the king by the jesters'

b.	*	het beledigen	van de mannenExp	door die opmerkingCause
		the insulting	of the men	by that remark

b'.		het beledigen	van de mannenExp	door JanCause
		the insulting	of the men	by Jan

Observe that it is not the presence of a cause that makes the nominalizations unacceptable, but the fact that the cause is given in a door-PP; the examples in (518) with a causative met-PP are fully acceptable.

518

a.		het amuseren	van de koningExp	met die grapjesCause
		the amusing	of the king	with those jokes

b.		het beledigen	van de mannenExp	met die opmerkingCause
		the insulting	of the men	by that remark

This contrast strongly suggests that the door-PP in (517) must be construed as referring to the subject of the corresponding verbal construction, that is, that we have to conclude that nominalization of verbs with a cause subject is excluded. This shows again that causative experiencer verbs with a causer subject pattern with regular transitive verbs, whereas those with a cause subject deviate from them; see Subsection D.

[+] J. Conclusion

The previous subsections have shown that causative experiencer verbs with, respectively, a causer and a cause subject differ in various respects. First, passivization seems possible with the former only. Present participles can be used attributively with nouns corresponding to the subject of both verb types, but this only holds if the participle is verbal in nature; if the present participle is adjectival in nature it can only be used to modify nouns that correspond to a cause subject. Given that predicatively used participles are always adjectival, it does not come as a surprise that these can only be predicated of noun phrases that function as a cause in the corresponding verbal construction. It is not clear whether the past/passive participles of the two verb types are syntactically different: we can only observe that they can both be used attributively to modify a noun that corresponds to the experiencer object of the verb; the same thing holds if they are used predicatively. The two verb types do differ with respect to inversion of the subject and object; this is only possible if the subject is a cause. The two types of causative experiencer verbs also seem to differ with respect to whether the experiencer object is able to bind an anaphor embedded in the subject; this is clearly possible if the subject is a cause but seems to be excluded if it is a causer. The final difference concerns nominalization, which is possible only if the subject is a causer. Table 14 summarizes these observations.

Table 14: Causative experiencer verbs with a causer and a cause subject.

		causer subject	cause subject
passive		+	—
attributively used present participles modifying the subject	verbal	+	+
	adjectival	—	+
attributively used past/passive participles modifying the experiencer		+	+
nom-acc-inversion		—	+
binding of an anaphor embedded in the subject by the object experiencer		—	+
nominalization		+	—

Since the syntactic behavior of causative experiencer verbs with a causer subject is more or less identical to that of regular transitive verbs, it seems reasonable to simply consider them transitive verbs as well. The syntactic behavior of causative experiencer verbs with a cause subject, on the other hand, is very different from that of regular transitive verbs, for which reason we assume that they constitute a separate class of so-called nom-acc verbs.

[+] III. Periphrastic causative psychological constructions

Subsection IIB suggested that causative psych-verbs like amuseren'to amuse' are not simple verbs but instead are derived by means of a causative affix, which is responsible for introducing a causer/cause argument. Some researchers have suggested that this cause affix is inserted in syntax, and that the causative psych-verb comes into existence by moving the stem of the verb to this cause affix, as depicted in (519a'); cf. Pesetsky (1995) and references cited there. According to this proposal the structure of causative psych-verb constructions is essentially identical to that of constructions with periphrastic causative psych-predicates like vrolijk maken'to make merry' in (519b'); the only difference is that the stem of the causative psych-verb must move to the affix in order to merge with it, whereas the psych-adjective in vrolijk maken can remain in its original position.

519

a.		dat	de narrenCauser	de koningExp	amuseren.
		that	the jesters	the king	amuse

a'.		dat [de narren [de koning amus-] -eren] ⇒
		dat [de narren [de koning ti ] amusi-eren]

b.		dat	de narrenCauser	de koningExp	vrolijk	maken.
		that	the jesters	the king	merry	make

b'.

dat [de narren [de koning vrolijk] maken]

This proposal predicts that the two constructions behave in a similar way in various respects, and this subsection will therefore compare some of the properties of the two constructions in order to see whether this prediction is indeed correct.

