• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
2.2.4. Deadjectival nouns
quickinfo

The input for a deadjectival noun is always a set-denoting adjective, that is, a predicate denoting some property that can be predicated of or attributed to some entity; cf. Section A1.3.2. For example, the deadjectival noun verlegenheid'shyness' in (428) takes the set-denoting adjective verlegen as its input. This adjective denotes the property of being shy, which can be predicated of the subject Jan in Jan is verlegen'Jan is shy' or be attributed to the referent of the complete noun phrase de verlegen jongen'the shy boy'. The deadjectival noun verlegenheid'shyness' also denotes a property, but differs from the adjective in that this property is not primarily assigned to some specific entity, but denotes an abstract entity. As a result, it can head a noun phrase that can function as an argument of some other predicate, which is clear from the fact that the noun phrase Jans verlegenheid'Janʼs shyness' functions as the subject of the clause in (428).

Example 428
Jans verlegenheid bezorgt hem veel last.
  Janʼs  shyness  gives  him  much trouble
'Janʼs shyness gives him a lot of trouble.'

Example (428) also shows that the argument of the adjective can be realized within the noun phrase, which suggests that the deadjectival noun inherits the argument structure of the adjective. This will be the main topic of this section: Subsection I will consider issues concerning the expression of the arguments of different types of input adjectives and Subsection II will apply the adjunct/complement tests from Section 2.2.1 to the inherited arguments of the adjective in order to investigate whether these can be considered complements of the derived nouns.

readmore
[+]  I.  Complementation

The arguments of the input adjective can also be expressed within the noun phrase headed by the deadjectival noun. Three cases can be distinguished: the derived adjective may be monadic, dyadic or triadic. In (429) examples are given of each case. In what follows, we will discuss the three types in turn.

Example 429
Deadjectival nouns
a. Jans verlegenheid
monadic
  Janʼs  shyness
b. Peters gehoorzaamheid aan het gezag
dyadic
  Peterʼs  obedience  to the authority
c. zijn/?Jans boosheid op Marie over die opmerking
triadic
  his/Janʼs  crossness  on Marie  about that remark
[+]  A.  Nouns derived from monadic adjectives

Monadic adjectives are adjectives that take a single argument, which we have assumed in Section 1.3.2, sub II, to be assigned the thematic role of referent. The adjective is predicated of this argument (from now on we will ignore the attributive use of adjectives, unless it has something to tell us), as is illustrated for the monadic adjectives verlegen'shy' and hoog'high' in (430a&b).

Example 430
a. JanRef is verlegen.
  Jan  is shy
b. De torenRef is hoog.
  the tower  is high

      The examples in (431) show that the Ref-argument can also be expressed within noun phrases headed by a deadjectival noun. It can either be expressed as a postnominal van-PP or as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. As always, the latter option is restricted to proper nouns and a restricted set of +human nouns.

Example 431
a. Zijn/Jans verlegenheid bezorgt hem veel last.
  his/Janʼs  shyness  gives  him  much trouble
a'. De verlegenheid van die jongen bezorgt hem veel last.
  the shyness  of that boy  gives  him  much trouble
b. De hoogte van de toren is indrukwekkend.
  the height  of the tower  is impressive

The marginal status of the primeless examples in (432) show that, as with deverbal nouns, the referent argument is normally obligatory, although there are two exceptions. First, leaving out the argument is possible in generic statements like (432a'). Second, the argument need not be expressed if it is recoverable from the (extra-)linguistic context; example (432b) would be fully acceptable in a conversation about a particular tower.

Example 432
a. *? De verlegenheid is ziekelijk.
  the shyness  is pathologic
a'. Verlegenheid is geen slechte eigenschap.
  shyness  is no bad quality
b. ?? De hoogte is niet bekend.
  the height  is not known
b'. De hoogte is groter dan de breedte.
  the height  is bigger than the width
[+]  B.  Nouns derived from dyadic adjectives

Dyadic adjectives are adjectives that take two arguments, one of which is assigned the thematic role of referent. The second argument can be syntactically expressed in several ways, but we will restrict ourselves here to dyadic adjectives like gehecht'attached' and ingenomen'pleased' in (433) that take a theme argument in the form of a postadjectival PP since adjectives that take a genitive or dative NP-complement cannot be the input for nominalization; cf. Section 1.3.2, sub III.

