• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
quickinfo

Separable complex verbs (SCVs), referred to as "scheidbaar samengestelde werkwoorden" or "samenkoppelingen" in grammars of Dutch, are combinations of a verb (sometimes also a noun or an adjective) and some other word. Examples are aanvallento attack, opsommento sum up and opfrissento freshen up. These combinations have both word-like and phrasal properties. The following sentences illustrate the use of SCVs in embedded clauses (1a-5a)) and main clauses (1b-5b)):

Example 1

a. dat de leeuw het hert aan-val-t
CONJ DEF.C.SG lion(C)SG DEF.SG.N deer(N)SG at-fall-3SG.PRS
that the lion attacks the deer
b. De leeuw val-t het hert aan
DEF.SG.C lion(C)SG fall-3SG.PRS DEF.SG.N deer(N)SG at
the lion attacks the deer
Example 2

a. dat Vader neer-stort-te
CONJ Father down-fall-3SG.PST
that Father fell down
b. Vader stort-te neer
Father fall-3SG.PST down
Father fell down
Example 3

a. dat Jan het huis schoon-maak-te
CONJ Jan DEF.SG.N house(N)SG clean-make-3SG.PST
that Jan cleaned the house
b. Jan maak-te het huis schoon
Jan make-3SG.PST DEF.SG.N house(N)SG clean
Jan cleaned the house
Example 4

a. dat Rebecca piano-speel-de
CONJ Rebecca piano-play-3SG.PST
that Rebecca played the piano
b. Rebecca speel-de piano
Rebecca play-3SG.PST piano
Rebecca played the piano
Example 5

a. dat Wim ons teleur-stel-de
CONJ Wim 3SG.OBL sad-put-3SG.PST
that Wim disappointed us
b. Wim stel-de ons teleur
Wim put-3SG.PST 3SG.OBL sad
Wim disappointed us

According to the rules of Dutch orthography, SCVs have to be written as one word when the two parts are adjacent, reflecting the status of these word combinations as lexical units.

The word in front of the verb in SCVs is called preverb. Preverbs can come from different lexical categories: adpositions (1), adverbs (2), adjectives (3), nouns (4) and bound roots (5).

Preverbally used adpositions are also referred to as particles, and the SCV is then referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive class of SCVs. SCVs with a noun as preverb are also treated under the heading of quasi noun incorporation.

The semantics of SCV is often not fully predictable.

The addition of a particle may change an intransitive verb into a transitive one. Compare:  juichento cheer (intransitive) - iemand toe-juichento cheer somebody, lopento walk - de straten af-lopento tramp the streets.

In linguistic research, SCVs have been the subject of much debate, particular for their intermediate status between words and phrases. The following references are key publications for further reading: Blom (2004, 2005a, 2005b); Blom and Booij (2003), Booij (2002, 2010); (Los et al. 2012), Neeleman (1994); Neeleman and Weerman (1993).

readmore
[+] Distinguishing SCVs from prefixed verbs

The main property of SCVs is the separability of the preverb from the stem. This is what distinguishes them from prefixed verbs, which may look similar in some environments, as some particles correspond with prefixes. Consider the following uses of the particle verb voorkomen/ˈvorˌkomən/to happen and the prefixed verb voorkomen/ˌvorˈkomən/to prevent:

Example 6

a. Ongelukken komen 'voor.
accident-PL come-3PL.PRS for
Accidents may happen
b. Goede regels voor-'komen ongelukken
good-PL rule-PL for-come.3PL.PRS accident-PL
Good rules prevent accidents.

In contrast to the particles, the prefixes cannot be separated from the stem. Moreover, prefixed verbs carry main stress on the verbal stem, while SCVs are stressed on the non-verbal constituent. Compare the following pairs:

Table 1
SCV Prefixed verb
doorboren/ˈdoorˌboren/to go on drilling doorboren/ˌdoorˈboren/to perforate
omblazen/ˈomˌblazen/to blow down omblazen/ˌomˈblazen/to blow around
ondergaan/ˈonderˌgaan/to go under ondergaan/ˌonderˈgaan/to undergo
overkomen/ˈoverˌkomen/to come over overkomen/ˌoverˈkomen/to happen to
voorkomen/ˈvoorˌkomen/to occur voorkomen/ˌvoorˈkomen/to prevent

[show extra information]
x Words or phrases? Morphology or syntax?

The main argument for a phrasal analysis is that SCVs are separable: in root clauses, the tensed verbal form appears in second position, whereas the other part of the SCV is stranded in its underlying position, as in Hans belt zijn moeder opHans calls his mother. We also see the separability of SCVs in the phenomenon of Verb Raising. Sentence (7a) represents the underlying SOV word order. The main verb wildewanted selects a sentential complement with a particle verb. When the verb of an embedded clause is raised to the matrix clause, the SCV can be split, as in (7b), but it can also be treated as a unit, as in (7c):

Example 7

a. dat Hans zijn moeder op-bell-en wil-de
CONJ Hans POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG up-call-INF want-3SG.PST
that Hans wanted to call his mother
b. dat Hans zijn moeder op wil-de bell-en
CONJ Hans POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG up want-3SG.PST call-INF
that Hans wanted to call his mother
c. dat Hans zijn moeder wil-de op-bell-en
CONJ Hans POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG want-3SG.PST up-call-INF
that Hans wanted to call his mother

Sentence (7c) shows that there is the possibility that the SCV forms a unit for Verb Raising. They can also behave as a unit in the Progressive construction aan het + infinitiveat the V-INFV-ing (example (8a)), though aan het can also occur between the preverb and the verb, as in (8b).

Example 8

a. Hans is zijn moeder aan het op-bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG up-call-INF
Hans is calling his mother
b. Hans is zijn moeder op aan het bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG up at DEF.N.SG call-INF
Hans is calling his mother

Whereas opbellen can appear after aan het (example (8a)), this is not the case for the VP zijn moeder bellen (example (9a)). The only possible construction is (9b), where the object precedes aan het. This shows that opbellen has a special syntactic status.

Example 9

a. *Hans is aan het zijn moeder bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS at DEF.N.SG POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG call-INF
Hans is calling his mother
b. Hans is zijn moeder aan het bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG call-INF
Hans is calling his mother

Moreover, the separability of Dutch SCVs can be observed in the location of the infinitival particle te that occurs between the two constituents of SCVs, as in op te bellen, and in the form of the past participle, with the prefix ge- in between the particle and the verbal stem: opgebeldop-ge-bel-d. Past participles are formed in Dutch by means of the simultaneous attachment of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t/-d/-en. Ablauting verbs choose the suffix -en, regular verbs select -t when the stem ends in a voiceless obstruent, and -d otherwise. In derivational morphology, SCVs behave similarly; for instance, the ge-nominalization of opbellen is opgebelop-ge-bel, with the nominalizing prefix ge- between the particle and the verbal stem.

The separability of the two constituents of SCVs has prompted some linguists to give a syntactic account of such complex predicates. This account usually takes the form of a so-called Small Clause-analysis: the particle is considered as the predicate of a Small Clause (SC), a subject-predicate combination without a copula, which is then raised to the matrix clause, and Chomsky-adjoined to the verb of the matrix clause (Hoekstra 1988). In such an analysis the following surface structure is assigned to the verb phrase het huiswerk afmaken to finish one’s homework (t is the trace of the moved PP af ‘finished’): [[het huiswerk](NP)[t(i)]](PP)](SC) [[af(i)](PP)[maken](V)](V). The SCV afmaken is a structural unit, which can thus take part in Verb Raising. The particle in this structure expresses the result of the action expressed by the verb. In such an analysis, particle verbs are instantiations of regular syntactic structures that express a resultative meaning (Hoekstra 1988).

The word-like properties, however, have led a number of linguists to take the opposite view that particle verbs are morphological constructions created by a pre-syntactic morphological component (Ackema 1999a, 1999b, Neeleman 1994, Neeleman & Weerman 1993). Such analyses necessitate a weakening of the principle of Lexical Integrity by allowing syntactic rules to move parts of complex words.

The debate on the proper analysis of SCVs as being either morphology or syntax reflects a view of the architecture of the grammar in which there is sharp divide between morphological operations and the lexion on the one hand and syntax on the other. This sharp boundary between lexicon and syntax has been challenged in the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar. In particular the notion 'constructional idiom' has been used to do justice to both the phrasal and the word-like properties of SCVs. The following analysis is proposed in Booij (2010):

Preverbs are words that have the status X0 (bare head), which means that they do not project a full phrase. SCVs consist of these non-projecting elements and a verb. They have the syntactic structure [X0 V0]V' where X0 = P, Adv, A or N. The V'-node, a level of projection directly above V, captures their phrasal nature and hence their syntactic separability.

The conventionalized aspect of the meaning of SCVs is expressed as a property of the whole construction. Subcases with specific meanings may form semantic chains, related by semantic extension mechanisms like metaphor and metonymy. For instance, the particle op, which is also a locative adposition, shows up with the following meanings in particle verbs (Blom 2004: 14):

Example 10

a. `to (cause to) move upward'
optillen to lift up
opgooien to toss up
opgraven to dig up
b. `to (cause to) surface'
opborrelen to bubble up
opgraven to dig up
opduiken to bring to the surface, to surface
c. `to (cause to) appear / become visible'
opduiken to turn up
opdienen to serve up
opzoeken to look up
d. `to (cause to) become perceptually / cognitively accessible'
opvragen to ask for
opbellen to phone up
oppiepen to beep up
[+] The idiosyncratic semantics of SCVs

In many cases, the meaning of an SCV is not fully predictable. This can be illustrated by the different SCVs with the verb vallento fall:

Example 11

a. aanvallen to attack
b. afvallen to lose weight
c. bijvallen to agree with/ applaud
d. invallen to invade/ to set in/ to replace temporarily
e. meevallen to turn out better than expected
f. opvallen to draw attention
g. tegenvallen to disappoint

This means that SCVs have to be stored in the lexicon. Lexical storage of SCVs is also necessary for another reason: the preverbs and the verbs themselves do not always occur as independent words. Consider: gadeslaan to watch but *gade, nabootsento imitate but *bootsen, omkukelento fall down but *kukelen, opkalefaterento restore but *kalefateren.

A different group of examples has complex preverbs that fail to occur on their own: teleurstellento disappoint, tenietdoennullify, tentoonstellento exhibit. The bases teleur, teniet and tentoon derive from lexicalized PPs with the preposition te to.

[+] The preverb

The preverb, the left-hand part of an SCV, can stem from different lexical categories: adpositions, adverbs, adjectives, nouns and bound roots. Adpositional preverbs are also referred to as particles, and the SCV is referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive category of SCVs. For example, productive use can be observed for the particles af,door,aan,in,op, and uit:

Table 2
Simplex verb Particle verb
rijdento drive afrijdento take one's driving examination
drinkento drink doordrinkento drink on
delento share opdelento divide
hurento rent inhurento hire
leverento deliver aanleverento deliver
splitsento split opsplitsento split
schattento estimate inschattento estimate
sturento steer aansturento steer
testento test uittestento test
In the first two examples, the particle changes the meaning of the verb by adding a specific (aspectual) meaning: af can be used productively to form telic verbs, while door creates durative verbs. These are cases of "bound meanings" (Marchand 1969): meanings of words tied to specific constructions.
[show extra information]
x

Recurrent bound meanings of particles can be accounted for by assuming constructional idioms for each of these particles. A constructional idiom is a (phrasal or morphological) pattern in which some positions are specified, and others are left open.  For instance, we may assume a construction idiom for particle verbs with the particle door, which expresses continuation: [door-V](V’) to continue V-ing(Booij 2002).

In the other examples, by contrast, the meaning contribution of the particles is very vague, and sometimes fully absent. The only general difference between such simplex verbs and their particle verb counterparts is that the particle verb is always obligatorily transitive, whereas the simplex verb may be used without an overt direct object. That is, the primary function of these particles is on the level of syntactic valency.

Like many SCVs, SCVs with an adjectival or adverbial preverb often have an idiosyncratic meaning:

Example 12

a. bloot-staan
naked-stand
to be exposed
b. goed-keuren
good-judge
to approve
c. groot-brengen
big-bring
to raise (a child)
d. vreemd-gaan
strange-go
to sleep around

That such constructions are SCVs rather than free syntactic constructions can be seen from two properties: their behaviour under Verb Raising and the fact that the adjective or adverb cannot be modified. With regard to raising, we see the two options that are typical for SCVs: separating preverb and verb (12a) and treating them as one unit (12b). Option b) is not available for ordinary syntactic constructions in which the adverb is a free element modifying the verb (13b).

Example 13

a. hij beloof-de dat hij niet meer vreemd zou gaan
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more strange AUX go.INF
he promised not to sleep around anymore
b. hij beloof-de dat hij niet meer zou vreemd-gaan
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more AUX strange-go.INF
he promised not to sleep around anymore
Example 14

a. hij beloofde dat hij niet meer vreemd zou lopen
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more strange AUX walk.INF
he promised not to walk funnily anymore
b. *hij beloof-de dat hij niet meer zou vreemd-lopen
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more AUX strange-walk.INF
he promised not to walk funnily anymore

Similarly, SCVs do not allow modification of the adverb (14a), a process that is unproblematic for adverbs outside SCVs (14b).

Example 15

a. *Hij ging heel vreemd
3SG.M go-3SG.PST very strange
He slept around a lot.
b. Hij liep heel vreemd
3SG.M walk-3SG.PST very strange
He walked very funnily.

Syntactically speaking, this restriction on SCVs follows from the proposed structure since the left constituent is specified as a bare adjective, not as an AP. Hence, it is impossible to modify the adjective in that position.

There are quite a number of adverbs that can be used in Dutch SCVs, including complex locational and temporal adverbs such as omlaagdown and achtereencontinuously. (15a) contains a simple adverb, (15b) a complex one:

Example 16

a. thuis-brengen
home-bring
to bring home, to identify
b. om-laag-brengen
down-low-bring
to lower
[show extra information]
x

The following adverbs can serve as preverbs in SCVs:

Example 17

a. simplex adverbs
heen
neer
samen
terecht
thuis
voort
weg
b. complex adverbs that denote a direction
achteraan
achteraf
achterna
achterom
achterop
achteruit
omhoog
omlaag
vooraan
vooraf
voorin
voorop
vooruit
c. complex adverbs that denote a state
aaneen
bijeen
dooreen
ineen
opeen
uiteen
achterover
voorover
omver
onderuit

The meaning of separable complex verbs with these adverbs is usually quite transparent, and the meaning of the verb is preserved. In this respect, they differ from particle verbs, which often have an idiosyncratic meaning.

Most of the SCVs with adjectives are cases of lexicalization; only a few patterns, such as the open-V combination, are productive.

[+] Creating particle verbs from other lexical categories

Particle verbs can be formed not only from verbs, but also from adjectives and nouns. The following examples illustrate the category-determining power of the construction (the particle verbs are given in their stem form):

Table 3
Adjectival base Particle verb
helderclear ophelderclarify
hooghigh ophoograise
knapclever, beautiful opknaptidy up, do up
leuknice opleukmake nicer

Table 4
Nominal base Particle verb
hoopheap ophoopheap up
luisterlustre opluisteradd lustre
somsum opsomsum up
In all these examples, the corresponding simple verbs (i.e. without particles) do not exist independently (with the exception of luisterenlisten, which has a completely unrelated meaning). Hence it is the combination with the particle that makes these adjectives and nouns function as verbs.

[+] The morphological potential of SCVs

SCVs may form the bases for other derived verbs, nouns and adjectives. They also occur as left-hand members of compound nouns. Some examples:


Table 5: Verbs
SCV Derived verb
invoerento introduce, to enter herinvoerento reintroduce
uitgevento publish heruitgevento republish
uitzendento transmit, broadcast heruitzendento retransmit

Table 6: Nouns
SCV Derived noun
aanbiedento offer aanbiederofferer
aankomento arrive aankomstarrival
opbellento phone opgebel(repeated) phoning

Table 7: Adjectives
SCV Derived adjective
aantonento demonstrate aantoonbaardemonstrable
aantrekkento attract aantrekkelijkattractive

Table 8: Compounds
SCV Compound
doorkiezento dial through doorkiesnummerdirect number
doorkijkento see through doorkijkbloestransparent blouse
opbergento store opbergdoosstorage box

Nouns that are formed from particle verbs by conversion always have common gender.

[show extra information]
x Derived nouns and grammatical gender

There is a systematic correlation between the gender of a converted noun and the form of the corresponding verb. If a verb is simplex, the converted noun has common gender and selects the definite article de in the singular; if the verb is prefixed, the corresponding noun has neuter gender and selects the definite article het: bouwento build > de bouwthe construction, vallento fall > de valthe fall, but besturento govern > het bestuurthe board/ administration/ management, gebruikento use > het gebruikthe use. Prefixed verbs correspond with het-nouns, but particle verbs with de-nouns. This is exactly what is expected, since conversion operates on the head of the particle verb which is simplex in nature: aanvallento attack > de aanval the attack, aftrappen to kick off > de aftrap the kick-off.

Such nominalizations of particle verbs may reflect the fact that such verbs are often multiply polysemous: nominalizations sometimes have different forms for different submeanings. The following examples illustrate this phenomenon:

uit-geven

Table 9
to spend uitgaveexpense
to publish uitgaveissue
to issue uitgiftedistribution, Belgian Dutch: uitgevingdistribution

aan-nemen

Table 10
to assume aannameassumption
to contract aannemingcontract- as in aannemingsbedrijfcontract company

op-nemen

Table 11
to record opnamerecording
to hospitalize opnamehospitalization
ascend to heaven opnemingascension

uit-voeren

Table 12
to export uitvoerexport
to perform uitvoeringperformance

Adjectives derived from SCVs exhibit a systematic difference in main stress location from adjectives derived from other types of complex verbs: the former move the main stress to the syllable right before the adjectival suffix, the latter retain the stress of the verbal base.

Table 13
Adjectives derived from SCVs Adjectives derived from other complex verbs
ínzetemploy > inzétbaaremployable beínvloedinfluence > beínvloedbaarimpressionable
úitsteekexcel > uitstékendexcellent verwáarloosneglect > verwáarloosbaarnegligible
Participles of SCVs show their phrasal nature: the prefixal part ge- of the participial form appears in between the preverb and the verbal stem.

Example 18

a. op-ge-bel-d
on-PTCP-phone-PTCP
phoned
b. neer-ge-daal-d
down-PTCP-descend-PTCP
descended
c. schoon-ge-maak-t
clean-PTCP-make-PTCP
cleaned

The participial prefix ge- cannot be added before the particle, because it requires a V as its base, not a V’. Yet, the semantic scope of the participial prefix-suffix combination is not only the verb, but the particle-verb combination as a whole.

[+] The syntax of SCVs

A preverb can be raised with its verb to a higher clause (17c), and can appear after aan het in the [aan het+ inf] construction (18a):

Example 19

a. dat Hans zijn moeder op-bellen wil-de
CONJ Hans POSS.3SG.M mother.C up-phone.INF want-3SG.PST
that Hans wanted to phone his mother
b. dat Hans zijn moeder op wil-de bellen
CONJ Hans POSS.3SG.M mother.C up want-3SG.PST phone.INF
that Hans wanted to phone his mother
c. dat Hans zijn moeder wil-de op-bellen
CONJ Hans POSS.3SG.M mother.C want-3SG.PST up-phone.INF
that Hans wanted to phone his mother
d. *dat Hans wil-de zijn moeder op-bellen
CONJ Hans want-3SG.PST POSS.3SG.M mother.C up-phone.INF
that Hans wanted to phone his mother
Example 20

a. Hans is zijn moeder aan het op-bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG up-call-INF
Hans is calling his mother
b. Hans is zijn moeder op aan het bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG up at DEF.N.SG call-INF
Hans is calling his mother
c. *Hans is aan het zijn moeder bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS at DEF.N.SG POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG call-INF
Hans is calling his mother
d. Hans is zijn moeder aan het bell-en
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG call-INF
Hans is calling his mother

For the progressive construction aan het + infinitiveat the V-INFV-ing (example (18a-d)), incorporation of the particle is the preferred variant, but both variants occur. This ambiguous behaviour of SCVs can be accounted for by incorporation: a bare element followed by a verb can be structurally interpreted as a syntactic compound. Hence,op-bellen may receive two structural interpretations: phrase [P0 V0](V') or syntactic compound [P0 V0](V0). Verb raising in standard Dutch raises V0, not V’, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (18c), where we see a simple verb, not a particle verb. Hence the variable behaviour of SCVs follows from the availability of two structural interpretations. Similarly, the progressive construction with simple verbs accepts only V0-infinitives. 

SCVs with adjectives and adverbs exhibit the same behaviour. For instance, the adjective openopen functions as a preverb. The difference with an adjective that is not a preverb, such as groengreen, can be seen in the Verb Raising construction:

Example 21

a. dat ik de deur wil-de open-maken
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG want-3SG.PST open-make.INF
that I wanted to open the door
b. dat ik de deur open wilde maken
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG open-make.INF want-3SG.PST
that I wanted to open the door
Example 22

a. *dat ik de deur wilde groen verven
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG want-3SG.PST green paint.INF
that I wanted to paint the door green
b. dat ik de deur groen wilde verven
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG green paint.INF want-3SG.PST
that I wanted to paint the door green

Since groen does not form a verbal constituent with verven, the modal verb wilde cannot be adjoined to the word sequence groen verven because it does not form a SCV. On the other hand, the grammaticality of the sequence wilde open maken shows that open maken is a verbal unit. Thus, we must assume a constructional idiom [[open](A0) [x](V0)](V'), and a corresponding syntactic compound.

References:
  • Los, Bettelou, Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion & Kemenade, Ans van (eds.)2012Morphosyntactic change: a comparative study of particles and prefixesCambridge University Press
  • Ackema, Peter1999Issues in morpho-syntaxAmsterdam / PhiladelphiaBenjamins
  • Ackema, Peter1999The non-uniform structure of Dutch N-V compoundsBooij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.)Yearbook of Morphology 1998DordrechtKluwer127-158
  • Blom, Corrien2004On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and non-predicative preverbsJournal of Germanic Linguistics161-75
  • Blom, Corrien2004On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and non-predicative preverbsJournal of Germanic Linguistics161-75
  • Blom, Corrien2005Complex predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and diachronyAmsterdamFree University AmsterdamThesis
  • Blom, Corrien2005The demarcation of morphology and syntax: A diachronic perspective on particle verbsDressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rainer, Franz (eds.)Morphology and its demarcationsAmsterdam / PhiladelphiaBenjamins53-66
  • Blom, Corrien & Booij, Geert2003The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: a case study in grammaticalizationActa Linguistica Hungarica5061-91
  • Booij, Geert2002Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formationDehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew & Urban, Silke (eds.)Verb-particle explorationsBerlinMouton de Gruyter21-42
  • Booij, Geert2002Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formationDehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew & Urban, Silke (eds.)Verb-particle explorationsBerlinMouton de Gruyter21-42
  • Booij, Geert2010Construction morphologyOxford/New YorkOxford University Press
  • Hoekstra, Teun1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
  • Hoekstra, Teun1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
  • Neeleman, Ad1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
  • Neeleman, Ad1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
  • Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
  • Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • Strong and other irregular verbs
    [91%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • Weak verbs
    [91%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • General categories
    [90%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
  • -k
    [89%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Verbal suffixes > Noun as base
  • -s
    [88%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Adverbial suffixes > Noun as base
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • 1.2.4. Intransitive adpositions
    [91%] Dutch > Syntax > Adpositions and adpositional phrases > 1 Characteristics and classification > 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
  • 2.2.3. Resultative constructions
    [91%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure > 2.2. Complementives (secondary predicates)
  • 2.2.3.1. Agentive er-nominalizations
    [91%] Dutch > Syntax > Nouns and Noun Phrases > 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation > 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements > 2.2.3. Deverbal nouns
  • 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
    [91%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
  • 1.3.1.4. Ge-nominalization
    [90%] Dutch > Syntax > Nouns and Noun Phrases > 1 Characterization and classification > 1.3. Derivation of nouns > 1.3.1. Deverbal nouns
Show more ▼
cite
print