- Dutch
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Word stress
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
- Morphology
- Word formation
- Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
- Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
- Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
- Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
- Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
- Word formation
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Phonology
-
- General
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
- Morphology
- Inflection
- Word formation
- Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
- Compositions
- Derivation
- Syntax
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
- Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
- Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
- Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
- Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
- Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
-
- General
- Morphology
- Morphology
- 1 Word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 1.1.1 Compounds and their heads
- 1.1.2 Special types of compounds
- 1.1.2.1 Affixoids
- 1.1.2.2 Coordinative compounds
- 1.1.2.3 Synthetic compounds and complex pseudo-participles
- 1.1.2.4 Reduplicative compounds
- 1.1.2.5 Phrase-based compounds
- 1.1.2.6 Elative compounds
- 1.1.2.7 Exocentric compounds
- 1.1.2.8 Linking elements
- 1.1.2.9 Separable Complex Verbs and Particle Verbs
- 1.1.2.10 Noun Incorporation Verbs
- 1.1.2.11 Gapping
- 1.2 Derivation
- 1.3 Minor patterns of word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 2 Inflection
- 1 Word formation
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
- 0 Introduction to the AP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of APs
- 2 Complementation of APs
- 3 Modification and degree quantification of APs
- 4 Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative
- 5 Attribution of APs
- 6 Predication of APs
- 7 The partitive adjective construction
- 8 Adverbial use of APs
- 9 Participles and infinitives as APs
- Nouns and Noun Phrases (NPs)
- 0 Introduction to the NP
- 1 Characteristics and Classification of NPs
- 2 Complementation of NPs
- 3 Modification of NPs
- 3.1 Modification of NP by Determiners and APs
- 3.2 Modification of NP by PP
- 3.3 Modification of NP by adverbial clauses
- 3.4 Modification of NP by possessors
- 3.5 Modification of NP by relative clauses
- 3.6 Modification of NP in a cleft construction
- 3.7 Free relative clauses and selected interrogative clauses
- 4 Partitive noun constructions and constructions related to them
- 4.1 The referential partitive construction
- 4.2 The partitive construction of abstract quantity
- 4.3 The numerical partitive construction
- 4.4 The partitive interrogative construction
- 4.5 Adjectival, nominal and nominalised partitive quantifiers
- 4.6 Kind partitives
- 4.7 Partitive predication with a preposition
- 4.8 Bare nominal attribution
- 5 Articles and names
- 6 Pronouns
- 7 Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- 8 Interrogative pronouns
- 9 R-pronouns and the indefinite expletive
- 10 Syntactic functions of Noun Phrases
- Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases (PPs)
- 0 Introduction to the PP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of PPs
- 2 Complementation of PPs
- 3 Modification of PPs
- 4 Bare (intransitive) adpositions
- 5 Predication of PPs
- 6 Form and distribution of adpositions with respect to staticity and construction type
- 7 Adpositional complements and adverbials
- Verbs and Verb Phrases (VPs)
- 0 Introduction to the VP in Saterland Frisian
- 1 Characteristics and classification of verbs
- 2 Unergative and unaccusative subjects and the auxiliary of the perfect
- 3 Evidentiality in relation to perception and epistemicity
- 4 Types of to-infinitival constituents
- 5 Predication
- 5.1 The auxiliary of being and its selection restrictions
- 5.2 The auxiliary of going and its selection restrictions
- 5.3 The auxiliary of continuation and its selection restrictions
- 5.4 The auxiliary of coming and its selection restrictions
- 5.5 Modal auxiliaries and their selection restrictions
- 5.6 Auxiliaries of body posture and aspect and their selection restrictions
- 5.7 Transitive verbs of predication
- 5.8 The auxiliary of doing used as a semantically empty finite auxiliary
- 5.9 Supplementive predication
- 6 The verbal paradigm, irregularity and suppletion
- 7 Verb Second and the word order in main and embedded clauses
- 8 Various aspects of clause structure
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
-
- General
- Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
- Segment inventory
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
- Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
- Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
- Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
- Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
- Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
- Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
This section discusses complementation of ing-nominalizations. Subsection I will consider issues concerning the expression of the arguments of the input verb in the ing-nominalization, and Subsection II will apply the adjunct/complement tests from Section 2.2.1 to the inherited arguments of the verbs in order to investigate whether these can be considered complements of the derived nouns.
- I. Complementation
- A. Ing-nominalizations derived from intransitive verbs
- B. Ing-nominalizations derived from unaccusative verbs
- C. Ing-nominalizations derived from transitive verbs
- D. Ing-nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs
- E. Ing-nominalizations derived from verbs with prepositional arguments
- F. Ing-nominalizations derived from verbs taking a complementive
- G. Conclusion
- A. Ing-nominalizations derived from intransitive verbs
- II. Application of the complement/adjunct tests
Ing-nominalization is a productive morphological process that accepts most verb types as input. This subsection discusses complementation of ing-nominalizations according to the types of input verb; cf. (337). See Section 1.3.1.3, sub I, for a discussion of irregular ing-nouns like jacht'hunt' in example (337d).
a. | de daling | van de prijzen | unaccusative verb | |
the falling | of the prices |
b. | de ontdekking | van Amerika | transitive verb | |
the discovery | of America |
c. | de overhandiging | van de petitie | aan de burgemeester | ditransitive verb | |
the handing.over | of the petition | to the mayor |
d. | de jacht | op groot wild | verb with PP-complement | |
the hunt | on big game |
e. | de verkiezing | van Jan | tot burgemeester | verb with a complementive | |
the election | of Jan | to mayor |
Transitive verbs taking clausal complements also allow ing-nominalization; cf. de ontdekking dat de aarde rond is'the discovery that the earth is round'. A discussion of these clausal complements is given in Section 2.3.
