Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

8.2.1.Nominal predicates

quickinfo

Nominal complementives can be divided into three types. In the first type, the nominal predicate and its logical subject are in a set/subset relation: the latter is argued to be part of the set denoted by the former. In this type the nominal predicate is typically preceded by an indefinite article (een or ∅). In the second type, the nominal predicate and its subject are identified: the latter is claimed to be identical to the former. In this case the predicate can be preceded by a wider set of determiners, including the definite article de/het and demonstrative and possessive pronouns. In the third type the predicate is a bare noun phrase, that is, not preceded by a determiner at all. This type usually occurs with verbs that select a predicate introduced by als or tot; bare nominal predicates may sometimes also occur in copular or vinden-constructions, but since these cases exhibit various special properties, we will discuss them separately in Section 8.2.2.

a.		Jan is een goede vriend van mij.	set/subset
		Jan is a good friend of mine

b.		Jan is de directeur van deze school.	identificational
		Jan is the director of this school

c.	Zij	zullen	Jan tot voorzitter	benoemen.	als/tot + bare noun
	they	will	Jan to chairman	appoint
	'They will appoint Jan as chairman.'

I. The set/subset relation
II. The identification relation
III. Nominal predicates introduced by als/tot

[+] I. The set/subset relation

In the copular construction and the vinden-construction, a nominal predicate denotes a non-singleton set and it is claimed that the subjectof the predicate is part of this set. In the copular constructions in the (a)-examples in (86) the subjectof the predicate isthe subject of the clause, and in the vinden-constructions in the (b)-examples it is the accusative object of the clause. These examples also show that the nominal predicate and its subjectagree in number. Example (86c) is added to show that, for some unknown reason, resultative constructions with a “truly” nominal predicate are not common; resultative verbs generally take a nominal predicate introduced by als or tot; cf. Subsection III below.

a.		Jan is [PRED	een aardige jongen].
		Jan is	a nice boy

a'.		Jan en Peter	zijn [PRED ∅	aardige jongens].
		Jan and Peter	are	nice boys

b.		Ik	vind	Peter [PRED	een aardige jongen].
		I	consider	Peter	a nice boy

b'.		Ik	vind	Jan en Peter [PRED ∅	aardige jongens].
		I	consider	Jan and Peter	nice boys

c.		Hij	benoemde	Jan *(tot/als)	voorzitter.
		he	appointed	Jan as	chairman

[+] II. The identification relation

The examples in (86) above illustrate the use of indefinite noun phrases as predicates. Definite noun phrases can be used in the same way. The main difference is that whereas the use of an indefinite noun phrase expresses that its subjectispart of the denotation of the NP, the use of a definite noun phrase implies that the subjectexhausts it. For example, (87a) expresses that Peter is just part of the set of students that are supervised by Marie, whereas (87b) implies that Peter is the only student that is supervised by Marie. The (b)-examples in (87) therefore differ from those in the (a)-examples in not expressing a set/subset relation, but an identification relation.

a.		Peter is [PRED	een student	die	door Marie	begeleid	wordt].
		Peter is	a student	who	by Marie	supervised	is

a'.		Peter en Jan	zijn [PRED	studenten	die	door Marie	begeleid	worden].
		Peter and Jan	are	students	who	by Marie	supervised	are

b.		Peter is [PRED	de student	die	door Marie	begeleid	wordt].
		Peter is	the student	who	by Marie	supervised	is

b'.		Peter en Jan	zijn [PRED	de studenten	die	door Marie	begeleid	worden].
		Peter and Jan	are	the students	who	by Marie	supervised	are

That we are dealing with an identification relation does not mean, however, that both DPs are referring expressions. That this is not the case will become clear when we consider the referential behavior of the coordinated DPs in (88). The plural marking on the finite verb in (88a) shows that the coordinated subject de dokter en de burgemeester'the physician and the mayor' is also necessarily plural. This shows that there is a one-to-one relation between the number of articles and the number of referents: each conjunct refers to a separate person. This is, however, not the case in (88b), in which the coordinated DP functions as a predicate: there is simply one person who can be identified both as the physician and as the mayor of the village under discussion. Example (88b') shows that predicative definite noun phrases can also be coordinated by means of conjunctions other than en'and'. Note that the adverbs tevens'also' and ook'also' in (88b&b') emphasize the fact that the persons denoted by the coordinated predicative noun phrases are actually the same; see also the discussion of the examples in (97) below.

a.	De dokter	en	de burgemeester	komen/*komt	morgen	langs.
	the physician	and	the mayor	come/comes	tomorrow	prt.
	'The physician and the mayor will visit us tomorrow.'

b.		Jan is de dokter	en	(tevens)	de burgemeester	van dit dorp.
		Jan is the physician	and	also	the mayor	of this village

b'.		Jan is niet alleen	de dokter	maar	ook	de burgemeester	van dit dorp.
		Jan is not only	the physician	but	also	the mayor	of this village

Examples like (88b&b') clearly show that definite nominal predicates do not refer to some entity in the domain of discourse; the function of the definite articles is to express that the sets denoted by the nominal predicates dokter van dit dorp and burgemeester van dit dorp have just one member. The construction as a whole expresses that the members of these two singleton sets are identical and can be identified with the referent of the subject of the clause, Jan. See Alexiadou et al. (2007: prt II, §2.3) for more discussion.
The examples in (89) show that, in constructions expressing an identification relation, it is often possible to interchange the positions of the two noun phrases. At first sight it is not clear what this tells us. It may be the case that the two word orders differ in underlying syntactic structure, that is, differ with respect to which noun phrase performs which syntactic function (subject or complementive). However, it may also be the case that the two orders have the same underlying syntactic structure but that one of the two is derived by topicalization, an option that can be argued for independently on the basis of examples such as Aardig is hij niet'Nice, he is not'.

a.		Marie is de beste leerling	van deze klas.
		Marie is the best pupil	of this group

a'.

De beste leerling van deze klas is Peter.

b.		Peter en Marie	zijn	de beste leerlingen	van deze klas.
		Peter and Marie	are	the best pupils	of this group

b'.

De beste leerlingen van deze klas zijn Peter en Marie.

The option of having two different underlying structures seems to be refuted by the data in (90): if the proper noun(s) need not act as the subject but can also act as the predicate, the primed examples should be fully acceptable, which they are not. However, they are not as bad as one would expect: especially if the proper nouns are given emphatic accent, the result is reasonably acceptable, and it yields at least quite a contrast with examples such as *dat aardig Jan niet is, in which aardig is unequivocally a predicate.

a.		dat	Marie	de beste leerling	van deze klas	is.
		that	Marie	the best pupil	of this group	is

a'.

dat de beste leerling van deze klas Peter/??Peter is.

b.		dat	Peter en Marie	de beste leerlingen	van deze klas	zijn.
		that	Peter and Marie	the best pupils	of this group	are

b'.

dat de beste leerlingen van deze klas Peter en Marie/??Peter en Marie zijn.

Another prediction would be that in the vinden-constructions the two noun phrases are also interchangeable. As can be seen in (91), however, there is a strong preference for the proper noun(s) to precede the definite noun phrase: the primed examples in (91) require heavy stress on the proper nouns, and even then the result is marginal at best. From this, it seems that we can safely conclude that the proper noun acts as the subject and the definite noun phrase acts as the predicate in these examples.

a.	dat	ik	Marie de beste leerling	van deze klas	vind.
	that	I	Marie the best pupil	of this group	consider
	'that I consider Marie the best pupil of this group.'

a'.

dat ik de beste leerling van deze klas Marie vind.

b.	dat	ik	Peter en Marie	de beste leerlingen	van deze klas	vind.
	that	I	Peter and Marie	the best pupils	of this group	consider
	'that I consider Peter and Marie the best pupils of this group.'

b'.

Ik de beste leerlingen van deze klas Peter en Marie vind.

Note in passing that the test in (91) is only available if the nominal predicate is evaluative; if it expresses an objective property, the vinden-construction always gives rise to an unacceptable result. This is illustrated in the (b)-examples of (92).

a.		Peter is de	(beste)	voorzitter van de vereniging	(ooit).
		Peter is the	best	chairman of the association	ever

b.		Ik	vind	Peter	de *(beste)	voorzitter van de vereniging.
		I	consider	Peter	the best	chairman of the association

b'.

Ik vind de (beste) voorzitter van de vereniging Peter.

That the definite noun phrase functions as the complementive can also be supported by the fact that if the clause contains a first or second person personal pronoun, the verb must agree with the pronoun: the copula verb in the examples in (93) must be the second person form ben(t)'are' and cannot be the third person form is'is'. Similar facts concerning number agreement can be found in (94).

a.		Jij bent/*is	de beste leerling van deze klas.
		you are/is	the best pupil of this group

b.		De beste leerling van de klas	ben/*is	jij.
		the best pupil of the group	are/is	you

a.	De kinderen	zijn/*is	het grootste probleem.
	the children	are/is	the biggest problem
	'The children are the biggest problem.'

b.	Het grootste probleem	zijn/*is	de kinderen.
	the biggest problem	are/is	the children
	'The biggest problem is the children.'

Note in passing that the agreement facts in Dutch crucially differ from the corresponding ones in English. For example, in English, inversion of the subject and the predicate will result in verb agreement with the preposed predicate, as will be clear from the rendering of example (94b). Furthermore, the subject pronoun will surface as an object form: cf. De beste kandidaat ben ik/*mij vs. The best candidate is me/*I. Since this is not the place to discuss these differences between English and Dutch, we refer the reader to Den Dikken (2006: Ch.4, fn.43), who argues that these differences are related to the fact that predicate inversion may result from topicalization in Dutch, but not in English.
The discussion above has shown that even in predicative constructions expressing identity, there can be a fixed division of labor between the two noun phrases. This leads to the question what determines whether a certain noun phrase acts as the subject or the predicate. Just as in the case of regular predicative constructions, this seems to be related to inclusion relations. Whereas proper nouns normally refer to some specific entity in the domain of discourse, the referents of definite noun phrases are primarily presented as members of a larger set denoted by the NP. For example, the definite noun phrase de beste leerling van de klas'the best pupil(s) of the group' does not simply refer to a certain individual, but to an individual who is characterized as being a member of a larger subset denoted by the NP leerling van deze klas'pupil of this group'. The facts reviewed above suggest that it is always the noun phrase presented as part of a larger superset that is taken as the predicative part of the construction.
In fact, it seems that this can be made even more precise. The examples in (95), which involve two definite noun phrases, suggest that it is the noun phrase presented as part of the largest superset that is taken as the complementive. In the most plausible extra-linguistic context to utter the primeless examples in (95), the set of tulips will be considerably smaller than the total set of flowers exhibited at the exhibition, and the primed examples unambiguously show that, as a result of this, it is the noun phrase de mooiste bloem van deze tentoonstelling that functions as the complementive, given that example (95b') is at best marginally acceptable with strong emphatic accent on the noun phrase deze blauwe tulp.

a.		Deze blauwe tulp	is de mooiste bloem van deze tentoonstelling.
		this blue tulip	is the most.beautiful flower of this exhibition

a'.		Ik	vind	deze blauwe tulp	de mooiste bloem van deze tentoonstelling.
		I	consider	this blue tulip	the most.beautiful flower of this exhibition

De mooiste bloem van deze tentoonstelling is deze blauwe tulp.

b'.

Ik vind de mooiste bloem van deze tentoonstelling deze blauwe tulp.

Of course, there are still many cases where it is not so clear which of the two noun phrases must be considered the predicate of the construction. This is illustrated by the examples in (96). The embedded clauses show that the two definite noun phrases may both act as the predicate of the copular construction. The difference between (96a') and (96b') is that in the former the noun phrase de voorzitter van deze vergadering is taken to be a referential expression, the referent of which is known to both the speaker and the addressee, whereas in the latter it is taken to be a property assigned to the referent of the referential noun phrase de decaan van de universiteit. This shows that the assignment of referential or predicative status may be dependent on properties of the discourse; in (96a'), the referent of the noun phrase de voorzitter van deze vergadering is assumed to be known to the addressee, whereas the referent of de decaan van de universiteit is not: it is the purpose of the sentence to express that the two noun phrases have the same referent.

a.		De voorzitter van deze vergadering	is	de decaan van de faculteit.
		the chairman of this meeting	is	the dean of the faculty

a'.		dat	de voorzitter van deze vergadering	de decaan van de faculteit	is.
		that	the chairman of this meeting	the dean of the faculty	is

De decaan van de faculteit is de voorzitter van deze vergadering.

b'.

dat de decaan van de faculteit de voorzitter van deze vergadering is.

The primeless examples in (96) are semantically ambiguous, but the two interpretations are generally associated with two different intonation patterns. If the sentences are interpreted with the first noun phrase as a referential expression, it can be pronounced with a neutral, continuous intonation contour. On the alternative, inverse interpretation, some special intonational clue is needed, for example by inserting a brief intonation stop before the second noun phrase, and/or by placing emphatic or contrastive focus on it. The alternative, inverse interpretation can also be blocked by means of adverbs like ook'also' or tevens'also': in examples such as (97) the second noun phrase must be construed as the predicate.

a.		De voorzitter van deze vergadering	is	ook de decaan van de faculteit.
		the chairman of this meeting subject	is	also the dean of the facultyPred

b.		De decaan van de universiteit	is tevens	de voorzitter van deze vergadering.
		the dean of the facultysubject	is also	the chairman of this meetingPred

[+] III. Nominal predicates introduced by als/tot

In some cases, the nominal predicate must be introduced by als or tot, or, less commonly, voor. In some cases this seems to be an idiosyncratic property, given that verbs like beschouwen'to consider' and benoemen'to appoint' obligatorily take such a predicate: in (98a), the als-phrase cannot be dropped without shifting the meaning of the verb to something like “to observe”; in (98b), the tot/als-phrase can be dropped, but will then be implied.

a.	Ik	beschouw	Jan	#(als	een veelbelovende student).
	I	consider	Jan	as	a promising student
	'I consider Jan a promising student.'

b.		We	benoemen	Jan morgen	(tot/als	voorzitter).
		we	appoint	Jan tomorrow	as	chairman

There are also some more or less fixed collocations with the verb houden and the preposition voor. Some examples are given in (99); in the (a)-example voor is followed by a noun phrase and in the (b)-example by an adjective.

a.		Ze	hielden	hem	voor	de dader.
		they	consider	him	for	the perpetrator

b.	Je	zult	het	niet	voor	mogelijk	houden,	maar ...
	you	will	it	not	for	possible	consider	but
	'You wonʼt believe it, but ...'

Using a nominal predicate introduced by tot is the normal way of expressing a result. Whereas bare adjectival predicates like boos or dood can be used in all kinds of resultative constructions, the option of using a bare nominal predicate seems to be restricted to the verb maken.

100

a.		Ik	maak	Peter boos.
		I	make	Peter angry

a'.		Jan sloeg	de mug	dood.
		Jan hit	the mosquito	dead

b.		We	maken	Peter het hoofd van de afdeling.
		we	make	Peter the head of the department

b'.	We	slaan	Peter	tot ridder.
	we	hit	Peter	to knight
	'We knight Peter.'

We should add immediately that, in accordance with what we have already observed with respect to the examples in (98), many cases of the sort in (100b') seem to be lexically restricted. An example such as (101a) is unacceptable, despite the fact that it seems to make perfect sense semantically; cf. the acceptability of (101b) with the adjectival complementive fit.

101

a.		Marie zwom	zich *(??tot)	wereldkampioen	op de honderd meter schoolslag.
		Marie swam	refl to	world.champion	on the hundred meter breaststroke

b.	Marie zwom	zich	fit
	Marie swam	refl	fit
	'Jan swam herself fit.'

All of the examples discussed above involve a set/subset relation. The predicative als-phrase can, however, also be used to express an identity relation, in which case the noun phrase is typically definite.

102

a.	Ik	beschouw	Jan als	de beste leerling	in jaren.
	I	consider	Jan as	the best pupil	in years
	'I consider Jan the best pupil in years.'

b.		Ik	beschouw	Jan als	de aanstichter van de rel.
		I	consider	Jan as	the instigator of the riot

Finally, example (103) shows that noun phrases introduced by als can also be used as supplementives. Note that the noun phrase in this example does not contain an article, just like the noun phrase in (98b). This is a typical property of predicatively used nouns denoting a profession or social function; we will discuss this extensively in Section 8.2.2, where we will also discuss examples such as (103) in more detail.

103

Als student	werkte	Marie	in het ziekenhuis.
as student	worked	Marie	in the hospital
'As a student, Marie worked in the hospital.'

References:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane & Stavrou, Melita2007Noun phrases in the generative perspectiveBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
Dikken, Marcel den2006Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulasCambridge, MA/LondonMIT Press

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Bare NounNounSupplementiveTopicalization

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles