Taalportaal | Absolute met-construction

Dutch
Frisian
Afrikaans

Show full table of contents

2.5.1.Absolute met-construction

quickinfo

This section is concerned with the absolute met-construction, subsection I starts by showing that the construction constitutes a phrase, subsections II to IV continue by discussing, respectively, the properties of the predicative part of the construction, the syntactic uses of the construction, and the properties of the noun phrase of which the predicative part of the construction is predicated, subsection V concludes by discussing some syntactic properties of the construction as a whole.

I. Constituency
II. The predicative part
III. Syntactic uses
IV. The noun phrase part
V. Some syntactic properties

[+] I. Constituency

That the phrase met Jan in het doel in (69a) forms a constituent is clear from the fact illustrated in (69b&c) that it can be placed in clause-initial or extraposed position; cf. the constituency test. Furthermore, the primed examples show that the construction cannot be split; this is illustrated in the (b)-examples for topicalization and in the (c)-examples for PP-over-V.

Example 69

a.	We	kunnen	[met Jan in het doel]	niet	verliezen.
	we	can	with Jan in the goal	not	lose
	'We cannot lose with Jan in the goal.'

[Met Jan in het doel] kunnen we niet verliezen.

b'.

Met Jan kunnen we in het doel niet verliezen.

b''.

In het doel kunnen we met Jan niet verliezen.

We kunnen niet verliezen [met Jan in het doel].

c'.

We kunnen met Jan niet verliezen in het doel.

c''.

We kunnen in het doel niet verliezen met Jan.

[+] II. The predicative part

The following subsections show that the predicative part of the absolute met-construction can be of several categories.

[+] A. Adpositional predicates

Adpositional predicates are probably the most common in the absolute met-construction. If the adposition is prepositional, as in (70), the PP may express either a location or a direction.

Example 70

a.	[Met	Jan	in het doel]	kunnen	we	niet	verliezen.
	with	Jan	in the goal	can	we	not	lose
	'With Jan in the goal we cannot lose.'

b.	[Met	de baby	naar de crèche]	kan Jan weer	gaan	werken.
	with	the baby	to the crèche	can Jan again	go	work
	'With the baby to the crèche Jan can work again.'

Given that the directional reading is possible, it will not come as a surprise that postpositional and circumpositional phrases are also possible; cf. (71).

Example 71

a.	[Met	Marie	het huis	uit]	kan	Jan een eigen kamer	krijgen.
	with	Marie	the house	out	can	Jan an own room	get
	'With Marie out of the house Jan can get a room of his own.'

b.	[Met	de draad	door de naald	heen]	kan	ik	eindelijk	mijn broek	repareren.
	with	the thread	through the needle	heen	can	I	finally	my trousers	repair
	'With the thread through the needle I can finally repair my trousers.'

Example (72a) shows that intransitive prepositions can also be used. Verbal particles like op in (72b) are marginally possible if they occur with the main verb hebben'to have' (like Hij heeft zijn borrel op'He has finished his drink') or if they can be used in a copular construction (cf. De drank is op'The booze is finished'), and are excluded in all other cases.

Example 72

a.	[Met	een nette das	om]	ging	hij	de club	binnen.
	with	a neat tie	around	went	he	the club	inside
	'He went inside the club with a neat tie around (his neck).'

b.	?	[Met	de drank	op]	vertrok	iedereen	snel.
		with	the booze	op	left	everyone	quickly
		'With the booze finished everyone left quickly.'

[+] B. Adjectival predicates

The examples in (73) show that the predicative part of an absolute met-construction may also be an adjectival phrase. In order to be able to occur in this construction, the adjective must denote a transitory property: typical stage-level adjectives like ziek'ill' and dronken'drunk' generally give rise to a felicitous result, whereas typical individual-level predicates like intelligent'intelligent' or klein van stuk'small of posture' are excluded in this construction.