Example 433
a. Jan is gehecht *(aan zijn hond).
  Jan is attached     to his dog
b. Peter is ingenomen *(met het voorstel).
  Peter is pleased     with the proposal

The examples in (434) show that the derived noun inherits both arguments; as in the case of the monadic nouns the referent argument can be expressed either by a postverbal van-PP, or as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. The second argument of the adjective is obligatorily in the nominal constructions in (434), and must follow the Ref-argument if the latter occurs as a postnominal van-PP. It is important to observe that the second argument takes the same form as in the corresponding adjectival construction.

Example 434
a. de gehechtheid van JanRef *(aan zijn hond)
  the attachment  of Jan     to his dog
a'. JansRef gehechtheid *(aan zijn hond)
  Janʼs  attachment     to his dog
b. de ingenomenheid van Peter *(met het voorstel)
  the  satisfaction  of Peter     with the proposal
b'. PetersRef ingenomenheid *(met het voorstel)
  Peterʼs  satisfaction     with the proposal

The examples in (435) show that with some adjectives the second argument is optional. It is therefore not surprising that the same thing holds for the nominalizations of these cases: it simply shows that the optionality or obligatoriness of the complement is among the features inherited by the deadjectival noun. Note that the Ref-argumentcannot normally be left out: this is only possible in generic contexts or if it is recoverable from the context, but this will go unillustrated here.

Example 435
a. JanRef is verliefd (op MarieTheme).
  Jan  is in love   on Marie
  'Jan is in love with Marie.'
b. JansRef verliefdheid (op MarieTheme)
  Janʼs infatuation   on Marie
b'. de verliefdheid van JanRef (op MarieTheme)
  the infatuation  of Jan   on Marie

      It seems that there is a difference in productivity of the nominalization process between the two cases. The examples in (436) show that it is easy to find examples of adjectives with an obligatory second argument that cannot be nominalized. This is, however, harder with adjectives with an optional second argument; the examples in (437) illustrate the high degree of productivity in this case.

Example 436
a. Marie is gebrand *(op succes).
  Marie is eager     on success
  'Marie is eager for success.'
a'. * MariesRef gebrandheid (op succes)
  Marieʼs  eagerness   on success
b. Zij is bestand *(tegen stress).
  she  is resistant     against stress
  'Sheʼs stress-resistant.'
b'. * haarRef bestandheid (tegen stress)
  her  resistance   against stress
Example 437
a. Marie is nieuwsgierig (naar de uitslag).
  Marie is curious   to the results
  'Marie is curious to know the results.'
a'. MariesRef nieuwsgierigheid (naar de uitslag)
  Marieʼs  curiosity   to the results
b. Wij zijn afhankelijk (van het weer).
  we  are  dependent  of the weather
b'. onzeRef afhankelijkheid (van het weer)
  our  dependency  of the weather
c. Zij is gevoelig (voor zulke dingen).
  she  is sensitive   for such things
c'. haarRef gevoeligheid (voor zulke dingen)
  her  sensitivity   for such things
d. PeterRef is gehoorzaam (aan het gezag).
  Peter  is obedient  to the authority
d'. PetersRef gehoorzaamheid (aan het gezag)
  Peterʼs obedience  to the authority

      The primeless examples in (438) show that the complements of attributively used adjectives must appear in pre-adjectival position; see Section A5.3 for discussion. A comparable position is, however, not available with deadjectival nouns; as shown in the primed examples in (438), these PPs can only be placed in postnominal position.