[+] A. The semantic roles of the arguments in the periphrastic construction

The psych-adjective and the verb make independent contributions to the argument structure of the periphrastic causative psych-construction as a whole. Section 2.5.1.1, sub I, has already shown that psych-adjectives may select several types of arguments: they are always predicated of an experiencer argument, and some psych-adjectives are in addition able to take an object (subject matter/target) of emotion. This is illustrated again for the psych-adjective boos'angry' in (520a). Note that we take the term psych-adjective rather broadly here by including non-verbal past/passive participles like geïnteresseerd'interested' in (520b), which were argued to be truly adjectival Subsection IIF, as well as idiomatic PPs like in de war'confused' in (520c), which exhibit several characteristic traits of psych-adjectives; see Sections A8.4 and P3.3 for discussion.

520

a.		JanExp	is	boos	op MarieTarget	over die opmerkingSubjM.
		Jan	is	angry	at Marie	about that remark

b.		JanExp	is	geïnteresseerd	in dat boekSubjM.
		Jan	is	interested	in that book

c.	Jan is in de war	over die opmerkingSubjM.
	Jan is in the war	about that remark
	'Jan is confused about that remark.'

The verb in (521) introduces the causer/cause argument, and is thus responsible for the causative interpretation of the periphrastic construction as a whole. As in the case of causative psych-verbs, the causer and cause argument can be expressed simultaneously provided that the latter is expressed by means of an adjunct-PP.

521

a.		PeterCauser	maakt	JanExp	boos.
		Peter	makes	Jan	angry

b.		Die opmerkingenCause	maken	JanExp	boos.
		those remarks	make	Jan	angry

c.		PeterCauser	maakt	JanExp	boos	met die opmerkingenCause.
		Peter	makes	Jan	angry	with those remarks

The main difference between the periphrastic causative psych-constructions and constructions with a causative psych-verb is that in the former the presence of a causer/cause does not block the presence of an object (subject matter/target) of emotion, whereas in the latter it does; see the discussion in Subsection II, from which we repeat the examples in (522), and Pesetsky (1995:ch.6) for an attempt to account for this difference.

522

a.		PeterCauser	maakt	JanExp	met zijn verhalenCause	bang	voor spokenSubjM.
		Peter	makes	Jan	with his stories	afraid	of ghosts

b.		PeterCauser	beangstigt	JanExp	met zijn verhalenCause	(*voor spokenSubjM).
		Peter	frightens	Jan	with his stories	of ghosts

c.		Zijn verhalenCause	beangstigen	JanExp	(*voor spokenSubjM).
		his stories	frighten	Jan	of ghosts

The causative verb in the periphrastic construction is normally maken'to make'. In the more or less fixed collocations in (523) and (524) the verbs stellen'to put' and brengen'to bring' are used with, respectively, an adjectival and prepositional psych-predicate. Since maken is the one productively used in this construction, we will restrict our attention to this verb in the remainder of the discussion.

523

a.	JanCauser	stelt	zijn baasExp	tevreden/gerust/teleur.
	Jan	puts	his boss	satisfied/calm/teleur
	'Jan satisfies/reassures/disappoints his boss.'

b.		Die opmerkingCause	stelt	zijn baasExp	tevreden/gerust/teleur.
		that remark	puts	his boss	satisfied/calm/teleur

c.		JanCauser	stelt	zijn baasExp	tevreden/gerust/teleur	met die opmerkingCause.
		Jan	puts	his boss	satisfied/calm/teleur	with that remark

524

a.	MarieCauser	bracht	onsExp	in verrukking/vervoering.
	Marie	brought	us	in delight/ecstasy
	'Marie delighted/thrilled us .'

b.	Dat liedCause	bracht	onsExp	in verrukking/vervoering.
	that song	brought	us	in delight/ecstasy
	'That concert delighted/thrilled us.'

c.	MarieCauser	bracht	onsExp	in verrukking/vervoering	met dat liedCause.
	Marie	brought	us	in delight/ecstasy	with that song
	'Marie delighted/thrilled us with that song.'

[+] B. Passivization

Example (525a) shows that, like causative psych-verb constructions, periphrastic causative psych-constructions can be passivized if the subject is a causer. The result is also marginally acceptable if the door-phrase expresses the cause, but such constructions are probably not derived from active constructions with a cause subject for the reasons indicated in Subsection IID.