Section 1.3.1.3, sub IV, has shown that intransitive verbs do not to allow ing-nominalization: the verb huilen'to cry', for example, has no corresponding Ing-noun *huiling. This section also discusses the (possibly apparent) counterexample in (338).
De aarzeling | van de commissie | duurde | niet lang. | ||
the hesitation | of the committee | lasted | not long | ||
'The hesitation of the committee didnʼt last long.' |
Unaccusative verbs readily accept ing-nominalization. The examples in (339) show that the theme argument must normally be expressed, and takes the form of a postnominal van-PP or a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. In the latter case the theme argument must be +human.
a. | De val | *(van de regeringTheme) | kwam | niet | onverwachts. | |
the fall | of the government | came | not | unexpectedly | ||
'The fall of the government wasnʼt unexpected.' |
a'. | Jans/ZijnTheme val | kostte | hem | de overwinning. | |
Janʼs/his fall | cost | him | the victory |
b. | De komst | *(van JanTheme) | was een aangename verrassing. | |
the arrival | of Jan | was a pleasant surprise |
b'. | Jans/zijnTheme komst | was een aangename verrassing. | |
Janʼs/his arrival | was a pleasant surprise |
c. | De daling | *(van de prijzenTheme) | kwam | onverwacht. | |
the increase | of the prices | came | unexpectedly |
Leaving the argument unexpressed leads to questionable results even in generic contexts; apparently, it is difficult in such cases to give the unexpressed theme a nonspecific interpretation. This is illustrated in examples (340a&b). That the genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun in prenominal position and the van-PP in postnominal position both express the theme argument of the ing-nominalization is shown by the fact that they cannot co-occur; like their intransitive verbal base, these ing-nominalizations can assign the theme role to only one argument. An example is given in (340c).
a. | ?? | Een komst | is altijd | weer | een verrassing. |
an arrival | is always | again | a surprise |
b. | ? | Vernietigingen | zijn | soms | moeilijk | te voorkomen. |
destructions | are | sometimes | difficult | to prevent |
c. | * | Zijn komst | van Jan | was een aangename verrassing. |
his arrival | of Jan | was a pleasant surprise |
There are a limited number of cases in which the theme of the corresponding verb can be realized as an attributive adjective. These occurrences are restricted to relational adjectives of the geographical type (cf. Section A1.3.3, like Amerikaans'American', Amsterdams'of Amsterdam', etc. Such an analysis is, however, by no means undisputed: although relational adjectives differ from other adjectives in that they do not denote a property but express a relation between two entities, this does not mean that in such sentences as (341a&b), the adjective is to be interpreted as denoting the inherited theme argument of the verbs opkomen'to rise' and bloeien'to flourish'; instead, it may be argued that the adjective fulfills the same function as in examples (341a'&b'), where it cannot be seen as an argument of the noun.
a. | de | Amerikaanse | opkomst | in de 20e eeuw | |
the | American | rise | in the 20th century |
a'. | de | Amerikaanse | dollar | |
the | American | dollar |
b. | de | Amsterdamse | bloei | in de 17e eeuw | |
the | Amsterdam | burgeoning | in the 17th century |
b'. | de | Amsterdamse | grachten | |
the | Amsterdam | canals |
Ing-nominalizations based on transitive verbs offer a wider range of possible forms of complementation. Two frequent uses can be distinguished: that in which both arguments are expressed, and that in which only the theme argument is expressed. Let us start with the latter type of construction.
If the theme argument is realized (which is always the case, except in occasional generic readings), this argument may surface as a postnominal van-PP, as in the primeless examples in (342), or as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, as in (342b'): example (342a') is of course marked due to the fact that possessive pronouns tend to refer to +human entities if no antecedent is present in the immediately preceding discourse; cf. Section 5.2.2.1, sub I.
a. | De verwoesting | van de stadTheme | eiste | veel slachtoffers. | |
the destruction | of the city | claimed | many victims |
a'. | ?? | HunTheme | verwoesting | eiste | veel slachtoffers. |
their | destruction | claimed | many victims |
b. | De behandeling | van de patiëntenTheme | kostte | veel tijd. | |
the treatment | of the patients | cost | much time |
b'. | HunTheme | behandeling | kostte | veel tijd. | |
their | treatment | cost | much time |
Unlike with inf-nominalizations, the theme argument cannot be realized as a prenominal noun phrase, regardless of the specificity of the argument. This is illustrated in (343).
a. | * | De | [(deze) steden]Theme | verwoesting | eiste | vele slachtoffers. |
the | these cities | destruction | demanded | many victims |
b. | * | De | [(die) patiënten]Theme | behandeling | kost | veel tijd. |
the | those patients | treating | costs | much time |
However, in the case of a nonspecific theme, incorporation can in certain cases be an alternative form of expression, as shown in example (344).
a. | Een | goede | afvalverwerking | is duur. | |
a | good | waste disposal | is expensive | ||
'Proper waste disposal is expensive.' |
b. | Een | efficiënte | klachtenbehandeling | is een vereiste. | |
an | efficient | complaints handling | is a requirement | ||
'Efficient handling of complaints is a must.' |
Occasionally, ing-nouns derived from transitive verbs select their own preposition. In all examples given in (345) the noun selects a preposition other than van, whereas the theme of the input verbs has the form of a noun phrase, not of a PP; see also Section 1.2.2.2, sub IE, and Section 2.1, sub V.
