Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.Complementives (secondary predicates)

quickinfo

Section 2.1 has discussed nominal complementation of verbs, which has resulted in the identification of the basic verb types in Table 6. This section discusses the behavior of these verbs with respect to secondary predication. The basic patterns are given in the examples in (156) to (158). In (156), we find an intransitive and an impersonal verb, that is, verbs without an internal argument. The primed examples show that the addition of a complementive is possible in such cases, but requires the addition of an extra argument that functions as the subject of the complementive; wakker'awake' and nat'wet' are predicated of, respectively, the noun phrases zijn baas'his master' and Jan. The construction as a whole receives a resultative interpretation: it is claimed that the referent of the added noun phrase becomes part of the set denoted by the complementive as the result of the action/process denoted by the verb.

156

a.		De hond	blaft.
		the dog	barks

a'.		De hond	blaft	zijn baas	wakker.
		the dog	barks	his boss	awake

b.		Het	regent.
		it	rains

b'.		Jan regent	nat.
		Jan rains	wet

In (157), we find a transitive and a monadic unaccusative verb, that is, verbs with one internal argument. The primed examples show that it is possible to add a complementive, which, in the cases at hand at least, is predicated of the original theme argument. The construction as a whole receives a resultative interpretation: it is claimed that the referent of the theme argument becomes part of the set denoted by the complementive as the result of the action/process denoted by the verb.

157

a.		Jan slaat	Peter.
		Jan hits	Peter

a'.		Jan slaat	Peter dood.
		Jan hits	Peter dead

b.		Jan viel.
		Jan fell

b'.		Jan viel dood.
		Jan fell dead

In (158), we find a ditransitive, a nom-dat, and an undative verb, that is, verbs with two internal arguments. The primed examples are all unacceptable under the intended, resultative, reading. The examples marked with a number sign are at least marginally possible, but then the adjective kapot does not function as a complementive but as a supplementive, that is, a predicative phrase that provides additional information about the theme.

158

a.		Jan geeft	Marie het boek.
		Jan gives	Marie the book

a'.	#	Jan geeft	Marie het boek	kapot.
		Jan gives	Marie the book	broken

b.	De vaas	viel	Marie	op.
	the vase	fell	Marie	prt.
	'The vase caught Marieʼs eye.'

b'.	*	De vaas	viel	Marie kapot	op.
		the vase	fell	Marie broken	prt.

c.		Marie kreeg	het boek.
		Marie received	the book

c'.	#	Marie	kreeg	het boek	kapot.
		Marie	received	the book	broken

When we return to the examples in (156) and (157), we see that the two sets differ in that the addition of a complementive in (156) goes hand in hand with the introduction of an additional argument which is not selected by the verb itself, as is clear from the fact that dropping the complementives in the primed examples in (156) results in ungrammaticality.

159

a.		De hond	blaft	zijn baas	*(wakker).
		the dog	barks	his boss	awake

b.		Jan regent	*(nat).
		Jan rains	wet

This strongly suggests that the noun phrase the complementive is predicated of is not selected by the verb but an external argument of the complementive. We will therefore refer to such noun phrases as the logical subject of the complementive. We will use small capitals for this notion in order to distinguish it from the traditional notion of subject (in lower case), which refers to the nominative argument of the clause.
In the primed examples in (157) the subject of the complementive also seems to entertain a thematic relation with the verb; if the complementive is dropped, as in the primeless examples, the resulting structure is still grammatical. Many proposals have been given to account for this dual thematic relationship in the primed examples, which generally amounts to saying that the subject relation between the noun phrase and the complementive is primary compared to the semantic relationship between the noun phrase and the verb; we will return to this issue in Section 2.2.3, sub II.
This section is organized as follows. Section 2.2.1 starts with a more general discussion on the use of complementives. Section 2.2.2 continues with a discussion of two non-resultative constructions involving a complementive: the copular construction and the so-called vinden-construction. Section 2.2.3 is concerned with resultative constructions of the type illustrated above. Section 2.2.4 concludes with a very brief discussion of two types of analyses of complementive constructions proposed within generative grammar.

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

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

Category: Dutch Syntax

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