525

a.	JanExp	werd	door PeterCauser	boos	gemaakt.
	Jan	was	by Peter	angry	made
	'Jan was made angry by Peter.'

b.	?	Jan werd	door die opmerkingCause	boos	gemaakt.
		Jan was	by that remark	angry	made

[+] C. Argument order

Subsection IIG, has shown that the cause and experiencer arguments of causative psych-verbs can be inverted. The examples in (526) show that the same thing holds for the periphrastic causative construction.

526

a.	dat	die opmerkingCause	de jongensExp	boos	maakt.
	that	that remark	the boys	angry	makes
	'that that remark makes the boys angry.'

dat de jongensExp die opmerkingCause boos maakt.

Inversion of the causer and experiencer arguments of a causative psych-verb, on the other hand, is excluded. Again, we find the same thing in the periphrastic construction.

527

a.	dat	het meisjeCauser	de jongensExp	(met die opmerkingCause)	boos	maakt.
	that	the girl	the boys	with that remark	angry	makes
	'that the girl makes the boys angry with that remark.'

dat de jongensacc het meisjenom ??(met die opmerkingCause) boos maakt.

[+] D. Binding

Periphrastic causative psych-constructions and causative psych-verb constructions also behave in a similar way with respect to binding. This can easily be established by comparing the examples in (528)-(531) below with those in (510)-(513) from Subsection IIH. Example (528a) shows that the causer argument is able to bind an anaphoric experiencer. The same thing seems to be the case if the subject is a cause, but this is again less evident given that the cause subject must be +animate in order to be able to serve as an antecedent of the +animate experiencer, so that example (510b) is actually ambiguous between a cause and a causer reading.

528

a.		Die jongensCauser	maken	elkaarExp	boos	met die opmerkingenCause.
		those boys	make	each other	angry	with those remarks

b.		Die jongensCause/Causer	maken	elkaarExp	boos.
		those boys	make	each other	angry

The examples in (529) show that the experiencer object may function as the antecedent of an anaphor embedded in the cause subject, regardless of whether it precedes or follows the subject. The percentage sign in (529a) indicates that some speakers report that they consider the order in this example marked compared to the order in (529b). As in the case of the examples in (511) in Subsection II, it is not clear what causes this effect.

529

a.	%	dat	die jongensExp	elkaars opmerkingenCause	boos	maken.
		that	those boys	each otherʼs remarks	angry	make

dat

elkaars opmerkingenCausedie jongensExp boos maken.

If the subject is a causer, it cannot follow the experiencer: it is therefore not surprising that example (530a) is unacceptable under the intended reading; this sentence only allows the reading in (530b), in which elkaars ouders is interpreted as the experiencer.

530

a.	*	dat	die jongensExp	elkaars oudersCauser	met hun opmerkingenCause	boos	maken.
		that	those boys	each otherʼs parents	with their remarks	angry	make

b.	dat	die jongensCauser	elkaars oudersExp	met hun opmerkingenCause	boos	maken.
	that	those boys	each otherʼs parents	with their remarks	angry	make
	'that those boys make each otherʼs parents angry with their remarks.'

The interesting cases are therefore, again, constructions in which the causer subject contains a reciprocal and precedes the experiencer. Like (513a), example (531a) is grammatical. This example cannot, however, be used for our purpose because the +animate subject DP can be interpreted either as a cause or as a causer. We should therefore find out whether the noun phrase elkaars ouders can be used as a causer. We may force this reading by adding the causative met-phrase in topicalized position, as in (531b); this example seems unacceptable to us.

531

a.		dat	elkaars ouders	die jongens	boos	maken.
		that	each otherʼs parents	those boys	angry	make

b.	*	Met hun opmerkingenCause	maken	elkaars oudersCauser	die jongensExp	boos.
		with their remarks	make	each otherʼs parents	those boys	angry

[+] E. Conclusion

The previous subsections compared several syntactic properties of periphrastic causative psych-constructions and causative psych-verb constructions. The two constructions are similar in most respects. The main difference is that objects of emotion can occur in periphrastic causative psych-constructions, but not in causative psych-verb constructions. This suggests that the hypothesis in (519), according to which the two constructions have more or less the same underlying structure, is well founded.