a. | Jan bezoekt Peter. | |
Jan visits Peter |
a'. | Jans bezoek aan Peter | |
Janʼs visit to Peter |
b. | Jan vertrouwt Marie. | |
Jan trusts Marie |
b'. | Jans vertrouwen in Marie | |
Jans trust in Marie |
c. | Peter haat Els. | |
Peter hates Els |
c'. | Peters haat jegens Els | |
Peter hatred towards Els |
If both the agent and the theme argument are expressed, a number of (combinations of) forms are possible. Consider the examples in (346). The first option is that of adding the agent argument in the form of a door-PP. As in the case of inf-nominalizations, this door-PP typically follows both the nominalized head and the theme argument realized as a van-PP, as in (346a&b), unless the theme is very heavy, as in example (346b'). The doubly-primed examples show that prenominal placement of the agentive door-PP is excluded.
a. | De verwoesting | van de stadTheme | door de RomeinenAgent | eiste | veel slachtoffers. | |
the destruction | of the city | by the Romans | demanded | many victims | ||
'The destruction of the city by the Romans cost many lives.' |
a'. | ?? | De verwoesting door de RomeinenAgent van de stadTheme eiste veel slachtoffers. |
a''. | * | De door de RomeinenAgent verwoesting van de stadTheme eiste veel slachtoffers. |
b. | De behandeling | van de patiëntenTheme | door de artsAgent | kostte | veel tijd. | |
the treatment | of the patients | by the doctor | cost | much time | ||
'The treatment of the patients by the doctor took a lot of time.' |
b'. | ? | De behandeling | door de artsAgent | van de patiënt van kamer 114Theme | kostte | veel tijd. |
the treatment | by the doctor | of the patient in room 114 | cost | much time |
b''. | * | De | door onervaren artsenAgent | behandeling | van patiëntenTheme | kostte veel tijd. |
the | by inexperienced doctors | treatment | of patients | cost much time |
The examples in (347a&b) show that the agent can also take the form of a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, with the theme appearing as a postnominal van-PP. Alternatively, it is the theme argument that appears prenominally as a genitive noun phrase or pronoun, with the agent appearing (optionally) as a postnominal door-PP. This is illustrated in (347b'): example (347a') is of course marked due to the fact that possessive pronouns tend to refer to +human entities.
a. | Caesars/ZijnAgent verwoesting | van de stedenTheme | eiste | vele slachtoffers. | |
Caesarʼs/His destruction | of the cities | demanded | many victims | ||
'Caesarʼs/His destruction of the cities cost many lives.' |
a'. | ?? | HunTheme verwoesting | door de RomeinenAgent | eiste | vele slachtoffers. |
their destruction | by the Romans | demanded | many victims | ||
'Their destruction by the Romans cost many lives.' |
b. | Peters/ZijnAgent behandeling | van de patiëntTheme | kostte | veel tijd. | |
Peterʼs/His treatment | of the patient | cost | much time | ||
'Peterʼs/His treatment of the patient took a lot of time.' |
b'. | (?) | Peters/ZijnTheme behandeling | door de artsAgent | kostte | veel tijd. |
Peterʼs/His treatment | by the doctor | cost | much time | ||
'Peterʼs/His treatment by the doctor took a lot of time.' |
Just as with the unaccusative verbs, the subject of the corresponding transitive verb can sometimes be realized as a relational adjective, as illustrated in (348a&b), in which the geographical adjectives Amerikaans'American' and Rotterdams'of Rotterdam' can be taken to refer to the agents of the input verbs aanschaffen'to purchase' and aanleggen'to construct'. Once again we need to emphasize that such an analysis is by no means undisputed, as the adjectives in question may just as well fulfill the same function as in example (348a'&b'), in which they indicate nationality or origin and where they cannot be given an agentive interpretation. Finally, observe that the adjective cannot be interpreted as the theme, as illustrated in examples (348a''&b'').
a. | de | AmerikaanseAgent | aanschaf | van de F-16 | |
the | American | purchase | of the F-16 |
a'. | de | Amerikaanse | dollar | |
the | American | dollar |
a''. | * | de | AmerikaanseTheme | belediging | door Engeland |
the | American | insult | by England |
b. | de | RotterdamseAgent | aanpak | van de verpaupering | van de armere wijken | |
the | Rotterdam | approach | of the deterioration | of the poorer quarters | ||
'Rotterdamʼs way of dealing with the deterioration of the poorer quarters' |
b'. | de | Rotterdamse | haven | |
the | Rotterdam | harbor |
b''. | * | de | RotterdamseTheme | overschaduwing | door Amsterdam |
the | Rotterdam | eclipse | by Amsterdam |
The examples in (346)-(348) confirm that, in non-generic contexts, ing-nominalizations derived from transitive base verbs normally require the presence of the theme; the presence of an agent argument makes no difference in this respect. The examples in (349) show that the various elements denoting the participants in the state of affairs (van-PP, door-PP, genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun) are indeed to be interpreted as arguments: there is room for only two arguments, that is, like their transitive verbal base, these inf-nominalizations have the adicity 2.
a. | * | Hun verwoesting | van de steden | door de Romeinen | eiste vele slachtoffers. |
their destruction | of the cities | by the Romans | demanded many victims |
b. | * | Zijn behandeling | van de patiënten | door de arts | kostte | veel tijd. |
his treatment | of the patients | by the doctor | cost | much time |
As a general rule, it is impossible in non-generic contexts to express the agent without expressing the theme. This is possible, however, if the theme is recoverable from the context; example (350a) is not only acceptable as a generic statement, but also if we know who must undergo the intended treatment. Other apparent exceptions are constructions such as (350b), in which it is always possible to leave out the theme (and the agent); these constructions should not be considered ing-nominalizations, however, given that the head noun does not denote the event but the object produced by the action expressed by the base verb (and created by the agent). These constructions are dealt with in Section 2.2.5.
