• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
quickinfo

The first type of dative/PP alternation is found with ditransitive verbs like geven'to give' and aanbieden'to offer' in (322), in which the dative object has the semantic function of (future/intended) recipient. The PPs in the periphrastic indirect object constructions are headed by the preposition aan. The double object and periphrastic indirect object construction further differ in that, in the unmarked case, non-pronominal dative phrases precede non-pronominal direct objects in the middle field of the clause, whereas periphrastic aan-PPs normally follow them; see Section N8.1.3, sub IE, for a more detailed discussion of the word order in double object constructions.

Example 322
a. Marie heeft Peter een boek gegeven.
  Marie has  Peter  a book  given
a'. Marie heeft een boek aan Peter gegeven.
  Marie has  a book  to Peter  given
b. Marie heeft Peter het boek aangeboden.
  Marie has  Peter  the book  prt.-offered
b'. Marie heeft het boek aan Peter aangeboden.
  Marie has  the book  to Peter  prt.-offered

The discussion of the dative/PP alternation in (322) is organized as follows, subsection I briefly reviews the dual meaning approach to this alternation, according to which double object constructions and their periphrastic counterparts are associated with different semantic representations. Although it seems true that the two constructions tend to differ semantically in a more or lesss systematic way, we will see that the semantic representations that have been proposed are certainly not unproblematic. Furthermore, Subsection II shows that an appeal to the supposed meaning difference certainly does not suffice to fully determine whether or not the alternation is possible: there are a number of other factors that may favor one of the two constructions. The interaction of these factors makes it very hard to predict for individual verbs whether or not the alternation will be available and Subsection III will therefore simply indicate for a small sample of double object verbs whether or not they allow it, subsection IV concludes with a brief digression on the syntactic status of the periphrastic indirect object and will show that there are reasons for assuming that it functions not as an argument but as a complementive (predicative complement) of the verb.

readmore
[+]  I.  Meaning differences

Since the seminal work by Green (1974) and Oehrle (1976), it is normally assumed that double object constructions and their periphrastic counterparts are semantically similar but not semantically equivalent; see also Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst (1968) for a similar claim based on Dutch. Although it has turned out that it is not an easy task to provide a fully adequate description of the meaning difference between the two constructions, it is generally described in terms of change of possession and location; the examples in (322) all express that the theme is relocated, but the double object construction expresses in addition that the referent of the indirect object becomes (or is expected/intended to become) the new possessor of the theme. The meanings attributed to the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction can be schematized as in (323), which is a somewhat adapted version of the semantic representations suggested by Gropen et al. (1989:241); we will return in Subsection IV to proposals that provide syntactic structures that can be paired with the semantic representations proposed in (323).

Example 323
Dual meaning approach
a. Double object construction: [Subject cause [IO to have DO]]
b. Periphrastic indirect object construction: [Subject cause [DO to be at IO]]

The dual meaning approach has recently been criticized by Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) by pointing out that periphrastic indirect objects of certain verbs can in fact also express that the referent of the indirect object becomes the new possessor of the theme. This can be illustrated by means of the examples in (324): the fact that (324a) is odd and (324b) fully acceptable irrespective of the form of the indirect object shows that the meaning difference between the two alternants cannot be expressed by means of the notion of possession.

Example 324
a. $ Jan gaf <Els> het boek <aan Els>, maar zij heeft het nooit gekregen.
  Jan gave    Els   the book     to Els,  but  she  has  it  never  gotten
  'Jan gave <Els> the book <to Els >, but she never got it.'
b. Jan wierp < Els > de bal <naar Els > toe, maar die werd onderschept.
  Jan threw     Els  the ball    to Els  toe but  it  was  intercepted
  'Jan threw <Els> the ball <to Els>, but it was intercepted.'

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) conclude from this that the choice between the double object and the periphrastic indirect object construction does not fully determine the interpretation, but that the interpretation is also sensitive to the type of verb that enters the construction, in the way indicated in Table (325).

Example 325
Verb-sensitive approach
  dative object periphrastic object
give-type verb caused possession caused possession
throw-type verb caused motion or caused possession caused motion or caused possession

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) refer to their proposal as the verb-sensitive approach in order to express that the interpretation of the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction is largely determined by the verb's meaning. That the verb's meaning is relevant is also clear from the fact that only a subset of the verbs exhibiting the dative alternation with aan-PPs inherently express caused possession: verbs like geven'to give', lenen'to lend', overhandigen'to hand', verhuren'to rent out' do have this property, whereas verbs denoting future having like beloven'to promise', nalaten'to bequeath', aanbieden'to offer' and toewijzen'to assign' and verbs of communication like vertellen'to tell', leren'to teach' and schrijven'to write' do not. This is illustrated by means of the contrast between example (324a) and the examples in (326).

Example 326
a. Jan bood <Els> het boek <aan Els> aan, maar ze wou het niet.
  Jan offered    Els  the book    to Els  prt.  but  she  wanted  it  not
  'Jan offered <Els> the book <to Els>, but she didnʼt want to have it.'
b. Jan schreef <Els> een brief <aan Els>, maar hij heeft hem niet verstuurd.
  Jan wrote    Els  a letter     to Els  but  he  has  him  not sent.away
  'Jan wrote <Els> a letter <to Els>, but he didnʼt send it.'

      Let us return to the two verb types in Table (325). From a Dutch perspective, it seems uncontroversial to distinguish these two types; the examples in (327) show that periphrastic indirect objects take the preposition aan'to' with verbs of the give-type but the preposition naar'to' with verbs of the throw-type. This observation supports yet another claim made by Rappaport Hovav & Levin, namely that constructions with verbs of the give- and the throw-type differ in that the latter, but not the former, involve the notion of path; aan-PPs belong to the set of adpositional phrases that merely indicate a change of location, whereas naar-PPs are always directional; cf. Schermer-Vermeer (2001:29) and references cited there. For a more extensive discussion of the distinction between these notions, we refer the reader to Section P1.3.1.1.

Example 327
a. Jan gaf <Els> het boek <aan Els>.
  Jan gave    Els  the book     to Els
b. Jan wierp <Els> de bal <naar Els> toe.
  Jan threw    Els  the ball    to Els toe

Now consider the examples in (328), which are run-of-the-mill cases of constructions with a spatial complementive. These examples exhibit a similar contrast as the examples in (327); the change of location construction in (328a) strongly suggests that the referent of the direct object occupies its new position at the end of the time interval at which the event took place, whereas this implication clearly does not hold for the directional construction in (328b) given the option of adding the adverbial phrase within parentheses.

Example 328
a. Marie hing het schilderij aan de muur.
change of location
  Marie hung  the painting  to the wall
b. Jan reed Els naar Groningen (toen zij verongelukten).
directional
  Jan drove  Els to Groningen  when  they  were.killed.in.an.accident
  'Jan was driving Els to Groningen (when they were killed in an accident).'

This difference between the two examples in (328) is even more conspicuous in their non-causative counterparts in (329): the locational construction implies that the painting was located at the wall during the complete event time interval, whereas the directional construction implies that Peter was not in Groningen during that time interval; see also P3.1.4, sub II for relevant discussion.

Example 329
a. Het schilderij hangt al jaren aan de muur.
location
  the painting  hangs  already years  to the wall
  'The painting has been hanging on the wall for years.'
b. Jan reed naar Groningen (toen hij verongelukte).
directional
  Jan drove  to Groningen  when  he  was.killed.in.an.accident
  'Jan was driving to Groningen (when he was killed in an accident).'

      The discussion of the similarities between the examples in (327), on the one hand, and the examples in (328) and (329), on the other, shows that Table (325) can be adapted as in (330) and strongly suggests that the implications concerning possession are no more than pragmatic inferences based on the aspectual properties of the constructions in question: constructions that express a change of location imply that the located object occupies the position indicated by the locational PP or the dative noun phrase at the end of the event time interval, whereas directional constructions do not.

Example 330
Verb-sensitive approach (revised)
  dative indirect object periphrastic object
give-type verb change of location change of location
throw-type verb directional directional

Rappaport Hovav & Levin's (2008) critique on the dual meaning approach seems to be devastating for any attempt to describe the difference between the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction in terms of possession. In our view this does not necessarily imply, however, that the dual meaning approach must be fully given up.
      Putting aside the precise substantive content of the two predicates involved, the core intuition behind the semantic representations in (323) is that the two constructions differ with respect to whether the action performed by the causer affects the referent of the indirect or the referent of the direct object of the construction: the latter holds for the periphrastic construction which can be said to simply express that the direct object undergoes a change of location; the former holds for the double object construction which can be said to express that it is the referent of the indirect object that undergoes some change of state by, e.g., becoming the possessor of the located object; the remainder of this subsection will show that this intuition may still be close to the mark.
      Consider the examples in (331), in which the direct object does not refer to some tangible entity that can be physically located in space. However, since it still can be said that the referents of the indirect objects are affected by the action performed by the subjects of the clauses, we correctly predict that these double object constructions are possible.

Example 331
a. Marie gaf Peter een kus/trap.
  Marie  gave  Peter a kiss/kick
  'Marie kissed/kicked Peter.'
b. Jan gaf de auto een flinke poetsbeurt.
  Jan gave  the car  a thorough shine

The corresponding periphrastic indirect object constructions in (332), on the other hand, are normally considered marked as they lead to the anomalous interpretation that the referents of the direct objects are located in space (hence tangible) and are actually undergoing a change of location by being transferred to the referent of the indirect object; this was the core intuition expressed by Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst (1968), Green (1974) and Oehrle (1976) that underlies the dual meaning approach.

Example 332
a. ?? Marie gaf een kus/trap aan Peter.
  Marie  gave  a kiss/kick  to Peter
b. ?? Jan gaf een flinke poetsbeurt aan de auto.
  Jan gave  a thorough shine  to the car

A similar but somewhat sharper contrast is found in the (a)-examples in (333), in which it is not the doctor but his treatment that causes Marie to have soft skin; the primed example is unacceptable due to the fact that the met-PP expressing the cause strongly disfavors the change of location reading associated with the periphrastic indirect object construction. Something similar holds for the (b)-examples in which the cause is expressed as the subject of the clause.

Example 333
a. De dokter gaf Marie een zacht velletje met zijn behandeling.
  the doctor gave  Marie a soft skin  with his treatment
a'. * De dokter gaf een zacht velletje aan Marie met zijn behandeling.
  the doctor gave  a soft skin  to Marie  with his treatment
b. De behandeling van de dokter gaf Marie een zacht velletje.
  the treatment by the doctor  gave  Marie a soft skin
b'. * De behandeling van de dokter gaf een zacht velletje aan Marie.
  the treatment by the doctor  gave  a soft skin  to Marie

In the examples in (334), on the other hand, the action of the subject does not so much affect the referent of the indirect object as the referent of the direct object; it simply locates (the responsibility for) the failure of the plan at the referent of the indirect object; cf. Oehrle (1976). The semantic representations suggested in (323) therefore correctly predict example (334b) to be degraded.

Example 334
a. Jan schreef het falen van het plan aan Peter toe.
  Jan attributed  the failure of the plan  to Peter  prt.
  'Jan attributed the failure of the plan to Peter.'
b. ?? Jan schreef Peter het falen van het plan toe.
  Jan  attributed  Peter  the failure of the plan  prt.

      The discussion in this subsection suggests that the dual meaning approach was probably wrong in claiming that the difference between the double object and the periphrastic indirect object must be expressed by means of the abstract predicate have (possession). This approach may have been correct, however, in assuming that the two constructions differ with respect to which object is (primarily) affected by the action of the subject. This leads to the semantic representations in Table (335), which, of course, abstract away from the semantic contributions of the verbs that enter the constructions. In the periphrastic indirect object construction it is the direct object that is undergoing a change of state: with verbs of the give-type it undergoes a change of location (here expressed by cause to be at) and with verbs of the throw-type it traverses a certain path (here expressed by cause to go to). In the double object construction, on the other hand, it is the indirect object that is affected by the action of the subject, which we have indicated by means of the abstract predicate be affected by because we have seen that the abstract predicate have may not be the most appropriate choice for expressing the resultant state of the referent of the indirect object (although it may still be the case that, depending on the actual verb used, it is one of the options).

Example 335
Semantic representations of double and periphrastic indirect object constructions
  dative indirect object periphrastic indirect object
give-type verb [S cause [IO to be affected by DO]] [S cause [DO to be at IO]]
throw-type verb [S cause [IO to be affected by DO]] [S cause [DO to go to IO]]

When we consider the literature on Dutch since Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst (1968), which mainly focuses on give-type verbs, it seems hardly controversial to assume that the dative and periphrastic construction differ semantically in the way indicated in Table (335). We illustrate this here with a small number of examples while ignoring the details of the individual proposals; see Schermer-Vermeer (1991:ch.9) for a more extensive review. Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst already noted that the periphrastic construction expresses transfer of the referent of the direct object. Kooij (1975) accounts for the meaning difference in terms of "affectedness of IO" and "transfer of DO". Jansen (1976: Section 3.3) seems to have a similar contrast in mind: whereas the periphrastic construction is said to focus on the action/process itself and the periphrastic aan-PP is taken to be a "local destination", the dative construction expresses that the action/process has a specific function for the referent of the indirect object. Finally, the abstract predicate be at is clearly related to Schermer-Vermeer's (1991:ch.7) notion of contact, which she correctly claims to constitute the core meaning of the preposition aan (cf. Section P1.3.1.2.3) and the abstract predicate be affected by seems to come close to what she calls reactief'responsive'.

[+]  II.  Other factors affecting the alternation

The interpretations attributed to the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction in Table (335) seem real but should probably be considered as tendencies and not as absolute rules; there are various other factors that may affect the acceptability of the two alternating syntactic structures; see Den Hertog (1973:62) for some early remarks in this respect. That this is the case is immediately clear from the fact discussed in Section N1.3.1.2, sub IIIC, that det-inf nominalizations of double object constructions in which the theme argument is realized as a postnominal van-phrase require the periphrastic indirect object to be used; cf. Van den Toorn (1971). The examples in (336) show that this also holds for nominalizations of een trap geven'to give a kick' and een poetsbeurt geven'to give a shine' in (331) and (332), which normally involve a dative object.

Example 336
a. het <*Peter> geven van een trap <aan Peter>
  the      Peter    give  of a kick    to Peter
  'the giving of a kick to Peter'
b. het <*de auto> geven van een flinke poetsbeurt <aan de auto>
  the      the car  give  of  a thorough shine     to the car
  'the giving of a thorough shine to the car'

The relative length of the objects may also affect the acceptability of the two constructions. The primed examples in (332), for instance, considerably improve if the nominal part of the aan-PP is a larger noun phrase.

Example 337
a. (?) Marie gaf een kus/trap aan de man die haar in de trein aansprak.
  Marie gave  a kiss/kick  to the man  who  her  in the train  prt.-addressed
  'Marie gave a kiss/kick to the man who addressed her in the train.'
b. (?) Jan gaf een flinke poetsbeurt aan de auto die hij wou verkopen.
  Jan gave  a thorough shine  to the car  that  he  wanted  to.sell

Stowell (1983: 333) further pointed out for English that Latinate verbs do not readily enter the double object construction and the contrast between the semantically nearly equivalent (a)- and (b)-examples in (338) suggests that the same thing holds for Dutch.

Example 338
a. Zij geven het Leger des Heils elk jaar een flink bedrag.
  they give  the Salvation Army  each year  a substantial sum
a'. Zij geven elk jaar een flink bedrag aan het Leger des Heils.
  they give  each year  a substantial sum  to the Salvation Army
b. *? Zij doneren het Leger des Heils elk jaar een flink bedrag.
  they  donate  the Salvation Army  each year  a substantial sum
b'. Zij doneren elk jaar een flink bedrag aan het Leger des Heils.
  they  donate  each year  a substantial sum  to the Salvation Army

Other factors that may affect the actual choice between the double object and the periphrastic indirect object construction are related to the information packaging of the clause; see Huddleston & Pullum (2002) for similar claims for English. Although speakers will normally prefer the double object construction in (339a) to the periphrastic indirect object construction in (339b), the latter is fully acceptable if the referent of the direct object is part of the presupposition of the clause, for example, when (339b) is used as an answer to the question Wat deed Jan met het water uit de regenton?'What did Jan do with the water from the rain barrel?'. The same thing holds if the direct object is contrastively focused and stands in opposition to, e.g., some quantity of tap water that will be used in some other way.

Example 339
a. Jan gaf de kamerplanten het water uit de regenton.
  Jan gave  the houseplants  the water from the rain.barrel
  'Jan gave the houseplants the water from the rain barrel.'
b. Jan gaf het water uit de regenton aan de kamerplanten.
  Jan gave  the water from the rain.barrel  to the houseplants
  'Jan gave the water from the rain barrel to the house plants.'

Furthermore, a dative object often seems to be preferred if the direct object is a clause, which is especially common in the case of verbs of communication. A Google search (1/12/2011) showed that the periphrastic indirect object examples in the primed examples in (340) are much less common than the primeless double object constructions. The numbers in square brackets refer to the number of hits for the search strings [ V hem dat] and [V aan hem dat].

Example 340
a. Ik vertelde hem [dat Peter niet komt].
> 1,000,000
  told  him  that  Peter  not  comes
  'I told him that Peter wonʼt come.'
a'. Ik vertelde aan hem [dat Peter niet komt].
16,400
  told  to him  that  Peter  not  comes
  'I told to him that Peter wonʼt come.'
b. Ik beloofde hem [dat ik zou komen].
29,400
  promised  him  that  would  come
  'I promised him that I would come.'
b'. Ik beloofde aan hem [dat ik zou komen]
3
  promised  to him   that  would  come
  'I promised to him that I would come.'

The contrast between the primeless and primed examples in (340) may again be due to information packaging as the embedded clause will normally contain the relevant new information expressed. This seems to be supported by the fact that the use of periphrastic indirect object constructions is very natural in questions such as (341), in which the indirect object is questioned and thus part of the "new" information of the clause; we tend to think that the periphrastic indirect object is even preferred to the dative one, but the results of our Google search on the string [(aan) wie heb je V dat] were insufficient to substantiate this claim here.

Example 341
a. Aan wie heb je verteld [dat Peter niet komt]?
  to whom did you tell  that  Peter  not  comes
  'To whom did you tell that Peter wonʼt come?'
b. Aan wie heb je beloofd [dat je zal komen]?
  to whom  have  you  promised  that  you  will  come
  'To whom did you promise that youʼll come?'

The examples in (342), finally, illustrate the fact that double object constructions are often less felicitous with inanimate indirect objects.

Example 342
a. Peter gaf Jan/?de bibliotheek het boek.
  Peter gave  Jan/the library  the book
b. Peter gaf het boek aan Jan/de bibliotheek.
  Peter gave  the book  to Jan/the library

      Bresnan et al. (2007) investigated the interfering factors in more detail for English and found that inanimate, non-pronominal, indefinite and informational structurally "new" indirect objects are much more likely to surface as PPs than their animate, pronominal, definite or presuppositional counterparts. The nature of the direct object also seems to affect the choice between the two alternants: pronominal, definite and presuppositional direct objects favor the periphrastic indirect object construction more than their non-pronominal, indefinite or non-presuppositional counterparts. The results are summarized in (343), in which the ">" sign must be interpreted as "is more likely to appear in a double object than in a periphrastic indirect object construction".

Example 343
Indirect object
Direct object
a. pronominal > non-pronominal
a'. non-pronominal > pronominal
b. definite > indefinite
b'. indefinite > definite
c. presuppositional > focus
c'. focus > presuppositional
d. short > long
d'. long > short
e. animate > inanimate

We believe that more or lesss the same thing holds for Dutch, but to our knowledge this has not been tested so far and we therefore have to leave this for future research.

[+]  III.  A sample of double object verbs (not) allowing the alternation

The discussion in the previous subsections shows that it is hard to give lists of verbs that allow or disallow the dative noun phrase to alternate with a periphrastic aan-PP. Example (344) nevertheless indicates this for a small sample of double object verbs: in order to eliminate as much as possible the interference of information structure of the clause, we have checked all cases by means of interrogative clauses of the type in (341), in which the indirect object is questioned and thus part of the "new" information of the clause: Aan wie/Wie heeft hij dat Vparticiple?'To whom./Whom has he V that?'. The number sign # indicates that the periphrastic form is not possible in such questions and a question mark indicates that we are not sure of our judgments and that speaker variation may be expected to be found.

Example 344
a. Verbs taking a nominal direct object: afstaan'to hand over', # benijden'to envy', betalen'to pay', # besparen'to spare', bezorgen'to deliver', geven'to give', lenen'to lend', leveren'to deliver', nalaten'to bequeath', overhandigen'to hand', schenken'to give', sturen'to send', toewijzen'to assign', uitleggen'to explain', uitreiken'to hand', vergoeden'to indemnify', verhuren'to rent out', verkopen'to sell', zenden'to send'
b. Verbs taking a nominal or a clausal direct object: ? aanbevelen'to recommend', aanbieden'to offer', aanraden'to recommend', ? afraden'advise against', beloven'to promise', doorbellen'to tell by phone', gunnen'to grant', leren'to teach', meedelen'to inform', schrijven'to write', # vergeven'to forgive', vertellen'to tell', # verwijten'to reproach', voorlezen'to read', vragen'to ask/request'
c. Verbs taking a clausal direct object: antwoorden'to answer', # beletten'to prevent', berichten'to notify', bevelen'to order', # gelasten'to order', melden'to report', # smeken'to beg', toestaan'to allow', verzoeken'to request', voorstellen'to propose', # zweren'to vow'

Since this will become relevant in Subsection IV, we want to note that most of the verbs in (344) are particle verbs or verbs prefixed by be- or ont-, albeit that in the latter case the verb is often the result of a historical process as is clear from the fact that the original input verb is often no longer used: bevelen'to order' - * velen; vertellen'to tell' - # tellen. Many of the remaining simple verbs in (344) also occur as double object verbs with a verbal particle. The examples in (345) show that the use of the particle terug'back' is especially productive in this respect; although not all cases in (345) are listed in Dutch dictionaries, they are all abundantly used on the internet. The question marks in (345) again indicate that we are not sure of our judgments and that we expect speakers to vary with respect to the question as to whether they do or do not allow periphrastic forms.

Example 345
a. geven'to give': aangeven'to hand over', doorgeven'to pass on', ? opgeven'to report', teruggeven'to give back/return'
b. lenen'to lend', teruglenen'to lend back', uitlenen'to lend'
c. leren'to teach', ? bijleren'to teach something new', ? aanleren'to teach'
d. leveren'to deliver', naleveren'to deliver at a later date', terugleveren'to deliver back', uitleveren'to extradite'
e. schenken'to give', terugschenken'to give back'
f. schrijven'to write', terugschrijven'to write back', toeschrijven'to attribute/accredit'
g. sturen'to send', ? nasturen'to send after', terugsturen'to return'
h. zenden'to send', terugzenden'to send back/return'
[+]  IV.  The syntactic status of the periphrastic recipient

This subsection discusses the syntactic status of the aan-PP in the periphrastic indirect object construction. Early generative grammar followed traditional grammar in assuming that this PP is an alternative realization of the dative object and thus a PP-complement of the verb. More recent research has shown, however, that there are reasons for assuming that this is not correct and that the aan-PP behaves more like a complementive, that is, a predicative locational PP; cf. Den Dikken (1995). An important argument in favor of this claim is based on the interpretation of the periphrastic indirect object construction; the semantic representations given in Table (335) of give-type verbs, repeated here as (346), suggest that the aan-PP has a function similar to that of a locational PP in a copular construction. Since Section 2.2.1, sub IV, has shown that locational PPs in constructions like Jan is op school'Jan is at school' function as complementives, it seems natural to assume the same for aan-PPs in periphrastic indirect object constructions.

Example 346
a. Double object construction: [Subject cause [IO to be affected by DO]]
b. Periphrastic indirect object construction: [Subject cause [DO to be at IO]]

The hypothesis that periphrastic aan-PPs function as complementives is perhaps not the most obvious one to formulate given that it predicts that aan-PPs exhibit syntactic behavior similar to that of complementives; this is clearly wrong given that, unlike the prepositional complementives in (347a&b), the aan-PP in (347c) can readily be in extraposed position.

Example 347
a. dat Jan het boek <op de tafel> legde <*?op de tafel>.
  that  Jan the book     on the table  put
  'that Jan put the book on the table.'
b. dat de koningin Peter <tot ridder> sloeg <*?tot ridder>.
  that  the Queen  Peter    to knight  hit
  'that the Queen made Jan a knight.'
c. dat Jan zijn boek <aan Marie> stuurde <aan Marie>.
  that  Jan his book    to Marie  sent
  'that Jan sent his book to Marie.'

It seems, however, that the problem is less serious than it appears at first sight. First, consider the examples in (348), which show that the ban on extraposition of prepositional complementives is lifted when the clause is headed by a particle verb or a verb affixed with the prefix be-. Given that the Subsection III has shown that many, if not most, periphrastic indirect object constructions are headed by particle verbs or verbs prefixed by be- or ont-, the fact that these constructions do allow extraposition of the aan-PP simply fits in a more general pattern.

Example 348
a. dat Jan het boek <op de tafel> neer legt <op de tafel>.
  that  Jan the book   on the table  down  puts
  'that Jan puts the book down on the table.'
b. dat de koning Jan <tot adviseur> benoemt <tot adviseur>.
  that the king  Jan   to advisor  appoints
  'that the king appoints Jan to advisor.'

This means that we are left with only a smaller subset of verbs without a particle or a prefix, and in this connection the observation in (345) that most of these verbs can also be used with the particle terug'back' may become relevant. We may account for problematic examples such as (347c) by assuming that such examples contain a phonetically empty verbal particle, which perhaps functions as the counterpart of the particle terug'back'; see Den Dikken (1995:ch.3) for an extensive motivation of this assumption. If so, the examples in (349) are structurally parallel to those in (348), and we thus correctly predict extraposition to be possible in both cases.

Example 349
dat Jan zijn boek <aan Marie> Ø/terug stuurde <aan Marie>.
  that Jan his book     to Marie  Ø/back  sent
'that Jan sent his book (back) to Marie.'

The discussion above has shown that it is not possible to put aside the hypothesis that periphrastic indirect objects syntactically function as complementives on a priori grounds, but it does not, of course, show that this hypothesis is indeed the correct one. It is not an easy task to provide theory-independent evidence in favor of this hypothesis on the basis of the alternation between recipient objects and aan-PPs, but Section 3.3.1.2 on the shift between indirect object goals and naar-PPs will show that there is much to recommend this hypothesis.

References:
  • Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.)2002The Cambridge grammar of the English languageCambridgeCambridge University Press
  • Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida1968Het meewerkend voorwerp, een grammaticale vergissingLevende Talen5-12
  • Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida1968Het meewerkend voorwerp, een grammaticale vergissingLevende Talen5-12
  • Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida1968Het meewerkend voorwerp, een grammaticale vergissingLevende Talen5-12
  • Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald2007Predicting the dative alternationBouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.)Cognitive foundations of interpretationAmsterdamRoyal Netherlands Academy of Science69-94
  • Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
  • Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
  • Green, Georgia M1974Semantics and syntactic regularityBloomingtonIndiana University Press
  • Green, Georgia M1974Semantics and syntactic regularityBloomingtonIndiana University Press
  • Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard & Wilson, Ronald1989The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in EnglishLanguage65203-257
  • Hertog, C.H. den1973Nederlandse spraakkunst, eerste stuk: de leer van de enkelvoudige zin. Vierde druk, Ingeleid en bewerkt door H.Hulshof.AmsterdamVersluys
  • Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
  • Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
  • Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
  • Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
  • Janssen, Theo1976<i>Hebben</i>-konstrukties en indirekt-objektkonstructiesNijmegenUniversity of NijmegenThesis
  • Kooij, Jan1975Diachronic aspects of idiom formationKraak, A. (ed.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972-1973Amsterdam
  • Oehrle, Richard Thomas1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternationMITThesis
  • Oehrle, Richard Thomas1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternationMITThesis
  • Oehrle, Richard Thomas1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternationMITThesis
  • Schermer-Vermeer, E.C1991Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het NederlandsAmsterdamUniversiteit van AmsterdamThesis
  • Schermer-Vermeer, E.C1991Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het NederlandsAmsterdamUniversiteit van AmsterdamThesis
  • Schermer-Vermeer, Ina2001Grammatica, lexicon en de dubbelobject-constructie in het Nederlands en het EngelsNederlandse Taalkunde622-37
  • Stowell, Tim1983Subjects across categoriesThe Linguistic Review2285-312
  • Toorn, M.C. van den1971Enkele opmerkingen over het indirect objectLevende Talen 27432-71
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • Weak verbs
    [91%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • Strong and other irregular verbs
    [90%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • Degree
    [88%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Adjectives
  • General categories
    [88%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • -s
    [87%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Adverbial suffixes > Noun as base
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.