[+] F. Some possibly related constructions with a psychological noun

The periphrastic psych-construction discussed in the previous subsections involved predicative psych-adjectives like boos'angry'. There is, however, a totally different sort of causative psych-construction, which involves a psychological noun phrase that functions as a direct object. This subsection briefly discusses two subtypes which, to our knowledge, have played no part in the discussion on psych-verbs so far; the double object construction in Subsection 1, for example, was only mentioned as a special case in Pesetsky (1995), and the periphrastic constructions in Subsection 2 have not been discussed at all.

[+] 1. Double object constructions

Double object constructions such as (532a) are special in that they often alternate with constructions containing a periphrastic indirect object such as (532b). The difference between the two constructions is normally described in terms of possession; cf. Section 3.3.1. In the double object construction in (532a), for example, the indirect object is the person for whom the book is intended: Peter is said to be the recipient, the new owner, of the book. This implication is missing, however, in the periphrastic construction in (532b): Peter is simply the goal, that is, the receiver but not necessarily the new owner of the book.

532

a.		Jan bezorgde	PeterRec	het boek.
		Jan delivered	Peter	the book

b.		Jan bezorgde	het boek	aan PeterGoal.
		Jan delivered	the book	to Peter

The relevance of this difference becomes clear if the direct object is more abstract, like een nieuwe baan in (533a). Since the indirect object Peter clearly functions as a recipient in this construction, the periphrastic alternant in (533b) is unacceptable.

533

a.		Jan bezorgde	PeterRec	een nieuwe baan.
		Jan delivered	Peter	a new job

b.	*	Jan bezorgde	een nieuwe baan	aan PeterGoal.
		Jan delivered	a new job	to Peter

If the direct object is a psychological noun phrase, the indirect object is also clearly a recipient, or, since the direct object refers to an emotion which can only be experienced by the referent of the indirect object him/herself, an experiencer. As can be seen in the (a)-examples in (534), the subject of a double object construction of this type can be either a causer or a cause: the two can also be expressed simultaneously, but then the cause must be expressed by means of an adjunct-PP. The periphrastic indirect object construction in (534b) is unacceptable.

534

a.	JanCauser	bezorgt	MarieExp	veel angst/irritatie/plezier	met die opmerkingCause.
	Jan	delivers	Marie	much fear/irritation/fun	with that remark
	'Jan gives Marie a lot of fear/irritation/fun with that remark.'

a'.		Die opmerkingCause	bezorgt	MarieExp	veel angst/irritatie/plezier.
		that remark	delivers	Marie	much fear/irritation/fun

b.	*	Jan/Die opmerking	bezorgt	veel angst/ergernis/irritatie/plezier	aan Marie.
		Jan/that remark	delivers	much fear/irritation/irritation/fun	to Marie

The psych-constructions in (534) resemble the constructions in (535), which differ in that the noun does not refer to a psychological state, but to a physical state that comes into existence. That the borderline between the two constructions is small is clear from the fact that the (a)-examples in (535) can also be construed metaphorically with the meaning "to shock", in which case we are dealing with a psych-construction (this is actually the preferred reading of (535a)).

535

a.	JanCauser	bezorgde	MarieExp	een hartaanval	met die opmerkingCause.
	Jan	delivered	Marie	a heart attack	with that remark
	'Jan gave Marie a heart attack/shocked Marie.'

a'.	Die opmerkingCause	bezorgde	MarieExp	een hartaanval.
	that remark	delivered	Marie	a heart attack
	'That remark gave Marie a heart attack/shocked Marie.'

b.	*	Jan/Die opmerking	bezorgt	een hartaanval	aan Marie.
		Jan/that remark	delivers	a heart attack	to Marie

[+] 2. Constructions with a verb of causation

Example (536) provides constructions with the verb of causation veroorzaken'to cause'. This construction is special in that what seems to be the experiencer is expressed by an adjunct-PP headed by bij, subjects in this construction, however, exhibit properties similar to those of the causative psych-constructions discussed earlier: the subject of the construction can be a causer or a cause, and when the two are expressed simultaneously, the cause must be expressed by means of an adjunct-PP. Example (536b) shows that the experiencer cannot be realized as a noun phrase.

536

a.	JanCauser	veroorzaakt	met die opmerkingCause	veel angst/irritatie	bij MarieExp.
	Jan	causes	with that remark	much fear/irritation	at Marie
	'Jan causes Marie a lot of fear/irritation with that remark.'

a'.		Die opmerkingCause	veroorzaakt	veel angst/irritatie	bij MarieExp.
		that remark	causes	much fear/irritation	at Marie

b.	*	Jan/Die opmerking	veroorzaakt	Marie veel angst/ergernis/irritatie/plezier.
		Jan/that remark	causes	Marie much fear/irritation/irritation/fun

In (537), we give an example with the more or less fixed collocation indruk maken op'to impress', in which the experiencer is part of an op-PP. And in (538), we provide a number of more or less fixed collocations with doen'to do'. Note that example (538b) is special in not allowing a causer subject.

537

a.	JanCauser	maakte	een diepe indruk	op meExp	met zijn woordenCause.
	Jan	made	a deep impression	on me	with his words
	'Jan made a deep impression on me with his words.'

b.	Zijn woordenCause	hebben	een diepe indruk	op meExp	gemaakt.
	his words	have	a deep impression	on me	made
	'His words made a deep impression on me.'

538

a.	JanCauser	deed	meExp	behoorlijk	pijn	met die opmerking.
	Jan	did	me	considerably	pain	with that remark
	'Jan hurt me a lot with that remark.'

a'.	Die opmerkingCause	deed	meExp	behoorlijk pijn.
	that remark	did	me	considerably pain
	'That remark hurt me a lot.'

b.	*	JanCauser	doet	meExp absoluut	niets	met die opmerking.
		Jan	does	me	absolutely nothing	with that remark

b'.	Die opmerkingCause	doet	meExp	absoluut niets.
	that remark	does	me	absolutely nothing
	'That remark means nothing to me.'

[+] IV. Inherently reflexive psych-verbs

The examples in (539) illustrate that some causative psych-verbs have inherently reflexive alternants; see Pesetsky (1995:ch.4) and references cited there. The inherently reflexive psych-verbs in the primed examples differ in several respects from their causative counterparts. First, the inherently reflexive verb obligatorily takes a simplex reflexive pronoun like the third person pronoun zich. Second, the experiencer is realized as the subject of the reflexive construction, not as the object. Third, the inherently reflexive verb may take a PP-complement that refers to the object (subject matter/target) of emotion, which is excluded in the case of the causative verbs; cf, subsection IIA.

539

a.		De jongensCauser	ergerde	de agentenExp	met hun ongepaste gedragCause.
		the boys	annoyed	the policemen	with their improper behavior

a'.	De agentenExp	ergeren	zich	aan het ongepaste gedrag van de jongensTarget.
	the policemen	annoy	refl	of the improper behavior of the boys
	'The policeman are annoyed about the boysʼ improper behavior.'

b.		MarieCauser	verbaast	JanExp	met haar asociale gedragCause.
		Marie	amazes	Jan	with her asocial behavior

b'.		JanExp	verbaast	zich	over Maries asociale gedragSubjM.
		Jan	is.amazed	refl	about Marieʼs asocial behavior

It is not the case that all causative psych-verbs have an inherently reflexive counterpart; only a relatively small number of the causative psych-verbs in (463) do so. The relevant cases are given in (540); these verbs virtually all select a PP that expresses an object of emotion.

540

Inherently reflexive psych-verbs with a causative counterpart: zich amuseren (over/met)'to be amused about', zich ergeren (aan)'to be annoyed at', zich interesseren (in/voor)'to be interested in', zich irriteren (aan)'to be irritated about', zich opwinden (over)'to be/get incensed about', zich storen (aan)'to be annoyed at', zich verbazen (over)'to be surprised about', zich verheugen (op)'to rejoice in', zich vermaken (met)'to enjoy oneself', zich vervelen'to be bored', zich verwonderen (over)'to be amazed about'Inherently reflexive psych-verbs with a causative counterpart: zich amuseren (over/met)'to be amused about', zich ergeren (aan)'to be annoyed at', zich interesseren (in/voor)'to be interested in', zich irriteren (aan)'to be irritated about', zich opwinden (over)'to be/get incensed about', zich storen (aan)'to be annoyed at', zich verbazen (over)'to be surprised about', zich verheugen (op)'to rejoice in', zich vermaken (met)'to enjoy oneself', zich vervelen'to be bored', zich verwonderen (over)'to be amazed about'