Example 73

a.	[Met	Jan ziek]	kan	de vergadering	niet	doorgaan.
	with	Jan ill	can	the meeting	not	take.place
	'With Jan ill the meeting cannot take place.'

b.	[Met	de helft van de ploeg	dronken]	verliezen	we zeker.
	with	the half of the team	drunk	lose	we certainly
	'With half of the team drunk, we will certainly lose.'

Example 74

a.	*	[Met	Jan intelligent]	lossen	we	alles	op.
		with	Jan intelligent	solve	we	everything	prt.

b.	*	[Met	Peter en Jan	klein van stuk]	kunnen	ze	gemakkelijk	in één bed	slapen.
		with	Peter and Jan	small of posture	can	they	easily	in one bed	sleep

[+] C. Nominal predicates

Nominal predicates cannot readily be used in the absolute met-construction. Instead, the nominal predicate appears preceded by the element als'as', which also appears in the supplementive and complementive constructions in (76).

Example 75

a.	??	[Met	Jan	voorzitter]	zal	de vergaderen	snel	verlopen.
		with	Jan	chairman	will	the meeting	quickly	proceed

b.	[Met	Jan	als voorzitter]	zal	de vergaderen	snel	verlopen.
	with	Jan	as chairman	will	the meeting	quickly	proceed
	'With Jan as chairman, the meeting will proceed quickly.'

Example 76

a.	Als voorzitter	is Jan verantwoordelijk	voor de procedure.
	as chairman	is Jan responsible	for the procedure
	'As chairman, Jan is responsible for the procedure.'

b.		Ik	beschouw	Jan	als onze voorzitter.
		I	consider	Jan	as our chairman

[+] D. Past/Present participles and modal infinitives

It seems that participles and infinitives can at best marginally act as predicates in absolute met-constructions. Example (77a) is a potentially acceptable example that involves a passive participle. The judgments on this example seem to vary from “perfect” to “marginal”; that we are dealing here with a (verbal) passive participle is supported by the fact that a passive door-phrase is present. However, including the perfect participle gedronken'drunk' in example (77b) leads to an ungrammatical result; the particle op must stand alone. In order to be able to fully appreciate the importance of (77b), it should be noted that many apparent cases of past/passive participles may actually involve deverbal adjectives. Example (77c) illustrates this; that we are dealing with an adjective in this example is clear from the fact that gesloten'closed' expresses a stative property.

Example 77

a.	%	[Met	Jan achtervolgd door de politie]	moeten	we nu	voorzichtig	zijn.
		with	Jan chased by the police	must	we now	careful	be
		'With Jan chased by the police, we have to be careful.'

b.	[Met	een borrel	op	(*gedronken)]	mag je	geen auto	besturen.
	with	a drink	up	drank	may you	no car	steer
	'One isnʼt allowed to drive a car after drinking.'

c.	[Met	het museum	gesloten]	is hier	niets	te doen.
	with	the museum	closed	is here	nothing	to do
	'With the museum closed, there is nothing to do here.'

The use of present participles, as in (78a), is generally judged as marginal. However, if the present participle is suffixed with an -e ending, as in (78b), the result is well-formed, which is of course related to the fact that such forms can also be used in copular constructions such as (78b'); cf. Section A9.3.1, sub II.

Example 78

a.	[Met	Jan	naast mij	(??lopend)]	voel	ik	me	niet	op mijn gemak.
	with	Jan	next.to me	walking	feel	I	refl	not	at my ease
	'With John (walking) beside me, I donʼt feel at my ease.'

b.	[Met	Jan stervende/??stervend]	kunnen	we	niet	op vakantie	gaan.
	with	Jan dying	can	we	not	on holiday	go
	'With Jan dying we cannot go on holiday.'

b'.		Jan bleek	stervende/*stervend.
		Jan turned.out	dying

Modal infinitives can also be used in this construction, which is not surprising since they can also appear as predicates of copular constructions. The fact that the te + infinitive sequences precede the finite verbs in the primed examples shows that they are not dependent clauses, since clausal te-infinitives never precede the finite verb in clause-final position; cf. Section V7.

Example 79

a.		[Met	nog	drie wedstrijden	te spelen] ...
		with	yet	three games	to play

a'.	dat	er	nog	drie wedstrijden	te spelen	zijn.
	that	there	yet	three games	to play	are
	'that there are still three games to play.'

b.		[Met nog drie kilometer te gaan] ...
		with yet three kilometer to go

b'.	dat	er	nog	drie kilometer	te gaan	is.
	that	there	yet	three kilometer	to go	is
	'that there are still three kilometers to go.'

Example (80a) shows that the use of regular, non-modal ( te-)infinitives is excluded in Standard Dutch. It can be noted, however, that this use does occur in certain dialects spoken in Flanders and Brabant. The grammatical example in (80b) is from the Flemish dialect spoken in Wambeek, the properties of this construction are discussed in Haslinger (2007: Chapter 3).

Example 80

a.	*	[Met	Marie (te) werken]	moet	hij	de hele dag	thuis	blijven.
		with	Marie to work	must	he	the whole day	home	stay

b.	[Mè	zaai	te werken]	moest-n-ai	de gieln dag	toisj	blaaiven
	with	she	to work	must-he	the whole day	home	stay
	'With her working, he had to stay home all day.'

[+] III. Syntactic uses

The absolute met-construction can perform various syntactic functions, which are discussed in this subsection. We will also compare the absolute constructions with constructions involving the main verb hebben'to have' and the copular verb zijn'to be', since this comparison has played an important role in the discussion about the internal structure of the absolute met-construction; see Subsection D for a brief summary of this discussion.

[+] A. Attributive use

In (81a&b), the absolute met-construction is used attributively, as is clear from the fact that the sequence consisting of the noun phrase and the absolute construction is placed in clause-initial position. If the absolute construction is used attributively, there are several additional restrictions on the predicative part of the absolute construction, as is clear from the unacceptability of the examples in (81c&d).

Example 81

a.		[NP	Die man [PP	met	een revolver	in zijn hand]]	is gevaarlijk.
		[NP	that man	with	a revolver	in his hand	is dangerous

b.	[NP	Die vrouw [PP	met	dat boek	voor zich]]	is de nieuwe hoogleraar.
	[NP	that woman	with	that book	in.front.of refl	is the new professor
	'That woman with that book in front of her is the new professor.'

c.	*	[NP	Die man [PP	met	zijn vrouw	ziek]]	is ongelukkig.
	*	*[NP	that man	with	his wife	ill	is unhappy

d.	*	[NP	Die vrouw [PP	met	haar benen verlamd]]	is de nieuw hoogleraar.
	*	*[NP	that woman	with	her legs paralyzed	is the new professor

The data in (81) suggest that adjectives are not possible in attributively used absolute met-constructions. It has been argued, however, that the difference between the two cases is related to the fact that the constructions in (81a&b) can be paraphrased by means of a relative clause containing the verb hebben, whereas the examples in (81c&d) cannot.

Example 82

a.		Die man	die	een revolver	in zijn hand	heeft ...
		that man	who	a revolver	in his hand	has

b.		Die vrouw	die	een boek	voor zich	heeft ...
		that woman	who	a book	in.front.of refl	has

c.	*?	Die man	die	zijn vrouw	ziek	heeft ...
		that man	who	his wife	ill	has

d.	*?	Die vrouw	die haar benen	verlamd	heeft ...
		that woman	who her legs	paralyzed	has

It should be noted, however, that the correspondence between the absolute met-construction and the relative construction with hebben does not work in reverse: whereas the construction with a relative clause in (83b) is fully acceptable, the absolute construction in (83a) is ungrammatical.

Example 83

a.	*	[De man	[met	zijn schoenen	nu	eindelijk	schoon]]	is mijn broer.
		the man	with	his shoes	now	finally	clean	is my brother

b.	[De man	[die	zijn schoenen	nu	eindelijk	schoon	heeft]]	is mijn broer.
	the man	who	his shoes	now	finally	clean	has	is my brother
	'The man who has his shoes finally clean is my brother.'

[+] B. Adverbial use

Adverbially used absolute met-constructions express an accessory circumstance with respect to the event expressed by the clause: they may express a cause, as in (84a), specify a condition under which the event in the main clause takes place, as in (84b), describe a state or an event that simultaneously takes place, as in (84c), etc.

Example 84

a.	We	schaatsen	altijd	[met	zoveel sneeuw	op straat].
	we	skate	always	with	so.much snow	in the.street
	'With so much snow in the streets, weʼre always skating.'

b.	Jan spijbelt	altijd	[met	zoʼn voetbalwedstrijd	op TV].
	Jan plays.truant	always	with	such.a soccer.game	on TV
	'Jan always plays truant with such a soccer game on TV.'

c.	Jan slaapt	altijd	[met	het raam	open].
	Jan sleeps	always	with	the window	open
	'Jan always sleeps with his window open.'

In this respect the absolute met-constructions in (84) do not differ from the PPs in (85), the complements of which do not involve predication.

Example 85

a.	We	schaatsen	altijd	met zulk mooi weer.
	we	skate	always	with such beautiful weather
	'With such beautiful weather weʼre always skating.'

b.	Jan spijbelt	altijd	met	zoʼn voetbalwedstrijd.
	Jan plays.truant	always	with	such.a soccer.game
	'Jan always plays truant with such a soccer game.'

c.	Jan slaapt	altijd	met een open raam.
	Jan sleeps	always	with an open window
	'Jan always sleeps with an open window.'

The examples in (86) and (87) show that the constructions in (84) and (85) are not only semantically, but also syntactically similar: they do not allow R-extraction, in contrast to what is normally the case with other types of met-PPs; cf. the discussion of example (390) in Section 1.3.3, sub II {{0}}.

Example 86

a.	*	De sneeuw	waar	we	[mee	op straat]	schaatsen.
		the snow	that	we	with	in the.street	skate

b.	*	De voetbalwedstrijd	waar	Jan altijd	[mee	op TV]	spijbelt.
		the soccer.game	that	Jan always	with	on TV	plays.truant

c.	*	Het raam	waar	Jan altijd	[mee	open]	slaapt.
		the window	that	Jan always	with	open	sleeps

Example 87

a.	*	Het mooie weer	waar	we altijd	mee	schaatsen.
		the beautiful weather	that	we always	with	skate

b.	*	De voetbalwedstrijd	waar	Jan altijd	mee	spijbelt.
		the soccer.game	that	Jan always	with	plays.truant

c.	*	Het open raam	waar	Jan altijd	mee	slaapt.
		the open window	that	Jan always	with	sleeps

This similarity in meaning and syntactic behavior seems to justify the assumption that the two constructions are essentially the same, the only difference being that in (84) the preposition met takes a complex phrase expressing a predicative relation as its complement, whereas in (85) the preposition simply takes a nominal complement. We refer the reader to Beukema & Hoekstra (1984) for an alternative account for the ungrammaticality of the examples in (86) and to Subsection VC, for some apparent counterexamples to the claim that R-extraction from absolute met-constructions is excluded.
For completeness' sake, we want to note that the absolute constructions in the examples in (84) can be paraphrased by means of copular constructions.

Example 88

a.	We	schaatsen	altijd	als	er	zoveel sneeuw	op straat	is.
	we	skate	always	when	there	so.much snow	in the.street	is
	'When there is so much snow in the street, weʼre always skating.'

b.	Jan spijbelt	altijd	als	er	zoʼn voetbalwedstrijd	op TV	is.
	Jan plays.truant	always	when	there	such.a soccer.game	on TV	is
	'Jan always plays truant when there is such a soccer game on TV.'

c.	Jan slaapt	altijd	terwijl	het raam	open is.
	Jan sleeps	always	while	the window	open is
	'Jan always sleeps while the window is open.'

[+] C. Supplementive use

The examples in the previous subsection involve cases in which the absolute PP is used adverbially and refers to some accessory circumstance under which the event denoted by the verb takes place. The absolute PP can, however, also be used as a supplementive and thus convey additional information about one of the arguments of the verb. This is illustrated in (89).

Example 89

a.	Marie zag	de rover	[met een revolver in zijn hand]	wegrennen.
	Marie saw	the robber	with a revolver in his hand	away ran
	'Marie saw the robber run away with a revolver in his hand.'

b.	Marie liep	[met een revolver in haar hand]	naar de rover	toe
	Marie walked	with a revolver in her hand	to the robber	toe
	'Marie walked to the robber with a revolver in her hand.'

c.	*	De auto	reed	[met een revolver in haar/de hand]	weg.
		the car	drove	with a revolver in her/the hand	away

In (89a) the absolute PP modifies the direct object of the clause: it expresses that the robber, who is running away, has a revolver in his hand, which is clear from the fact (indicated by italics) that the possessive pronoun zijn'his' must be construed as coreferential with the noun phrase de rover'the robber'. Like supplementive APs, supplementive absolute PPs can also modify the subject of the clause; in (89b), the absolute PP expresses that Marie, who is approaching the robber, has a revolver in her hand, which is clear from the fact that the possessive pronoun haar'her' must be construed as coreferential with the noun phrase Marie. Supplementive absolute PPs must modify some argument of the verb: in (89c) no suitable antecedent is available and the sentence is ungrammatical.
Like attributively used absolute PPs, the supplementive absolute PPs in (89) can be paraphrased by means of a construction involving hebben; cf. (90).

Example 90

a.		Marie zag	de rover	wegrennen	terwijl	hij	een revolver	in zijn hand	had.
		Marie saw	the robber	away.run	while	he	a revolver	in his hand	had

b.		Marie	liep	naar de rover toe	terwijl	zij	een revolver	in haar hand	had.
		Marie	went	to the robber prt.	while	she	a revolver	in her hand	had

The examples in (91) show that if the hebben-construction is excluded, the supplementive use of the absolute met-PP is not possible either.

Example 91

a.	*	Jan vertrok	[met zijn vrouw	ziek].
		Jan left	with his wife	ill

b.	*	Jan vertrok	terwijl	hij zijn vrouw	ziek	had.
		Jan left	while	he his wife	ill	had

[+] D. Concluding remarks

The preceding subsections have shown that, in terms of paraphrases, there is a difference between the adverbial use of the absolute construction, on the one hand, and its attributive and supplementive use, on the other. The fact that the latter must allow a paraphrase with hebben'to have' has led to the hypothesis in (92a), according to which the complement of met has a clause-like structure with an empty abstract verb [Ve] meaning “to have” and a PRO-subject that corresponds to the subject of the paraphrase with hebben; cf. Klein (1983). This hypothesis has been refuted by pointing to adverbially used absolute constructions, which certainly do not involve the postulated empty verb or a PRO-subject, in favor of the “Small Clause” structure in (92b); cf. Beukema & Hoekstra (1983), and also Van Riemsdijk (1978) for additional arguments against structures like (92a). However, a problem with the proposal in (92b), which was also defended within a non-generative framework by Duinhoven (1985), is that it does not account for the clause-like properties of the complement of met: Subsection V will show that the complement of met may contain all kinds of phrases that we would expect within a clause rather than within a Small Clause; these include adverbial phrases, supplementives, (moved) R-words, etc. An attempt to reconcile the two approaches can be found in Smits & Vat (1985), who assume that the complement of met is a verbal projection which is smaller than a full clause and therefore does not contain a PRO-subject, as in (92c). To our knowledge, the discussion on the internal structure of the absolute met-construction has not been continued since.

Example 92

[PP met/zonder [S PRO ... NP PRED [V e]]]

[PP met/zonder [SC NP PRED]]

[PP met/zonder [VP ... NP PRED ..[Ve]]]

[+] IV. The noun phrase part

The examples in (84) and (85) in Subsection III have shown that the predicative part of the absolute met-construction is (in a sense) optional. This does not hold for the noun phrase that the predicative part of the construction is predicated of. Dropping it results in ungrammaticality, as is illustrated in (93) on the basis of the examples in (84).

Example 93

a.		We	schaatsen	altijd	met	*(zoveel sneeuw)	op straat.
		we	skate	always	with	so much snow	in the.street

b.		Jan	spijbelt	altijd	met	*(zoʼn voetbalwedstrijd)	op TV.
		Jan	plays.truant	always	with	such a soccer.game	on TV

c.		Jan slaapt	altijd	met	*(het raam)	open.
		Jan sleeps	always	with	the window	open

The noun phrase is assigned case by the preposition. It cannot be demonstrated whether dative or accusative case is involved since Dutch has no morphological case marking, but the German examples in (94) suggest that dative case is involved: the noun phrase is assigned dative case by mit'with', just like a simple nominal complement of mit would be. This strongly suggests that case-assignment in the absolute met-construction is of the exceptional type in the sense that the noun phrase is assigned case by met across the boundary of the complement of the preposition. That is, the absolute construction behaves like English constructions such as I consider [him to be nice], where the verb consider assigns case to the subject of the embedded infinitival clause.

Example 94

a.		[Mit	dem Gepäckdat	im Flugzeug]	kann	die Reise	jetzt	anfangen.
		with	the luggage	in.the airplane	can	the journey	now	start

b.		[Mit	dem Fensterdat	offen]	schläft	man	besser.
		with	the window	open	sleeps	one	better

Note in passing that Beukema & Hoekstra (1983) point out that assuming this form of exceptional case marking is problematic for structure (92a). First, we would expect the empty verb to assign accusative case to the noun phrase, and, second, PRO should be excluded since it only occurs in positions in which case cannot be assigned. Smits & Vat (1985) try to solve this problem for (92c) by assuming that there is no PRO argument and that the empty position is not a real verb but an empty position licensed by the preposition; as a result, the preposition can be held indirectly responsible for case-assignment to the noun phrase.
There are virtually no restrictions on the noun phrase in the absolute met-construction. The examples in (95a-f) show that all regular NP types are possible in this construction, with the exception of weak pronouns. The lack of restrictions is important to note, since Section 2.5.2 will show that the absolute zonder-construction does impose restrictions on the noun phrase. Note further that the use of a bare singular noun phrase, as in (95g), leads to ungrammaticality; the absolute zonder-construction will be shown to behave differently in this respect as well.

Example 95

a.	[Met	Jan in het doel]	kunnen	we	niet	verliezen.	proper noun
	with	Jan in the goal	can	we	not	lose
	'With Jan in the goal we cannot lose.'

b.		[Met	hem/*'m	in het doel] ...	strong/weak pronoun
		with	him/him	in the goal

c.		[Met	de juiste man	in het doel] ...	definite NP
		with	the right person	in the goal

d.		[Met	die keeper	in het doel] ...	demonstrative NP
		with	that goalkeeper	in the goal

e.		[Met	een goede keeper	in het doel] ...	existentially quantified NP
		with	a good goalkeeper	in the goal

e'.		[Met alle spelers	in het doel] ...	universally quantified NP
		with all players	in the goal

f.		[Met wie	in het doel] ...?	interrogative phrase
		with whom	in the goal

g.	*	[Met	goede keeper	in het doel] ...	bare singular NP
		with	good goalkeeper	in the goal

The prohibition on weak pronouns in the absolute met-construction is due to the fact that the absolute met-construction has a characteristic accentuation pattern; the examples in (96) show that both the noun phrase and the predicate must receive accent, which is indicated by small capitals.

Example 96

a.		met	Jan	in het doel
		with	Jan	in the goal

b.		met	sneeuw	op straat
		with	snow	in the.street

c.		met	het raam	open
		with	the window	open

Since only strong pronouns can be assigned stress, this causes the unacceptability of the weak pronouns in the examples in (97). Note in passing that Standard Dutch has no weak forms for the first and second person plural pronouns in (97d&e).

Example 97

a.		met	mij/*me	in het doel
		with	me	in the goal

d.		met ons	in het doel
		with us	in the goal

b.		met	jou/*je	in het doel
		with	you	in the goal

e.		met jullie	in het doel
		with youpl	in the goal

c.		met	hem/*'m	in het doel
		with	him	in the goal

f.		met hun/*ze	in het doel
		with them	in the goal

c'.		met	haar/*'r	in het doel
		with	her	in the goal

The fact that weak pronouns cannot occur in the absolute met-construction may help us to distinguish examples that involve the sequence of a met-PP and some other PP from the absolute met-construction. The examples in (98), for instance, involve a comitative met-PP followed by a complementive PP.

Example 98

a.		Jan stond met me	voor	de deur.
		Jan stood with me	in.front.of	the door

b.		Jan liep	met	je	naar school toe.
		Jan walked	with	you	to school

c.		Jan stond met 'm/'r/ze	voor	de deur.
		Jan stood with hem/her/them	in.front.of	the door

In (97), we did not include examples with the neuter pronoun het. The examples in (99) show that this pronoun can never be used in the absolute met-construction, neither in its weak nor in its strong form. This is due to the fact that het normally resists assignment of accent; cf. N5.2.1.

Example 99

a.		met	het raam	open
		with	the window	open

b.	*	met	het/het/'t	open
		with	it	open

If this explanation of the ungrammaticality of (99b) is indeed correct, the impossibility of this example need not be stated in terms of the general rule that the neuter pronoun het cannot occur as the complement of a preposition; see Section 5.1 for discussion. This may be important for analyses of the type in (92) that do not consider the noun phrase to be the complement of the preposition but part of a larger phrase.

[+] V. Some syntactic properties

This subsection discusses a number of syntactic properties of (the constituting parts of) absolute met-constructions. We will start our discussion with the binding properties of the noun phrases that may occur within the absolute met-construction.

[+] A. Binding

The examples in (100) show that the noun phrases Jan and Marie en Jan may act as the antecedent of an anaphor in the complement of the predicative adjectival phrases headed by geïnteresseerd'interested' and verliefd'in love' (coreference is indicated by means of identity of indices). This supports the idea that the nominal part of the absolute construction acts as the logical subject of the predicative part; if the anaphors zichzelf and elkaar are complements of the adjectival head, they can only be bound by the subject of the predicative AP; see Section N5.2.1.5, sub III, for extensive discussion.

Example 100

a.		met	Jani alleen	geïnteresseerd	in zichzelfi
		with	Jan just	interested	in himself

b.		met	[Marie en Jan]i	verliefd	op elkaari
		with	Marie and Jan	in.love	with each other

Example (101a) shows that if the predicative part of the absolute met-construction is a locational PP, the (long-distance) simple reflexive pronoun zich cannot be bound by the nominal part of the absolute met-construction, but must be bound by an argument of the main clause. This again supports the idea that the noun phrase acts as the subject of the predicative part of the absolute construction, given that the subject of a predicative PP can never act as the binder of simplex reflexive zich; cf. Section N5.2.1.5, sub III. Example (101b) shows that if the absolute met-construction is used attributively, zich can also be coreferential with the head of the modified noun phrase.

Example 101

a.		Mariei	liep	naar buiten	[met een knappe manj	naast	zichi/*j].
		Marie	walked	outside	with a handsome man	next.to