a. | Behandeling | door/??van | een artsAgent | is veel duurder. | |
treatment | by/of | a doctor | is much more.expensive | ||
'Treatment by a doctor is much more expensive.' |
b. | Ik | heb | een tekening | van RembrandtAgent | gekocht. | |
I | have | a drawing | by Rembrandt | bought | ||
'I have bought a drawing by Rembrandt.' |
This subsection considers triadic ing-nominalization constructions, that is, ing-nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs of transfer like uitreiken'to present', overdragen'to transfer/hand over', overhandigen'to hand over/deliver', and verschaffen'to provide'. As with inf-nominalizations, it is possible for ing-nominalizations to occur with all three arguments. In actual practice, however, such occurrences are very rare. More often one (typically the agent) or two (agent and recipient) of the arguments are left unexpressed. In non-generic contexts, the presence of the theme argument is required, whereas in generic statements like (351), the theme can be left unexpressed. In the following subsections, we consider those cases in which one or more arguments do appear.
a. | Een overdracht | kost | altijd | veel tijd. | |
a transfer | costs | always | much time | ||
'A transfer always takes much time.' |
b. | Uitreikingen | zijn | altijd | feestelijke | aangelegenheden. | |
presentations | are | always | festive | occasions |
The sentences in (352) are examples of ing-nominalizations based on ditransitive verbs in which only the theme argument is expressed. This argument preferably takes the form of a postnominal van-PP, but, in the case of a +human theme, a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase can also be used.
a. | De overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | verliep | snel. | |
the transfer | of the prisoners | passed | quickly | ||
'The transfer of the prisoner passed of without any problems.' |
a'. | HunTheme overdracht | verliep | zonder problemen. | |
their transfer | passed | without problems |
b. | De uitreiking | van de prijzenTheme | duurde | lang. | |
the presentation | of the prizes | lasted | long |
Agent arguments take the form of a door-PP. In the unmarked case, the door-phrase follows both the nominal head and the theme argument, as in (353a&b). Reversing the order of theme and agent is normally impossible: examples like (353a'&b') are at best marginally acceptable with contrastive accent on the theme. In generic sentences like (353a''&b''), the result of reversing the order seems more acceptable.
a. | De overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | door de bewakersAgent | verliep snel. | |
the transfer | of the prisoners | by the guards | passed quickly |
a'. | ?? | De overdracht door de bewakersAgent van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel. |
a''. | ? | Overdrachten | door onervaren bewakersAgent | van gevaarlijke gevangenenTheme | dienen | te worden | vermeden. |
transfers | by inexperienced guards | of dangerous prisoners | should | to be | avoided |
b. | De uitreiking | van de prijzenTheme | door de voorzitterAgent | duurde | lang. | |
the presentation | of the prizes | by the chairman | lasted | long |
b'. | ?? | De uitreiking door de voorzitterAgent van de prijzenTheme duurde lang. |
b''. | ? | Uitreikingen | door voorzittersAgent | van grote prijzenTheme | duren altijd lang. |
presentations | by chairmen | of prestigious prizes | last always long |
As shown by examples (354a&b), the agent can also appear as a possessive pronoun or a genitive noun phrase. In all these cases, the theme argument takes the form of a postnominal van-PP. In the case of a +human theme, the theme may also take the form of a possessive pronoun, in which case the agent appears postnominally as a door-PP, as shown by example (354c).
a. | Hun/Jan en PetersAgent | overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | verliep | snel. | |
their/Jan and Peterʼs | transfer | of the prisoners | passed | quickly |
b. | Zijn/JansAgent | uitreiking | van de prijzenTheme | duurde | lang. | |
his/Janʼs | presentation | of the prizes | lasted | long |
c. | ? | HunTheme | overdracht | door de bewakersAgent | verliep | snel. |
their | transfer | by the guards | passed | quickly |
Alternatively, it may be the recipient argument that co-occurs with the theme argument. As is shown in the primeless examples in (355), the recipient always takes the form of a postnominal aan-PP following the theme. The primed examples show that the order with the recipient aan-PP preceding the theme is degraded, even in the doubly-primed, generic examples.
a. | De overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | aan de politieRec | verliep | snel. | |
the transfer | of the prisoners | to the police | passed | quickly |
a'. | ?? | De overdracht | aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel. |
a''. | ?? | Overdrachten | aan jonge politieagentenRec | van gevaarlijke gevangenenTheme | dienen | te worden | vermeden. |
transfers | to young policemen | of dangerous prisoners | ought | to be | avoided |
b. | De uitreiking | van de prijzenTheme | aan de winnaarsRec | duurde | lang. | |
the presentation | of the prizes | to the winners | lasted | long |
b'. | ?? | De uitreiking aan de winnaarsRec van de prijzenTheme duurde lang. |
b''. | ?? | Uitreikingen | aan winnaarsRec | van grote prijzenTheme | duren | altijd | lang. |
presentations | to winners | of prestigious prizes | last | always | long |
The examples in (356a&b) show that the recipient argument cannot appear as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. This position can only be taken by the theme with the recipient appearing as an aan-PP in postnominal position, as in (356c).
a. | * | Hun/PetersRec | overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | verliep | snel. |
their/ Peterʼs | transfer | of the prisoners | passed | quickly |
b. | * | Hun/PetersRec | uitreiking | van de prijzenTheme | duurde | lang. |
their/ Peterʼs | presentation | of the prizes | lasted | long |
c. | Hun/PetersTheme | overdracht | aan de politieRec | verliep | snel. | |
their/Peterʼs | transfer | to the police | passed | quickly |
Ing-nominalizations with all three arguments expressed are forced and will rarely be encountered. If all arguments appear as postnominal PPs, the preferred order seems to be that in which the theme (as a van-PP) is closest to the head, followed by the recipient aan-PP and the agentive door-PP, as in (357a). Reversing the order of recipient and agent, as in (357b), seems possible, which may be related to the fact that the aan-PP may undergo PP-over-V in the corresponding verbal construction. Reversing the order of theme and recipient, as in (357c), gives rise to a marginal result. The three other logically possible orders are unacceptable to various degrees, with the possible exception of the generic counterpart of example (357c): ?Overdrachten door onervaren bewakers van gevaarlijke gevangenen aan jonge politieagenten.
a. | de overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | aan de politieRec | door de bewakersAgent | |
the transfer | of the prisoners | to the police | by the guards |
b. | (?) | de overdracht van de gevangenenTheme door de bewakersAgent aan de politieRec |
c. | ? | de overdracht aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme door de bewakersAgent |
d. | *? | de overdracht aan de politieRec door de bewakersAgent van de gevangenenTheme |
e. | ?? | de overdracht door de bewakersAgent van de gevangenenTheme aan de politieRec |
f. | * | de overdracht door de bewakersAgent aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme |
The examples in (358a&b) show that both the theme and the agent argument can take the form of a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. With a prenominal theme the postnominal recipient- and agent-PP again seem to be able to appear in either order, whereas in the case of a prenominal agent it is clearly preferred that the theme-PP precedes the recipient. The unacceptability of (358c) shows again that a recipient argument cannot appear as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase; cf. example (356).
a. | hun/PetersTheme | overdracht | aan de politieRec | door de bewakersAgent | |
their/Peterʼs | transfer | to the police | by the guards |
a'. | (?) | hun/PetersTheme | overdracht door de bewakersAgent aan de politieRec |
b. | hun/PetersAgent | overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | aan de politieRec | |
their/Peterʼs | transfer | of the prisoners | to the police |
b'. | ?? | hun/PetersAgent overdracht aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme |
c. | * | hun/PetersRec | overdracht | van de gevangenenTheme | door de bewakersAgent |
their/Peterʼs | transfer | of the prisoners | by the guards |
Ing-nominalizations can also inherit PP-arguments from base verbs like jagen op'to hunt for', which select their own specific preposition. In all cases, the ing-nominalization inherits the preposition selected by the input verb: in the examples in (359) the theme does not appear as a van-PP, but as a PP headed by op. These examples also show that it is easier to place the agentive door-phrase in front of the inherited PP-complement than to place it in front of a theme that is realized as a postnominal van-PP; cf. (346). Possibly, this is related to the fact that these PP-complements may undergo PP-over-V in the corresponding verbal construction.
a. | De jacht | op groot wildTheme | door adellijke herenAgent | is verachtelijk. | |
the hunt | on big game | by noble gentlemen | is despicable | ||
'The hunting of big game by the nobility is despicable.' |
b. | De jacht door adellijke herenAgent op groot wildTheme is verachtelijk. |
Another difference between these ing-nominalizations and those derived from transitive verbs is illustrated in the examples in (360), which show that in dyadic constructions involving inheritance of a PP argument, only the agent argument can appear as a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase, which suggests that the selected preposition must be overtly realized.
a. | Hun/JansAgent | jacht | op groot wildTheme | is verachtelijk. | |
their | hunt | on big game | is despicable |
b. | * | Hun/JansTheme | jacht | door adellijke herenAgent | is verachtelijk. |
their | hunt | by noble gentlemen | is despicable |
The inherited PP-argument need not be a theme; in the nominalization of the verb aanbevelen voor'to recommend for' in (361), for example, it involves a third argument of the verb (which we may conveniently assign the thematic role goal) that is preceded by the preposition voor instead of aan. The (a)-examples show that the theme argument preferably precedes the goal argument, and the (b)-examples illustrate again that it is easier to place an agentive door-PP like door de commissie'by the committee' in front of an inherited PP-complement than in front of a theme realized as a postnominal van-PP. The order in (361c) order in (361c), which combines the two dispreferred orders in (361a') and (361b''), seems impossible.
a. | De aanbeveling | van JanTheme | voor die baanGoal | werd genegeerd. | |
the recommendation | of Jan | for the job | was ignored |
a'. | ?? | De aanbeveling voor de baanGoal van JanTh werd genegeerd. |
b. | De aanbeveling van JanTh voor de baanGoal door de commissieAg werd genegeerd. |
b'. | De aanbeveling van JanTh door de commissieAg voor de baanGoal werd genegeerd. |
b''. | ?? | De aanbeveling door de commissieAgt van JanTh voor de baanGoal werd genegeerd. |
c. | * | De aanbeveling door de commissieAg voor de baanGoal van JanTh werd genegeerd. |
The examples in (362) show that also in this case either the agent or the theme argument of the ing-nominalization can appear prenominally as a genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun, whereas the goal argument must appear as a postnominal PP.
a. | zijn/PetersTheme | aanbeveling | voor de baan | door de commissieAgent | |
his | recommendation | for the job | by the committee |
b. | hun/Jan en PetersAgent | aanbeveling | van JanTheme | voor de baan | |
their/Jan and Peterʼs | recommendation | of Jan | for the job |
Unlike inf-nominalizations, ing-nominalizations do not normally accept as input verbs selecting an adjectival complementive (predicative complement). This is illustrated by the primed examples in (363), which show that these constructions are unacceptable regardless of whether the predicate is post- or prenominal.
a. | Jan is | dood | gevallen. | |
Jan has | dead | dropped | ||
'Jan dropped dead.' |
a'. | * | De | <dood> | val | van Jan <dood> | schokte | ons. |
the | dead | fall | of Jan | horrified | us |
b. | De regering | heeft | het gebied | veilig | verklaard. | |
the government | has | the area | safe | declared | ||
'The government has declared the area safe.' |
b'. | * | De | <veilig> | verklaring | van het gebied <veilig> | (door de regering) | verraste | ons. |
the | safe | declaration | of the area | by the government | surprised | us |
Exceptions to the rule that verbs taking an adjectival complementive cannot be the input of ing-nominalization are heiligverklaring'canonization/beatification' and goedkeuring'approval'. This may be related to the fact that in these examples the adjective and the verb are more or less fixed collocations; the adjectives may therefore be interpreted like a kind of verbal particle, which can likewise be part of ing-nominalizations: cf. onderdompeling'immersion', which is derived from the particle verb onder dompelen'immerse'.
If the complementive is introduced by a preposition like tot'to' or als'as', ing-nominalization is also possible. This is illustrated in examples (364a&b). In such constructions the complementive can only occur postnominally; placing it in prenominal position results in ungrammaticality.
a. | De | benoeming | van Jan | tot voorzitter | was | verstandig. | |
the | appointment | of Jan | to chairman | was | wise | ||
'Janʼs appointment to chairman was wise.' |
b. | De | kroning | van Karel V | tot keizer | was | een historische gebeurtenis. | |
the | crowning | of Charles V | to emperor | was | a historical event | ||
'The crowning of Charles V as emperor was a historical event.' |
c. | Peters | karakterisering | van ons voorstel | als fantasieloos | was onterecht. | |
Peterʼs | characterization | of our proposal | as unimaginative | was not justified |
d. | Haar | omschrijving | van de reis | als boeiend | was | ironisch | bedoeld. | |
her | description | of the trip | as fascinating | was | ironically | meant | ||
'Her description of the trip as fascinating was meant ironically.' |
The preceding subsections have been concerned with the most important aspects of complementation of ing-nominalization, in particular the form and position of the various arguments and their relation to the nominalized head. Let us summarize the main points. In unaccusative ing-nominalizations, the theme argument is obligatorily present and typically appears postnominally as a van-PP. The theme argument of dyadic ing-nominalizations is also obligatory (when they have specific reference). This theme argument can be realized as a postnominal van-PP, in which case it is preferably placed adjacent to the head, or as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. The presence of the agent, on the other hand, is optional. In triadic ing-nominalizations, themes are typically expressed, while recipients and agents are often omitted. If the latter are expressed, they are realized as aan- and door-PPs, respectively, and follow the theme in postnominal position. The agent preferably follows both theme and recipient. In all cases, the theme and agent argument may also take the form of a prenominal genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun, provided that they are +human.
Schematically, the above can be represented as in Table 8, which gives us the basic patterns of ing-nominalizations. This table does not include ing-nominalizations derived from verbs taking a PP-complement or a complementive introduced by als/tot, which are also inherited by the nominalization.
type of verb | pattern | examples |
Unaccusative | N + van-PPTheme | (339) |
NPs/pronounTheme + N | (339') | |
Transitive | N + van-PPTheme (+ door-PPAgent) | (342)/(346) |
NPs/pronounTheme + N (+ door-PPAgent) | (342')/(347') | |
NPs/pronounAgent + N + van-PPTheme | (347) | |
Ditransitive | N + van-PPTheme (+ aan-PPRec) (+ door-PPAgent) | (352)/(353)/ (355)/(357) |
NPs/pronounTheme + N (+ aan-PPRec) (+ door-PPAgent) | (352')/(354c)/ (358a) | |
NPs/pronounAgent + van-PPTheme (+ aan-PPRec) | (354a&b)/(358b) |
The preceding subsection has shown that ing-nouns typically combine with PPs that correspond to the arguments of the input verb. However, since in many cases complements and adjuncts are not formally distinguished within the noun phrase, it is conceivable that some of these PPs are adjuncts. This subsection therefore applies the four tests that have been proposed in Section 2.2.1 to distinguish complements and adjuncts within the noun phrase to ing-nominalizations. The results of these tests confirm our assumption that the inherited arguments of ing-nominalizations are complements rather than adjuncts of the derived noun.
Ing-nominalizations can be seen as inheriting the argument structure of the input verb, with the nominal construction resembling the verbal construction as regards the number of arguments and their thematic functions. However, whereas the arguments of verbs must normally be explicitly expressed, this is not equally true of the inherited arguments of the corresponding ing-nouns. If the ing-nominalization is derived from a transitive verb, as in (365a), the theme must be present, whereas the agent can quite felicitously be left out. If the input verb is ditransitive, the recipient need not be expressed either, as shown by (365b).
a. | de vernietiging | *(van de stadTheme) | (door het legerAgent) | |
the destruction | of the city | by the army |
b. | de overhandiging | *(van de petitieTheme) | (aan de ministerRec) | (door JanAgent) | |
the handing-over | of the petition | to the minister | by Jan |
Observe that, if they are left out, the presence of the agent and recipient arguments is still implied and must be recoverable or inferable from the context. Under such circumstances, it may even be possible to leave out the theme, although this is much more likely to lead to a marked result. The examples in (366) show that Ing-nominalizations derived from verbs selecting a PP-complement essentially pattern with those derived from (di-)transitive verbs; the theme argument must be realized.
a. | de jacht | *(op groot wildTheme) | (door aristocratenAgent) | |
the hunt | on big game | by aristocrats | ||
'the hunting of big game by aristocrats' |
b. | de aanbeveling | *(van JanTheme) | (voor de baanGoal) | (door de commissieAgent) | |
the recommendation | of Jan | for the job | by the committee | ||
'the recommendation of Jan for the job by the committee' |
The examples in (367a-c) show that the van-PP of ing-nominalizations cannot occur in postcopular position. This is, of course, hardly surprising, as van-PPs in postcopular position are normally interpreted as possessive elements, whereas states of affairs, the denotation of ing-nominalizations, cannot be possessed. For completeness’ sake, the examples in (367c&d) show that PPs introduced by some preposition other than van cannot be used in this position either.
a. | * | De daling | is van de prijzen. | unaccusative verb |
the fall | is of the prices |
b. | * | De behandeling | is van de patiënt. | transitive verb |
the treatment | is of the patient |
c. | * | De overdracht | is van de gevangenen | (aan de politie). | ditransitive verb |
the transfer | is of the prisoners | to the police |
d. | * | De jacht | is op groot wild. | verb with a PP-complement |
the hunt | is on big game |
The acceptability of the examples in (368) shows that ing-nominalizations allow R-pronominalization of theme arguments.
a. | De daling | ervan | veroorzaakte | veel paniek. | |
the fall | there-of | caused | much panic | ||
'Their fall caused a lot of panic.' |
b. | De verwoesting | ervan | heb | ik | niet | meegemaakt. | |
the destruction | there-of | have | I | not | prt.-experienced | ||
'I havenʼt witnessed its destruction.' |
c. | De uitreiking | ervan | vond | pas | ʼs avonds | plaats. | |
the presentation | there-of | took | only | in the evening | place | ||
'Its presentation didnʼt take place until the evening.' |
d. | De jacht | erop | is verboden. | |
the hunt | there-on | is forbidden |
R-pronominalization of agents or recipients, on the other hand, is excluded, which is illustrated by the unacceptability of the examples in (369).
a. | * | De aanbeveling van Jan | <ervoor> | had geen succes. |
the recommendation of Jan | there-for | had no success |
b. | * | De verwoesting | van de stad | erdoor | kostte | vele levens. |
the destruction | of the city | there-by | cost | many lives |
The PP-extraction test yields results that are far from unequivocal. The acceptability of these sentences depends on the ease with which a contrastive interpretation can be construed. Nevertheless, there appear to be differences in acceptability which neither context nor difference in verb type or number of arguments can account for.
As can be seen from the examples in (370), topicalization of the van-PP is marked.
a. | ?? | Van de koffieprijs | veroorzaakte | de daling | veel paniek. |
of the coffee price | caused | the fall | much panic | ||
'The fall of the coffee price caused a lot of panic.' |
b. | ?? | Van deze patiënt | heb | ik | de behandeling | met aandacht | gevolgd. |
of this patient | have | I | the treatment | with attention | followed | ||
'I have closely followed the treatment of this patient.' |
c. | ?? | Van de prijzen | vond | de uitreiking | gisteren | plaats. |
of the prizes | found | the presentation | yesterday | place | ||
'The presentation of the prizes took place yesterday.' |
The result is generally completely excluded if an agentive door-phrase, or, in the case of a ditransitive construction, a second PP-complement is expressed. This is illustrated by the examples in (371).
a. | * | Van Peter | heb | ik | de vervanging | door Els | uitgesteld. |
of Peter | have | I | the replacement | by Els | postponed |
b. | * | Van de prijzen | vond | de uitreiking | aan de winnaars | gisteren | plaats. |
of the prizes | found | the presentation | to the winners | yesterday | place |
Given that realization of a door-phrase or a second PP-complement normally requires that the theme argument be overtly expressed as well, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (371) suggests that extraction is excluded. This would imply that we are not dealing with extraction from the noun phrase in (370) either, but with movement of an independent restrictive adverbial phrases. If so, this means that the relative acceptability of the examples in (370) may be due to the fact that the restrictive adverbial phrase makes the theme argument of the noun contextually recoverable, and thus licenses it to remain unexpressed. In short, examples such as (370c) can be analyzed in a way similar to the fully acceptable example in (372) in which the bij-PP clearly does not function as a theme argument of the noun phrase.
Bij deze patiënt | heb | ik | de behandeling | met aandacht | gevolgd. | ||
with this patient | have | I | the treatment | with attention | followed | ||
'With this patient I have followed the treatment closely.' |
The examples in (373) illustrate that topicalization of PP-themes headed by prepositions other than van again also gives rise to equivocal results. Whereas a case such as (373a) seems at least marginally possible, the result in (373b) is highly questionable.
a. | ? | Op (de/deze) herten | is de jacht | gelukkig | verboden. |
on the/these deer | is the hunt | fortunately | prohibited | ||
'The hunting of (the/these) deer has fortunately been prohibited.' |
b. | * | Aan deze drug | heeft | de verslaving | al | veel slachtoffers | geëist. |
to this drug | has | the addiction | already | many victims | demanded |
Extraction of non-theme PPs is always impossible: (374) shows that neither the extraction of the agent, nor that of a recipient PP or some other (goal-like) third argument leads to acceptable results.
a. | * | Door de Romeinen | heb | ik | de verwoesting | van de stad | niet | meegemaakt. |
by the Romans | have | I | the destruction | of the city | not | experienced |
b. | * | Aan de politie | verliep | de overdacht | van de gevangenen | zonder problemen. |
to the police | passed | the transfer | to the prisoners | without problems |
c. | * | Voor deze baan | had de aanbeveling | van Jan | geen succes. |
for this job | had the recommendation | of Jan | no success |
For completeness’ sake, note that topicalization of the (non-theme) PP-argument in ditransitive constructions seems possible in cases such as (375), in which the van-PP refers to the agent, not the theme. However, the semantics of the example makes perfectly clear that the voor-PP functions as a constituent independent of the noun, as will be clear from the English rendering.
Voor deze baan | heeft | de commissie | de aanbeveling van JanAgent | genegeerd. | ||
for this job | has | the committee | the recommendation by Jan | ignored | ||
'As for this job, the committee has ignored the recommendation by Jan.' |
Relativization and questioning of the PP-complement yield a somewhat better result than topicalization. In (376), this is illustrated for van-PPs in (di-)transitive constructions.
a. | (?) | Dit is de patiënt | waarvan | de zuster | de behandeling | goed | bijhoudt. |
this is the patients | where-of | the nurse | the treatment | closely | prt.-follows | ||
'This is the patient whose treatment the nurse closely follows.' |
a'. | Van welke patiënt | houdt | de zuster | de behandeling | goed | bij? | |
of which patient | follows | the nurse | the treatment | closely | prt |
b. | ? | Dit | zijn | de prijzen | waarvan | de uitreiking | nu | plaats | vindt. |
these | are | the prizes | where-of | the presentation | now | place | finds | ||
'These are the prizes of which the presentation will take place now.' |
b'. | Van welke prijzen | vindt | de uitreiking | ?(??aan de winnaars) | nu | plaats? | |
of which prizes | finds | the presentation | to the winners | now | place |
The examples in (377) show that the result is generally completely excluded if an agentive door-phrase, or, in the case of a ditransitive construction, a second PP-complement is expressed. This again suggests that extraction from a noun phrase is prohibited, so that the examples in (376) may not involve extraction from the noun phrase either, but movement of an independent restrictive adverbial phrase. In (378) we show the same thing for theme-PPs introduced by some other preposition.
a. | * | de jongen | van wie | ik | de vervanging | door Els | heb | uitgesteld |
of Peter | of whom | I | the replacement | by Els | have | postponed |
a'. | * | Van wie | heb | jij | de vervanging | door Els | uitgesteld. |
of who | have | you | the replacement | by Els | postponed |
b. | * | de prijzen waarvan | de uitreiking | aan de winnaars | nu | plaatsvindt |
the prizes where-of | the presentation | to the winners | now | takes.place |
b'. | * | Van welke prijzen | vindt | de uitreiking | aan de winnaars | nu | plaats. |
of which prizes | takes | the presentation | to the winners | now | place |
a. | het wild | waarop | we de jacht | ?(*door adellijke heren) | willen | verbieden | |
the game | where-on | we the hunt | by noble gentlemen | want | prohibit | ||
'the kind of game of which we want to prohibit the hunting' |
b. | Op welk wild | willen | we | de jacht | ?(*door adellijke heren) verbieden? | |
on which game | want | we | the hunt | by noble gentlemen prohibit | ||
'Of which game do we want to prohibit the hunting?' |
As with inf-nominalizations, PP-over-V often leads to highly questionable results; as shown in (379), results seem best for ing-nominalizations derived from unaccusative verbs.
a. | (?) | Ik | heb | de aankomst | bijgewoond | van Sinterklaas. |
I | have | the arrival | prt.-attended | of Santa Claus | ||
'Iʼve been present at the arrival of Santa Claus.' |
b. | ? | Ik | heb | de behandeling | gevolgd | van deze patiënt. |
I | have | the treatment | followed | of this patient |
c. | ?? | De regering | heeft | de jacht | verboden | op groot wild. |
the government | has | the hunt | prohibited | on big game |
d. | ?? | Ik | heb | de uitreiking | (aan de winnaars) | bijgewoond | van de prijzen. |
I | have | the presentation | to the winners | prt.-attended | of the prizes |
The acceptability of the examples in (380) shows that scrambling seems at least marginally possible; all of the resulting sentences are, however, highly contrastive. This is true for all theme PPs, regardless of the preposition used or the type of construction (dyadic/triadic) in question.
a. | ?? | Ik | heb | van Sinterklaas | de aankomst | bijgewoond. |
I | have | of Santa Claus | the arrival | prt.-attended |
b. | Ik | heb | van deze patiënt | de behandeling | gevolgd. | |
I | have | of thise patient | the treatment | followed |
c. | ?? | De regering | heeft | op groot wild | de jacht | verboden. |
the government | has | on big game | the hunt | prohibited |
d. | Ik | heb | van de prijzen | de uitreiking | ??(*?aan de winnaars) | bijgewoond. | |
I | have | of the prizes | the presentation | to the winners | prt.-attended |
With non-theme complement PPs, neither PP-over-V nor scrambling is possible. This is illustrated in example (381).
a. | * | Ik | heb | de uitreiking | van de prijzen | bijgewoond | aan de winnaars. |
I | have | the presentation | of the prizes | prt.-attended | to the winners |
a'. | * | Ik heb aan de winnaars de uitreiking van de prijzen bijgewoond. |
b. | * | Ik | heb | de behandeling | van de patiënt | nauwkeurig | gevolgd | door de arts. |
I | have | the treatment | of the patient | closely | followed | by the doctor |
b'. | * | Ik heb door de arts de behandeling van de patiënt nauwkeurig gevolgd. |
Table 9 summarizes the results from the previous subsections of the four tests for inherited theme arguments of ing-nouns. The third and fifth columns indicate whether the results provide evidence for or against the assumption that we are dealing with complements. The first three tests provide unequivocal evidence for complement status both of van-PPs and theme-PPs headed by other prepositions. The results of the PP-extraction tests seem to go against this, but we have seen that these tests are problematic in various respects, and may not be suitable for establishing complement status anyway. We therefore conclude that the theme functions as an argument of the derived noun.
van-PPs | other PPs | |||
Test 1: PP obligatory | + | positive | + | positive |
Test 2: Post-copular position | — | positive | n.a. | n.a |
Test 3: R-pronominalization | + | positive | + | positive |
Test 4A: Topicalization | ? | both positive and negative | ? | both positive and negative |
Test 4B: Relativization/questioning | +/? | +/? | ||
Test 4C: PP-over-V | — | — | ||
Test 4D: Scrambling | ? | ?? |
For recipient aan-PPs and agentive door-PPs it is more difficult to establish whether they are arguments of the noun. Only the first test is relevant for them, and it seems that this test provides evidence against assuming argument status: recipients and agents normally need not be expressed. However, given that recipients and agentive door-phrases are normally also optional in the verbal constructions, this is not conclusive. We will therefore assume that they have a status similar to the theme, which clearly does behave as an argument.