The examples in (539) perhaps suggest that causes of the causative psych-verb constructions surface as objects of emotion in the corresponding inherently reflexive constructions. The examples in (541) show, however, that such an assumption would not be without its problems; the (a)-examples illustrate that, like all causative psych-verbs, vervelen may take a cause, which can be realized either as an optional met-PP or as the subject of the clause, but that the corresponding inherently reflexive construction in (541b) does not take a PP expressing an object of emotion.

541

a.		PeterCauser	verveelt	JanExp	(met zijn flauwe grapjesCause).
		Peter	bores	Jan	with his insipid jokes

a'.		Zijn flauwe grapjesCause	vervelen	JanExp.
		his insipid jokes	bore	Jan

b.		JanExp	verveelt	zich	(*met/over/...	zijn flauwe grapjes).
		Jan	is.bored	refl	with/about/...	his insipid jokes

Although the fact that a large number of causative psych-verbs do not have inherently reflexive counterparts suggests that the alternation between these verb types is not regulated by means of a productive (morphological or syntactic) rule, there are nevertheless reasons for assuming that there is a systematic relation between constructions headed by them. A first reason is that the some periphrastic causative psych-constructions exhibit the same alternation; cf. the examples in (542).

542

a.		PeterCauser	maakt	MarieExp	kwaad/boos	met die opmerkingCause.
		Peter	makes	Marie	angry	with that remark

b.		Die opmerkingCause	maakt	Marie kwaad/boos.
		that remark	makes	Marie angry

c.	MarieExp	maakt	zich	kwaad/boos	over die opmerkingSubjM.
	Marie	makes	refl	angry	about that remark
	'Marie is getting angry about that remark.'

Another reason for assuming that there is a systematic relationship is that the idiomatic meaning of example (543a) is preserved in the corresponding inherently reflexive construction in (543c). For completeness' sake, (543b) shows that the idiomatic reading is not available if the cause surfaces as the subject of the causative construction.

543

a.	JanCauser	maakt	MarieExp	blij	met een dode mus.
	Jan	makes	Marie	glad	with a dead sparrow
	'Jan is making Marie happy with something worthless.'

b.	#	Een dode musCause	maakt	Marie blij.
		a dead sparrow	makes	Marie glad

c.	MarieExp	maakt	zich	blij	met een dode mus.
	Marie	makes	refl	glad	with a dead sparrow
	'Marie is getting all excited about nothing.'

Something similar holds for the more or less fixed periphrastic expression tevreden stellen'to satisfy' in (523); example (544a) provides the inherently reflexive counterpart of this expression. The examples in (544b&c) show that the alternation is not productive; the periphrastic expressions gerust stellen'to reassure' and teleur stellen'to disappoint' in (523) do not have inherently reflexive counterparts.

544

a.	JanExp	stelde	zich	tevreden	??(met dat antwoord).
	Jan	put	refl	satisfied	with that answer
	'Jan contented himself with that answer.'

b.	??	JanExp	stelt	zich	met dat antwoord	gerust.
		Jan	puts	refl	with that answer	calm
		'Jan calms himself down with that answer.'

c.	*	JanExp	stelt	zich	teleur.
		Jan	puts	refl	teleur
		'Jan disappoints himself.'

That there is no productive rule that regulates the alternation between causative and inherently reflexive psych-verbs is also clear from the fact that the inherently reflexive psych-verbs in (545) do not have causative alternants. Observe that these verbs all select a PP-complement referring to the object of emotion.

545

Inherently reflexive psych-verbs without a causative counterpart: zich bekommeren (om)'to take care (about)', zich schamen (over/voor)'to be ashamed (of/for)', zich verlustigen in'to delight in', zich verkneukelen om/over'to chuckle at'Inherently reflexive psych-verbs without a causative counterpart: zich bekommeren (om)'to take care (about)', zich schamen (over/voor)'to be ashamed (of/for)', zich verlustigen in'to delight in', zich verkneukelen om/over'to chuckle at'

It is interesting in this connection to note that the periphrastic inherently reflexive examples in (546) with the psych-adjective druk and the psychological noun phrase zorgen'worries' do not have a causative counterpart either.