Example 438
a. de <op zijn vrouw> verliefde <*op zijn vrouw> man
  the    on his wife  in love  man
  'the man (who is) in love with his wife'
a'. zijnRef <*op zijn vrouw> verliefdheid <op zijn vrouw>
  his      on his wife  infatuation
b. de <aan het gezag> gehoorzame <*aan het gezag> jongen
  the   to the authority  obedient  boy
  'the boy (who is) obedient to the authorities'
b'. zijnRef <*aan het gezag> gehoorzaamheid <aan het gezag>
  his     to the authority  obedience
c. de <aan zijn hond> gehechte <*aan zijn hond> jongen
  the    to his dog  attached  boy
c'. zijnRef <*aan zijn hond> gehechtheid <aan zijn hond>
  his      to his dog  attachment

      Among the adjectives taking an optional prepositional complement, there are some cases in which the presence or absence of the complement leads to syntactic differences with regard to the pluralization of the logical subject of the adjective; see also Chapter A2. An example is given in (439): where the subject appears in the singular, as in (439a), the PP-complement must be present; if the subject appears in the plural, as in (439b), the PP is optionally present.

Example 439
a. De mens is nauw verwant *(aan de chimpansee).
  the human  is closely related     to the chimpanzee
  'Man is closely related to the chimpanzee.'
b. De mens en de chimpansee zijn nauw verwant (aan elkaar).
  the human and the chimpanzee  are  closely related  to each.other
  'Man and chimpanzee are closely related (to each other).'

The adjectives in both constructions can be the input for nominalizations; interestingly, however, the nominal counterpart of the construction in (439a) selects a different preposition ( met'with' instead of aan'to'), while in the case of (439b) the plural subject now appears as PP-complement with the preposition tussen'between'. The relevant examples are given in (440).

Example 440
a. de verwantschap van de mens met de chimpansee
  the relationship  of the human  with the chimpanzee
a'. onze verwantschap met de chimpansee
  our relationship  with the chimpanzee
b. de verwantschap tussen de mens en de chimpansee
  the relationship  between the human and the chimpanzee
[+]  C.  Nouns derived from triadic adjectives

Occasionally, adjectives can occur with three arguments, that is, with a Ref-argument and two PP-complements. An example is given in (441a). The (b)-examples show that nouns derived from these adjectives can inherit all three arguments, albeit that the result may be somewhat marked. Again, the Ref-argument may appear prenominally as a genitive noun phrase/possessive pronoun or postnominally as a van-PP. The second and third argument must occur postnominally in the same form and in the same order as in the original adjectival construction. Furthermore, they must follow the Ref-argument if the latter occurs as a postnominal van-PP. This means that any reordering of the PPs in (441b&b') will have a degraded result.

Example 441
a. Jan is boos op Marie over die opmerking.
  Jan is angry  on Marie  about that remark
  'Jan is angry with Marie because of that remark.'
b. Jans/ZijnRef boosheid op Marie over die opmerking
  Janʼs/his  crossness  on Marie  about that remark
b'. de boosheid van JanRef op Marie over die opmerking
  the crossness  of Jan  on Marie  about that remark

Since the complements of triadic adjectives are not always obligatorily expressed, it does not come as a surprise that the same thing is true of the complements of the derived noun; one might say that the optionality of the complement belongs to the features inherited from the adjective. Thus, the constructions in (442) are fully acceptable with the possible exception of (442a'), which for unclear reasons seems to be slightly degraded. Recall that the Ref-argument normally cannot be left out.

Example 442
a. JansRef boosheid op Marie
  Janʼs  crossness  on Marie
a'. ? de boosheid van JanRef op Marie
  the crossness  of Jan  on Marie
b. JansRef boosheid over die opmerking
  Janʼs  crossness  about that remark
b'. de boosheid van JanRef over die opmerking
  the crossness  of Jan  about that remark
c. JansRef boosheid/de boosheid van Jan
  Janʼs  crossness/the crossness  of Jan
[+]  D.  Conclusion

The inherited Ref-argument of deadjectival nouns must be realized either as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, or as a postnominal van-PP. The PP-complements of the base adjective are also inherited: they appear postnominally in the same form and order as the complements of the base adjective. Whether these PP-complements can be left implicit also depends on the properties of the base adjective.

Example 443
Complementation of monadic deadjectival nouns
Monadic NPs/pronounRef + N N + van-PPRef
Dyadic NPs/pronounRef + N (+ PPTheme) N + van-PPRef (+ PPTheme)
Triadic NPs/pronounRef + N (+ PP) (+PP) N + van-PPRef (+ PP) (+PP)

[+]  II.  Application of the complement/adjunct tests

In many cases, PP-complements and PP-adjuncts are not formally distinguished within the noun phrase. It is therefore not impossible that what we called complements above are actually adjuncts. This subsection applies the tests provided in Section 2.2.1 to distinguish between complement PPs and adjunct PPs to deadjectival nouns. The conclusion that we will draw from this exercise is that we are indeed correct in assuming that the PPs discussed in this subsection are complements of the noun.

[+]  A.  Obligatoriness of PP

Subsection I has already shown that the Ref-argument must normally be expressed: it can only be left implicit in generic contexts or if it is recoverable from the (extra-)linguistic context. We illustrate the obligatoriness of the Ref-argument again by means of a noun derived from the monadic adjective vruchtbaar.

Example 444
a. Deze aardeRef is vruchtbaar.
  this soil  is fertile
b. de vruchtbaarheid *(van de aardeRef)
  the  fertility     of the soil

The obligatoriness of the PP-complements to nouns derived from dyadic adjectives depends on whether they are obligatory in the corresponding adjectival construction. In other words, the optionality or obligatoriness of the complement of the adjective is inherited by the deadjectival noun. The primed examples illustrate again that the Ref-argument can only be left implicit if it is recoverable: in (445a') the use of the possessive pronoun zijn evokes the idea that the Ref-argument is the owner of the dog, and consequently leaving it implicit is allowed; in (445b') such a clue is lacking, and leaving out the Ref-argument gives rise to a degraded result.

Example 445
a. JanRef is gehecht *(aan zijn hond).
  Jan  is attached     to his dog
a'. JansRef/de gehechtheid *(aan zijn hond)
  Janʼs  attachment     to his dog
b. JanRef is verliefd (op Marie).
  Jan  is in love   on Marie
  'Jan is in love with Marie.'
b'. JansRef/*de verliefdheid (op Marie)
  Janʼs  infatuation   on Marie
  'Janʼs infatuation with Marie'

Finally, as illustrated in example (446), triadic deadjectival nouns do not require the presence of all three arguments, which is a property inherited from the input adjective. Again, the Ref-argument is normally required.

Example 446
a. Jans boosheid op Marie over die opmerking
  Janʼs  crossness  on Marie  about that remark
b. Jans boosheid op Marie
c. Jans boosheid over die opmerking
d. Jans boosheid
[+]  B.  Occurrence of PP in postcopular predicative position

Example (447) shows that the Ref-argument of a deadjectival noun cannot occur in postcopular position. This is not surprising, as van-PPs in postcopular position are interpreted as possessive elements, and properties, the denotation of deadjectival nouns, cannot be possessed.

Example 447
a. * De verlegenheid is van Jan.
  the shyness  is of Jan
b. * De gehoorzaamheid is van Peter.
  the obedience  is of Peter
c. De boosheid is van Jan.
  the crossness  is of Jan

For completeness’ sake, the examples in (448) show that it is equally impossible to place the second or third argument of dyadic and triadic constructions in postcopular position.

Example 448
a. * Jans/De ingenomenheid is met het voorstel.
  Janʼs/the  satisfaction  is with the proposal
b. * Jans/De boosheid is over de opmerking.
  Janʼs/the  crossness  is about the remark
c. * Jans/De boosheid is op Marie
  Janʼs/the  crossness  is on Marie
[+]  C.  R-pronominalization

The examples in (449a-c) again show that Ref-arguments behave like complements: they allow R-pronominalization. Note that example (449d) shows that the result is much worse with adjectives that take a +human complement: de boosheid van Jan'Janʼs crossness', which is of course due to the fact that R-pronominalization is always marked if the PP contains a +human noun phrase.

Example 449
a. de hoogte ervan
  the height  there-of
  'its height'
b. de bekendheid ervan
  the known-ness  there-of
  'its fame'
c. de stabiliteit ervan
  the stability  there-of
  'its stability'
d. * de boosheid ervan
  the crossness  there-of
  'his crossness'

      Example (450) shows that R-pronominalization is also possible with the second argument of the corresponding dyadic adjective.

Example 450
a. Jans tevredenheid erover
  Janʼs  satisfaction  there-about
  'Janʼs satisfaction with it'
b. ? Maries nieuwsgierigheid ernaar
  Marieʼs  curiosity  there-to
  'Marieʼs curiosity to know it'

The examples in (451a&b) show that the same thing holds for the second and third argument of triadic constructions, although there are additional restrictions. Example (451a) shows that R-pronominalization of the over-PP leads to a perfect result provided that the op-PP is left implicit. Similarly, example (451b) shows that R-pronominalization of the op-PP is significantly better when the over-PP is not expressed. The fact that the result is still marked without the presence of a second complement is due to the fact that this argument is typically interpreted as +human, and as such does not readily allow R-pronominalization; if, however, the argument can be interpreted as referring to some institution (like the government), the example becomes more or lesss acceptable. Example (451c), finally, shows that pronominalization of both complements at the same time is entirely impossible.

Example 451
a. Jans boosheid daarover (??op Marie)
  Janʼs  crossness  there-about     on Marie
  'Janʼs crossness about it'
b. Jans boosheid daarop ??(*over die beslissing)
  Janʼs  crossness  there-on       about that decision
  'Jan crossness with it'
c. * Jans boosheid daarop daarover
  Janʼs  crossness  there-on  there-about

The results in (451) are not surprising given that we find the same pattern in the corresponding adjectival construction in (452). We have used the strong form daar + P instead of the weak form er + P since this makes it easer to use the unsplit pattern in the adjectival construction; the judgments do not change if we use the weak form.

Example 452
a. Jan is boos daarover (*?op Marie)
b. Jan is boos daarop ?(*over die beslissing)
c. * Jan is boos daarop daarover
[+]  D.  Extraction of PP

The PP-extraction test yields results that are far from unequivocal, although on the whole the results can be characterized as rather bad. In what follows, we will consider the possibility of topicalization, relativization and questioning, and PP-over-V and scrambling.

[+]  1.  Topicalization

Examples (453a&b) show that extraction of the Ref-argument van-PP in monadic constructions seems to yield results that range from marked to fully acceptable. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that we are actually dealing with an independent restrictive adverbial phrase; in both cases the van-PP seems to require some emphasis, which suggests that we are dealing with cases of contrastive or restrictive focus; cf. Section 2.2.1, sub VB1. That something like this is indeed the case is especially clear for example (453a), in which the van-PP can also be used if the Ref-argument is expressed by means of a possessive pronoun; this unambiguously shows that the van-PP is not extracted from the noun phrase. We cannot show this in the same way for example (453b) given that using a possessive pronoun is not a favored option with -animate entities; however, the acceptability of example (453b') clearly shows that we cannot dismiss the possibility that the van-PP in (453b) functions as a restrictive adverbial phrase.

Example 453
a. ?? Van die jongen begrijp ik de verlegenheid niet.
  of that boy  understand  the shyness  not
a'. Van die jongen begrijp ik zijnRef verlegenheid niet.
  of that boy  understand  his shyness  not
b. Van deze toren moeten we de hoogte nog meten.
  of this tower  must  we  the height  still  measure
b'. Van deze kerk moeten we de hoogte van de toren nog meten.
  of this church  must  we  the height of the tower  still measure

The same thing can be observed with extraction of theRef-argumentof the dyadic constructions, which yield more or lesss acceptable results when they are given some emphasis. Again, adding the Ref-argument as a possessive pronoun improves the results considerably.

Example 454
a. ?? Van die jongen begrijp ik de verliefdheid op Marie niet.
  of that boy  understand  the infatuation  on Marie  not
  'That boyʼs infatuation with Marie I donʼt understand.'
a'. Van die jongen begrijp ik zijnRef verliefdheid op Marie niet.
  of that boy  understand  his infatuation  on Marie  not
b. ?? Van Marie begrijp ik de nieuwsgierigheid naar de uitslag wel.
  of Marie  understand  the curiosity  to the results  prt
  'Marieʼs curiosity to know the results I can quite understand.'
b'. Van Marie begrijp ik haar nieuwsgierigheid naar de uitslag wel.
  of Marie  understand  her curiosity  to the results  prt
c. *? Van Peter verbaasde ons de ingenomenheid met het voorstel.
  of Peter  surprised  us  the satisfaction  with the proposal
  'Peterʼs satisfaction with the proposal surprised us.'
c'. Van Peter verbaasde ons zijn ingenomenheid met het voorstel.
  of Peter  surprised  us  his satisfaction  with the proposal

The fact that adding the Ref-argument in the form of a van-PP improves the result suggests that the markedness of the primeless examples should not be attributed to extraction, but to the fact that the Ref-argument is left implicit. This suggests that extraction of the Ref-argument from the noun phrase is impossible. The examples in (455) clearly show that extraction of the PP-complements of dyadic constructions is impossible.

Example 455
a. * Op Marie begrijp ik Jans verliefdheid niet.
  on Marie  understand  Janʼs  infatuation  not
b. * Naar de uitslag begrijp ik Maries nieuwsgierigheid wel.
  to the results  understand  Marieʼs curiosity  prt
c. * Met dit voorstel verbaasde ons Peters ingenomenheid.
  with this proposal  surprised  us  Peterʼs satisfaction

For completeness’ sake the examples in (456) show that the we find essentially the same facts in the case of a triadic deadjectival noun like boosheid. The (a)-examples show that having a preposed van-PP gives the best result if the Ref-argument is expressed as a possessive pronoun; the examples in (456b&c) show that extraction of the PP-complement is completely impossible.

Example 456
a. ?? Van Jan begrijp ik de boosheid (op Marie) (over die opmerking) wel.
  of Jan  understand  the crossness   on Marie   about that remark  prt
a'. Van Jan begrijp ik zijn boosheid (op Marie) (over die opmerking) wel.
  of Jan  understand  his crossness   on Marie   about that remark  prt
b. * Op Marie begrijp ik Jans boosheid (over die opmerking) wel.
  on Marie  understand  Janʼs crossness   about that remark  prt
c. * Over die opmerking begrijp ik Jans boosheid (op Marie) wel.
  about that remark  understand  Janʼs crossness   on Marie  prt
[+]  2.  Relativization and questioning

At first sight, relativization and questioning of van-PPs corresponding to the Ref-argumentof the base adjective seem to yield more or lesss acceptable results. The discussion on topicalization above shows, however, that we should be careful in concluding that the preposed van-PP is an argument of the noun: we might also be dealing with independent adverbial phrases. Note that adding the Ref-argument as a possessive pronoun does not improve the result in (457a&a').

Example 457
a. de jongen waarvan ?de/*?zijnRef verlegenheid zo opvalt
  the boy  where-of   the/his  shyness  so  strikes
  'the boy whose shyness is so striking'
a'. ? Van welke jongen valt ?de/*?zijnRef verlegenheid het meest op?
  of which boy  strikes   the/his  shyness  the most  prt.
  'Of which boy is the shyness most striking?'
b. de toren waarvan de hoogte nog gemeten moet worden
  the tower  where-of  the height  still  measured  must  be
  'the building whose height must still be measured'
b'. Van welke toren moet de hoogte nog gemeten worden?
  of which tower  must  the height  still  measured  be
  'Of which building must the height still be measured?'

Relativization and questioning of arguments headed by prepositions other than van are not acceptable, as is shown by (458); the (b)-examples may perhaps slightly improve the result if the PP op Marie is dropped, but still remain quite awkward in that case.

Example 458
a. * de jongen op wie ik de verliefdheid van Marie niet begrijp
  the boy  on who  the infatuation  of Marie  not  understand
a'. * Op welke jongen begrijp jij de verliefdheid van Marie niet?
  on which boy  understand  you  the infatuation  of Marie  not
b. * de opmerking waarover ik Jans boosheid (op Marie) wel begrijp
  the remark  where-about  Janʼs crossness   on Marie  prt  understand
b'. * Over welke opmerking begrijp jij Jans boosheid (op Marie) wel?
  about which remark  understand  you  Janʼs crossness   on Marie  prt
c. * de vrouw waarop ik Jans boosheid (over die opmerking) wel begrijp
  the woman  where-on  Janʼs crossness   about that remark  prt  understand
c'. * Op wie begrijp jij Jans boosheid (over die opmerking) wel?
  on who  understand  you  Janʼs crossness   about that remark  prt
[+]  3.  PP-over-V and scrambling

As with inf- and ing-nominalizations, PP-over-V leads to unacceptable results. The unacceptability of the examples in (459) shows that this holds both for the Ref-argument expressed by a van-PP and for the second (or third) argument of the deadjectival noun.

Example 459
Test 4C: PP-over-V
a. *? Ik heb de beleefdheid altijd zeer gewaardeerd van die jongen.
  have  the politeness  always  very  appreciated  of that boy
b. *? Ik heb de hoogte nooit geweten van dat gebouw.
  have  the height  never  known  of that building
c. * Ik heb Jans verliefdheid nooit begrepen op Marie.
  have  Janʼs infatuation  never understood  on Marie
d. * Ik heb Peters boosheid nooit begrepen over die opmerking.
  have  Peterʼs crossness  never  understood  about that remark

The acceptability of examples (460a&b) suggests that scrambling of the van-PP corresponding with the Ref-argument of the base adjective is possible, but, again, we may also be dealing with a construction with an independent adverbial phrase; this is especially clear for example (460a) given that expressing the Ref-argument as a possessive pronoun is allowed. The examples in (460c&d) show that scrambling of PPs headed by prepositions other than van is clearly excluded.

Example 460
Test 4D: Scrambling
a. ? Ik heb van die jongen de beleefdheid altijd zeer gewaardeerd.
  have  of that boy  the politeness  always  very  appreciated
a'. ? Ik heb van die jongen zijnRef beleefdheid altijd zeer gewaardeerd.
  have  of that boy  his politeness  always  very  appreciated
b. Ik heb van dat gebouw de hoogte nooit geweten.
  have  of that building  the height  never  known
c. * Ik heb op Marie Jans verliefdheid nooit begrepen.
  have  on Marie  Janʼs infatuation  never  understood
d. * Ik heb over die opmerking Peters boosheid nooit begrepen.
  have  about that remark  Peterʼs crossness  never  understood
[+]  E.  Conclusion

Table 12 summarizes the results of the four tests for inherited arguments of deadjectivalnouns. 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 the van-PPs and theme-PPs headed by other prepositions. It seems that there is a marked difference in extraction behavior between van-PPs and PPs headed by other prepositions with respect to the possibility of extraction: the conclusion that inherited van-themes function as complement may be supported by the extraction facts, but for PP-themes headed by other prepositions the results are negative. We have seen, however, that the PP-extraction test is problematic in various respects, and may actually not be a good test for establishing complement status of the PP, and that there are in fact good reasons for assuming that the alleged cases of extraction should be analyzed as involving an independent restrictive adverbial phrase. For the moment we therefore conclude that both types of theme-PP function as arguments of the derived noun.

Table 12: Complements of deadjectival nouns: outcome of Tests 1-4
  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 depends on analysis ? negative
Test 4B:
Relativization/questioning
depends on analysis    
Test 4C: PP-over-V    
Test 4D: Scrambling depends on analysis    
References:
    Suggestions for further reading ▼
    phonology
    • Dutch
    • Frisian
    • Afrikaans
    Show more ▼
    morphology
    • Dutch
    • Frisian
    • Afrikaans
    Show more ▼
    syntax
    • Dutch
    • Frisian
    • Afrikaans
    Show more ▼
    cite
    print
    This topic is the result of an automatic conversion from Word and may therefore contain errors.
    A free Open Access publication of the corresponding volumes of the Syntax of Dutch is available at OAPEN.org.