Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.2.Non-resultative constructions

quickinfo

This section gives some examples of two non-resultative constructions involving a complementive: the copular construction and the vinden-construction. The discussion will be brief, as these two constructions are more extensively discussed in Section A6.2.1 and Section A6.2.3, respectively.

I. The regular copular construction
II. The vinden-construction

[+] I. The regular copular construction

The prototypical construction with a complementive is the regular copular construction, some examples of which are given in (181). In all these examples, it is expressed that the set denoted by dejongens'the boys' is a subset of the set denoted by the adjective; see Section A1.3.2.1 for an extensive discussion of the set-theoretic treatment of copular constructions. The copular verbs may add some meaning aspect to the core meaning. This meaning aspect may be aspectual in nature: the copula zijn'to be' is neutral in this respect and expresses a purely "N is A" relation, while the copula worden'to become' adds an inchoative aspect and the copula blijven'to stay' indicates that some state remains the same.

181

a.		De jongens	zijn	groot.
		the boys	are	big

b.		De jongens	werden	kwaad.
		the boys	became	angry

c.		De jongens	bleven	kwaad.
		the boys	stayed	angry

Other meaning aspects are possible as well: the copulas lijken'to appear' and schijnen'to seem', for example, indicate that the assertion is based on the subjective perception of the speaker, whereas the copula blijken'to turn out' suggests that the assertion can be objectively established.

182

a.	De jongens	leken/schenen	moe.
	the boys	appeared/seemed	tired
	'The boys seemed to be tired.'

b.	De jongens	bleken	moe.
	the boys	turned.out	tired
	'The boys turned out to be tired.'

The complementive need not be an AP, but may have another categorial status as well. The examples in (183) provide cases with a noun phrase, a PP, a particle and an adjectival participle in (183d). These examples show that the "N is A" relation can be extended to an "N is PRED" relation.

183

a.		Marie	is	dokter.	nominal
		Marie	is	doctor

b.	Deze borden	zijn	van koper.	adpositional
	these plates	are	of copper
	'These plates are made of copper.'

c.	Het werk	is	af.	particle
	the work	is	prt.
	'The work is done.'

d.	Jan is (on)getrouwd/woedend.	adjectival past/present participle
	Jan is (un)married/furious
	'Jan is (un)married/furious.'

Pronouns occasionally also occur as predicates in copular constructions, when these express (lack of) identity. Case marking on the predicatively used pronoun is complicated in such cases. In examples such as (184a) it seems that use of the nominative is much preferred; the object form is considered unacceptable by most speakers. In examples such as (184b), on the other hand, it is the object form that is preferred, although the nominative form jij is regularly used on the internet (hence the percentage sign).

184

a.	omdat	ik	nu eenmaal	ik/*mij	ben.
	because	I	nu eenmaal	I/me	am
	'because Iʼm simply me.'

b.	omdat	ik	nu eenmaal	jouacc/%jijnom	niet ben.
	because	I	nu eenmaal	you/you	not am
	'because Iʼm simply not you.'

This predicative use of first person pronouns is very restricted, as will be clear from the examples in (185), in which the demonstrative is used as a resumptive pronoun referring to the left-dislocated noun phrase die jongen op de foto. The (a)-examples show that the nominative pronoun must precede the resumptive pronoun in the middle field of the clause, from which we may conclude that the former functions as subject and the latter as predicate. The (b)-example with an object pronoun is accepted by some speakers but judged as marked compared to example (185a) by others.

185

		Die jongen	op de foto, ...
		that boy	on the picture

a.		...	ik denk	dat	ik	dat	ben/is.	ik = subject
		...	I think	that	I	that	am/is

a'.	*	...	ik denk	dat	dat	ik	ben/is.	ik = predicate
	*	*...	I think	that	that	I	am/is

b.	%	...	ik denk	dat	dat	mij	is.	mij =predicate
	%	%...	I think	that	that	me	is

Second person pronouns like jij/jou'you/you' exhibit more or less the same behavior as the first person pronouns in (185), but judgments on third person pronouns are different: example (186b) is fully acceptable if the pronoun refers to some previously mentioned individual, e.g., the one who is identified by the speaker as the person in the picture. The difference is plausibly related to the fact that first/second person pronouns cannot refer to individuals in the discourse domain that are not fully identified.

186

		Die jongen	op de foto, ...
		that boy	on the picture

a.		...	ik denk	dat	hij	dat	is.	hij = subject
		...	I think	that	he	that	is

a'.	*	...	ik denk	dat	dat	hij	is.	hij = predicate
	*	*...	I think	that	that	he	is

b.		...	ik denk	dat	dat	ʼm	is.	ʼm =predicate
		...	I think	that	that	him	is

[+] II. The vinden-construction

A second type of complementive construction, in which the adjective is predicated of an accusative object, is the vinden-construction in (187): verbs occurring in this construction are vinden'to consider', achten'to consider' and noemen'to call'. The constructions in (187a&b) express that the subject of the clause has a subjective opinion about the accusative object; Marie is of the opinion that the proposition "Jan is unfit for that job" is true. The example in (187c) asserts that Marie has expressed this opinion.

187

a.		Marie vindt	Jan ongeschikt	voor die baan.
		Marie considers	Jan unfit	for that job

b.		Marie acht	Jan ongeschikt	voor die baan.
		Marie considers	Jan unfit	for that job

c.		Marie noemt	Jan ongeschikt	voor die baan.
		Marie calls	Jan unfit	for that job

That these verbs take some kind of proposition as their complement is very clear in the case of the verb vinden; example (187a), for instance, can be paraphrased as in (188a), in which the noun phrase Jan and the adjective are part of a subordinate clause. This paraphrase also shows that the noun phrase Jan is thematically dependent on the adjective only. The examples in (188b&c) show, however, that similar paraphrases are not possible in the case of achten and noemen.

188

a.		Marie vindt	dat	Jan aardig	is.
		Marie believes	that	Jan nice	is

b.	*	Marie acht	dat	Jan ongeschikt	is.
		Marie considers	that	Jan unsuitable	is

c.	*	Marie noemt	dat	Jan aardig	is.
		Marie calls	that	Jan nice	is

This shows that not all verbs occurring in the vinden-construction can take a propositional object. Similarly, it is not the case that all verbs taking a finite propositional object can occur in the vinden-construction. Verbs of saying such as zeggen'to say' and beweren'to claim' are excluded from this construction. This is illustrated in (189).

189

a.		Marie zegt	dat	Jan aardig	is.
		Marie says	that	Jan nice	is

a'.	*	Marie zegt	Jan aardig.
		Marie says	Jan nice

b.		Marie beweert	dat	Jan aardig	is.
		Marie claims	that	Jan nice	is

b'.	*	Marie beweert	Jan aardig.
		Marie claims	Jan nice

In contrast to the resultative construction, the vinden-construction requires two arguments to be present in the structure. But what they have in common is that the accusative argument, i.e. the subject of the adjective, may take the form of either a complex or a simplex reflexive. This is illustrated in (190), in which the reflexive could in principle be replaced by a regular referential noun phrase, just as in (187b).

190

a.		Marie vindt	zichzelf/zich	ongeschikt	voor die baan.
		Marie considers	herself/refl	unsuitable	for that job

b.		Marie acht	zichzelf/zich	te goed	voor dat werk.
		Marie considers	herself/refl	too good	for that work

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

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

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ComplementiveCopular ConstructionNon-resultative ConstructionResumptive Pronoun

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