546

a.	Jan maakt	zich	zorgen	over zijn dochter.
	Jan makes	refl	worries	about his daughter
	'Jan worries about his daughter.'

b.	Jan maakt	zich	druk	over zijn incompetentie.
	Jan makes	refl	busy	about his incompetence
	'Jan is getting worried/excited about his incompetence.'

This subsection has shown that there is some systematic relationship between the causative and inherently reflexive psych-verbs, despite the fact that the alternation does not seem to be mediated by some fully productive morphological or syntactic process. We refer the reader to Section 2.5.2, sub II, on inherently reflexive verbs for a discussion of the mechanism that may be behind the systematic relationship between the two constructions.

[+] V. A note on causative non-experiencer object verbs

There is a small set of causative non-experiencer object verbs that more or less resembles the object experiencer verbs in allowing both a causer and a cause subject. Some examples are: verduidelijken'to clarify', verkleinen'to reduce', voorkomen'to prevent', beëindigen'to end', creëren'to create', duperen'to damage', redden'to save', vermeerderen'to enlarge'. Many of these verbs can be paraphrased by means of a periphrastic construction; verduidelijken, for example, can be paraphrased as duidelijk(er) maken'to make clear(er)'.

547

a.		Jan verduidelijkt	de stelling	met een voorbeeld.
		Jan clarifies	the thesis	with an example

a'.		Jan maakt	de stelling	duidelijk(er)	met een voorbeeld.
		Jan makes	the thesis	(more).transparent	with an example

b.		Dit voorbeeld	verduidelijkt	de stelling.
		this example	clarifies	this thesis

b'.		Dit voorbeeld	maakt	de stelling	duidelijk(er).
		this example	makes	the thesis	(more).transparent

There are also certain differences, however. The examples in (548), for instance, show that present participles of these verbs often cannot be used predicatively. Not much has been said so far about these verbs in the literature, and we therefore leave further investigation of them to future research.

548

a.	Deze voetballer	dupeert	het team	met zijn domme solo-acties.
	this soccer.player	harms	the team	with his stupid solo.actions
	'This soccer player is damaging his team with his stupid solo actions.'

b.	Zijn domme solo-acties	duperen	het team.
	his stupid solo.actions	harm	the team
	'His stupid solo actions are damaging the team.'

c.	*	Zijn domme solo-acties	zijn	duperend.
		his stupid solo.actions	are	harming

References:

Besten, Hans den1985The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and GermanToman, Jindřich (ed.)Studies in German GrammarDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications23-65
Besten, Hans den1985The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and GermanToman, Jindřich (ed.)Studies in German GrammarDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications23-65
Booij, Geert2002The morphology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
Everaert, Martin1982A syntactic passive in DutchUtrecht Working Papers in Linguistics1137-73
Haas, Wim de & Trommelen, Mieke1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvormingSDU Uitgeverij
Hoekstra, Eric1991Licensing conditions on phrase structureGroningenUniversity of GroningenThesis
Pesetsky, David1995Zero syntax: experiencers and cascadesCurrent studies in linguistics 27Cambridge, MAMIT Press
Pesetsky, David1995Zero syntax: experiencers and cascadesCurrent studies in linguistics 27Cambridge, MAMIT Press
Pesetsky, David1995Zero syntax: experiencers and cascadesCurrent studies in linguistics 27Cambridge, MAMIT Press
Pesetsky, David1995Zero syntax: experiencers and cascadesCurrent studies in linguistics 27Cambridge, MAMIT Press
Pesetsky, David1995Zero syntax: experiencers and cascadesCurrent studies in linguistics 27Cambridge, MAMIT Press
Pesetsky, David1995Zero syntax: experiencers and cascadesCurrent studies in linguistics 27Cambridge, MAMIT Press

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AdjectiveAgentiveArgumentBindingCausativeCausativizationDeadjectival VerbDenominal VerbLatinate VerbNominalizationNounObject ExperiencerPassivePsychological PredicatePsychological VerbVerb Frame Alternation

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles