• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
    2.2.3.3.Ing-nominalizations
    quickinfo

    This section discusses complementation of ing-nominalizations. Subsection I will consider issues concerning the expression of the arguments of the input verb in the ing-nominalization, and Subsection II will apply the adjunct/complement tests from Section 2.2.1 to the inherited arguments of the verbs in order to investigate whether these can be considered complements of the derived nouns.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  Complementation

    Ing-nominalization is a productive morphological process that accepts most verb types as input. This subsection discusses complementation of ing-nominalizations according to the types of input verb; cf. (337). See Section 1.3.1.3, sub I, for a discussion of irregular ing-nouns like jacht'hunt' in example (337d).

    Example 337
    Main types of ing-nominalization
    a. de daling van de prijzen
    unaccusative verb
      the falling  of the prices
    b. de ontdekking van Amerika
    transitive verb
      the discovery  of America
    c. de overhandiging van de petitie aan de burgemeester
    ditransitive verb
      the handing.over  of the petition  to the mayor
    d. de jacht op groot wild
    verb with PP-complement
      the hunt  on big game
    e. de verkiezing van Jan tot burgemeester
    verb with a complementive
      the election  of Jan  to mayor

    Transitive verbs taking clausal complements also allow ing-nominalization; cf. de ontdekking dat de aarde rond is'the discovery that the earth is round'. A discussion of these clausal complements is given in Section 2.3.

    [+]  A.  Ing-nominalizations derived from intransitive verbs

    Section 1.3.1.3, sub IV, has shown that intransitive verbs do not to allow ing-nominalization: the verb huilen'to cry', for example, has no corresponding Ing-noun *huiling. This section also discusses the (possibly apparent) counterexample in (338).

    Example 338
    De aarzeling van de commissie duurde niet lang.
      the hesitation  of the committee  lasted  not long
    'The hesitation of the committee didnʼt last long.'
    [+]  B.  Ing-nominalizations derived from unaccusative verbs

    Unaccusative verbs readily accept ing-nominalization. The examples in (339) show that the theme argument must normally be expressed, and takes the form of a postnominal van-PP or a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. In the latter case the theme argument must be +human.

    Example 339
    a. De val *(van de regeringTheme) kwam niet onverwachts.
      the fall     of the government  came  not  unexpectedly
      'The fall of the government wasnʼt unexpected.'
    a'. Jans/ZijnTheme val kostte hem de overwinning.
      Janʼs/his fall  cost  him  the victory
    b. De komst *(van JanTheme) was een aangename verrassing.
      the arrival      of Jan  was a pleasant surprise
    b'. Jans/zijnTheme komst was een aangename verrassing.
      Janʼs/his arrival  was a pleasant surprise
    c. De daling *(van de prijzenTheme) kwam onverwacht.
      the increase     of the prices  came  unexpectedly

    Leaving the argument unexpressed leads to questionable results even in generic contexts; apparently, it is difficult in such cases to give the unexpressed theme a nonspecific interpretation. This is illustrated in examples (340a&b). That the genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun in prenominal position and the van-PP in postnominal position both express the theme argument of the ing-nominalization is shown by the fact that they cannot co-occur; like their intransitive verbal base, these ing-nominalizations can assign the theme role to only one argument. An example is given in (340c).

    Example 340
    a. ?? Een komst is altijd weer een verrassing.
      an arrival  is always  again  a surprise
    b. ? Vernietigingen zijn soms moeilijk te voorkomen.
      destructions  are  sometimes  difficult  to prevent
    c. * Zijn komst van Jan was een aangename verrassing.
      his arrival  of Jan  was a pleasant surprise

          There are a limited number of cases in which the theme of the corresponding verb can be realized as an attributive adjective. These occurrences are restricted to relational adjectives of the geographical type (cf. Section A1.3.3, like Amerikaans'American', Amsterdams'of Amsterdam', etc. Such an analysis is, however, by no means undisputed: although relational adjectives differ from other adjectives in that they do not denote a property but express a relation between two entities, this does not mean that in such sentences as (341a&b), the adjective is to be interpreted as denoting the inherited theme argument of the verbs opkomen'to rise' and bloeien'to flourish'; instead, it may be argued that the adjective fulfills the same function as in examples (341a'&b'), where it cannot be seen as an argument of the noun.

    Example 341
    a. de Amerikaanse opkomst in de 20e eeuw
      the  American  rise  in the 20th century
    a'. de Amerikaanse dollar
      the  American  dollar
    b. de Amsterdamse bloei in de 17e eeuw
      the  Amsterdam  burgeoning  in the 17th century
    b'. de Amsterdamse grachten
      the  Amsterdam  canals
    [+]  C.  Ing-nominalizations derived from transitive verbs

    Ing-nominalizations based on transitive verbs offer a wider range of possible forms of complementation. Two frequent uses can be distinguished: that in which both arguments are expressed, and that in which only the theme argument is expressed. Let us start with the latter type of construction.

    [+]  1.  Ing-nominalizations with the theme argument expressed

    If the theme argument is realized (which is always the case, except in occasional generic readings), this argument may surface as a postnominal van-PP, as in the primeless examples in (342), or as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, as in (342b'): example (342a') is of course marked due to the fact that possessive pronouns tend to refer to +human entities if no antecedent is present in the immediately preceding discourse; cf. Section 5.2.2.1, sub I.

    Example 342
    a. De verwoesting van de stadTheme eiste veel slachtoffers.
      the destruction  of the city  claimed  many victims
    a'. ?? HunTheme verwoesting eiste veel slachtoffers.
      their  destruction  claimed  many victims
    b. De behandeling van de patiëntenTheme kostte veel tijd.
      the treatment  of the patients  cost  much time
    b'. HunTheme behandeling kostte veel tijd.
      their  treatment  cost  much time

    Unlike with inf-nominalizations, the theme argument cannot be realized as a prenominal noun phrase, regardless of the specificity of the argument. This is illustrated in (343).

    Example 343
    a. * De [(deze) steden]Theme verwoesting eiste vele slachtoffers.
      the  these cities  destruction  demanded  many victims
    b. * De [(die) patiënten]Theme behandeling kost veel tijd.
      the  those patients  treating  costs  much time

    However, in the case of a nonspecific theme, incorporation can in certain cases be an alternative form of expression, as shown in example (344).

    Example 344
    a. Een goede afvalverwerking is duur.
      a  good  waste disposal  is expensive
      'Proper waste disposal is expensive.'
    b. Een efficiënte klachtenbehandeling is een vereiste.
      an  efficient  complaints handling  is a requirement
      'Efficient handling of complaints is a must.'

    Occasionally, ing-nouns derived from transitive verbs select their own preposition. In all examples given in (345) the noun selects a preposition other than van, whereas the theme of the input verbs has the form of a noun phrase, not of a PP; see also Section 1.2.2.2, sub IE, and Section 2.1, sub V.

    Example 345
    a. Jan bezoekt Peter.
      Jan visits Peter
    a'. Jans bezoek aan Peter
      Janʼs visit to Peter
    b. Jan vertrouwt Marie.
      Jan trusts Marie
    b'. Jans vertrouwen in Marie
      Jans trust in Marie
    c. Peter haat Els.
      Peter hates Els
    c'. Peters haat jegens Els
      Peter hatred towards Els
    [+]  2.  Ing-nominalizations with both the theme and the agent argument expressed

    If both the agent and the theme argument are expressed, a number of (combinations of) forms are possible. Consider the examples in (346). The first option is that of adding the agent argument in the form of a door-PP. As in the case of inf-nominalizations, this door-PP typically follows both the nominalized head and the theme argument realized as a van-PP, as in (346a&b), unless the theme is very heavy, as in example (346b'). The doubly-primed examples show that prenominal placement of the agentive door-PP is excluded.

    Example 346
    a. De verwoesting van de stadTheme door de RomeinenAgent eiste veel slachtoffers.
      the destruction  of the city  by the Romans  demanded  many victims
      'The destruction of the city by the Romans cost many lives.'
    a'. ?? De verwoesting door de RomeinenAgent van de stadTheme eiste veel slachtoffers.
    a''. * De door de RomeinenAgent verwoesting van de stadTheme eiste veel slachtoffers.
    b. De behandeling van de patiëntenTheme door de artsAgent kostte veel tijd.
      the treatment  of the patients  by the doctor  cost  much time
      'The treatment of the patients by the doctor took a lot of time.'
    b'. ? De behandeling door de artsAgent van de patiënt van kamer 114Theme kostte veel tijd.
      the treatment  by the doctor  of the patient in room 114  cost  much time
    b''. * De door onervaren artsenAgent behandeling van patiëntenTheme kostte veel tijd.
      the  by inexperienced doctors  treatment  of patients  cost much time

    The examples in (347a&b) show that the agent can also take the form of a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, with the theme appearing as a postnominal van-PP. Alternatively, it is the theme argument that appears prenominally as a genitive noun phrase or pronoun, with the agent appearing (optionally) as a postnominal door-PP. This is illustrated in (347b'): example (347a') is of course marked due to the fact that possessive pronouns tend to refer to +human entities.

    Example 347
    a. Caesars/ZijnAgent verwoesting van de stedenTheme eiste vele slachtoffers.
      Caesarʼs/His destruction  of the cities  demanded  many victims
      'Caesarʼs/His destruction of the cities cost many lives.'
    a'. ?? HunTheme verwoesting door de RomeinenAgent eiste vele slachtoffers.
      their destruction  by the Romans  demanded  many victims
      'Their destruction by the Romans cost many lives.'
    b. Peters/ZijnAgent behandeling van de patiëntTheme kostte veel tijd.
      Peterʼs/His treatment  of the patient  cost  much time
      'Peterʼs/His treatment of the patient took a lot of time.'
    b'. (?) Peters/ZijnTheme behandeling door de artsAgent kostte veel tijd.
      Peterʼs/His treatment  by the doctor  cost  much time
      'Peterʼs/His treatment by the doctor took a lot of time.'

          Just as with the unaccusative verbs, the subject of the corresponding transitive verb can sometimes be realized as a relational adjective, as illustrated in (348a&b), in which the geographical adjectives Amerikaans'American' and Rotterdams'of Rotterdam' can be taken to refer to the agents of the input verbs aanschaffen'to purchase' and aanleggen'to construct'. Once again we need to emphasize that such an analysis is by no means undisputed, as the adjectives in question may just as well fulfill the same function as in example (348a'&b'), in which they indicate nationality or origin and where they cannot be given an agentive interpretation. Finally, observe that the adjective cannot be interpreted as the theme, as illustrated in examples (348a''&b'').

    Example 348
    a. de AmerikaanseAgent aanschaf van de F-16
      the  American  purchase  of the F-16
    a'. de Amerikaanse dollar
      the  American  dollar
    a''. * de AmerikaanseTheme belediging door Engeland
      the  American  insult  by England
    b. de RotterdamseAgent aanpak van de verpaupering van de armere wijken
      the  Rotterdam  approach  of the deterioration  of the poorer quarters
      'Rotterdamʼs way of dealing with the deterioration of the poorer quarters'
    b'. de Rotterdamse haven
      the  Rotterdam  harbor
    b''. * de RotterdamseTheme overschaduwing door Amsterdam
      the  Rotterdam  eclipse  by Amsterdam

          The examples in (346)-(348) confirm that, in non-generic contexts, ing-nominalizations derived from transitive base verbs normally require the presence of the theme; the presence of an agent argument makes no difference in this respect. The examples in (349) show that the various elements denoting the participants in the state of affairs ( van-PP, door-PP, genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun) are indeed to be interpreted as arguments: there is room for only two arguments, that is, like their transitive verbal base, these inf-nominalizations have the adicity 2.

    Example 349
    a. * Hun verwoesting van de steden door de Romeinen eiste vele slachtoffers.
      their destruction  of the cities  by the Romans  demanded many victims
    b. * Zijn behandeling van de patiënten door de arts kostte veel tijd.
      his treatment  of the patients  by the doctor  cost  much time

          As a general rule, it is impossible in non-generic contexts to express the agent without expressing the theme. This is possible, however, if the theme is recoverable from the context; example (350a) is not only acceptable as a generic statement, but also if we know who must undergo the intended treatment. Other apparent exceptions are constructions such as (350b), in which it is always possible to leave out the theme (and the agent); these constructions should not be considered ing-nominalizations, however, given that the head noun does not denote the event but the object produced by the action expressed by the base verb (and created by the agent). These constructions are dealt with in Section 2.2.5.

    Example 350
    a. Behandeling door/??van een artsAgent is veel duurder.
      treatment  by/of  a doctor  is much more.expensive
      'Treatment by a doctor is much more expensive.'
    b. Ik heb een tekening van RembrandtAgent gekocht.
      I  have a drawing  by Rembrandt  bought
      'I have bought a drawing by Rembrandt.'
    [+]  D.  Ing-nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs

    This subsection considers triadic ing-nominalization constructions, that is, ing-nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs of transfer like uitreiken'to present', overdragen'to transfer/hand over', overhandigen'to hand over/deliver', and verschaffen'to provide'. As with inf-nominalizations, it is possible for ing-nominalizations to occur with all three arguments. In actual practice, however, such occurrences are very rare. More often one (typically the agent) or two (agent and recipient) of the arguments are left unexpressed. In non-generic contexts, the presence of the theme argument is required, whereas in generic statements like (351), the theme can be left unexpressed. In the following subsections, we consider those cases in which one or more arguments do appear.

    Example 351
    a. Een overdracht kost altijd veel tijd.
      a transfer  costs  always  much time
      'A transfer always takes much time.'
    b. Uitreikingen zijn altijd feestelijke aangelegenheden.
      presentations  are  always  festive  occasions
    [+]  1.  Ing-nominalizations with the theme argument expressed

    The sentences in (352) are examples of ing-nominalizations based on ditransitive verbs in which only the theme argument is expressed. This argument preferably takes the form of a postnominal van-PP, but, in the case of a +human theme, a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase can also be used.

    Example 352
    a. De overdracht van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel.
      the transfer  of the prisoners  passed  quickly
      'The transfer of the prisoner passed of without any problems.'
    a'. HunTheme overdracht verliep zonder problemen.
      their transfer  passed  without problems
    b. De uitreiking van de prijzenTheme duurde lang.
      the presentation  of the prizes  lasted  long
    [+]  2.  Ing-nominalizations with the agent and the theme argument expressed

    Agent arguments take the form of a door-PP. In the unmarked case, the door-phrase follows both the nominal head and the theme argument, as in (353a&b). Reversing the order of theme and agent is normally impossible: examples like (353a'&b') are at best marginally acceptable with contrastive accent on the theme. In generic sentences like (353a''&b''), the result of reversing the order seems more acceptable.

    Example 353
    a. De overdracht van de gevangenenTheme door de bewakersAgent verliep snel.
      the transfer  of the prisoners  by the guards  passed quickly
    a'. ?? De overdracht door de bewakersAgent van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel.
    a''. ? Overdrachten door onervaren bewakersAgent van gevaarlijke gevangenenTheme dienen te worden vermeden.
      transfers  by inexperienced guards  of dangerous prisoners  should  to be  avoided
    b. De uitreiking van de prijzenTheme door de voorzitterAgent duurde lang.
      the presentation  of the prizes  by the chairman  lasted  long
    b'. ?? De uitreiking door de voorzitterAgent van de prijzenTheme duurde lang.
    b''. ? Uitreikingen door voorzittersAgent van grote prijzenTheme duren altijd lang.
      presentations  by chairmen  of prestigious prizes  last always long

    As shown by examples (354a&b), the agent can also appear as a possessive pronoun or a genitive noun phrase. In all these cases, the theme argument takes the form of a postnominal van-PP. In the case of a +human theme, the theme may also take the form of a possessive pronoun, in which case the agent appears postnominally as a door-PP, as shown by example (354c).

    Example 354
    a. Hun/Jan en PetersAgent overdracht van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel.
      their/Jan and Peterʼs  transfer  of the prisoners  passed  quickly
    b. Zijn/JansAgent uitreiking van de prijzenTheme duurde lang.
      his/Janʼs  presentation  of the prizes  lasted  long
    c. ? HunTheme overdracht door de bewakersAgent verliep snel.
      their  transfer  by the guards  passed  quickly
    [+]  3.  Ing-nominalizations with the theme and the recipient argument expressed

    Alternatively, it may be the recipient argument that co-occurs with the theme argument. As is shown in the primeless examples in (355), the recipient always takes the form of a postnominal aan-PP following the theme. The primed examples show that the order with the recipient aan-PP preceding the theme is degraded, even in the doubly-primed, generic examples.

    Example 355
    a. De overdracht van de gevangenenTheme aan de politieRec verliep snel.
      the transfer  of the prisoners  to the police  passed  quickly
    a'. ?? De overdracht aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel.
    a''. ?? Overdrachten aan jonge politieagentenRec van gevaarlijke gevangenenTheme dienen te worden vermeden.
      transfers  to young policemen  of dangerous prisoners  ought  to be  avoided
    b. De uitreiking van de prijzenTheme aan de winnaarsRec duurde lang.
      the presentation  of the prizes  to the winners  lasted  long
    b'. ?? De uitreiking aan de winnaarsRec van de prijzenTheme duurde lang.
    b''. ?? Uitreikingen aan winnaarsRec van grote prijzenTheme duren altijd lang.
      presentations  to winners  of prestigious prizes  last  always  long

    The examples in (356a&b) show that the recipient argument cannot appear as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. This position can only be taken by the theme with the recipient appearing as an aan-PP in postnominal position, as in (356c).

    Example 356
    a. * Hun/PetersRec overdracht van de gevangenenTheme verliep snel.
      their/ Peterʼs  transfer  of the prisoners  passed  quickly
    b. * Hun/PetersRec uitreiking van de prijzenTheme duurde lang.
      their/ Peterʼs  presentation  of the prizes  lasted  long
    c. Hun/PetersTheme overdracht aan de politieRec verliep snel.
      their/Peterʼs  transfer  to the police  passed  quickly
    [+]  4.  Ing-nominalizations with all three arguments expressed

    Ing-nominalizations with all three arguments expressed are forced and will rarely be encountered. If all arguments appear as postnominal PPs, the preferred order seems to be that in which the theme (as a van-PP) is closest to the head, followed by the recipient aan-PP and the agentive door-PP, as in (357a). Reversing the order of recipient and agent, as in (357b), seems possible, which may be related to the fact that the aan-PP may undergo PP-over-V in the corresponding verbal construction. Reversing the order of theme and recipient, as in (357c), gives rise to a marginal result. The three other logically possible orders are unacceptable to various degrees, with the possible exception of the generic counterpart of example (357c): ?Overdrachten door onervaren bewakers van gevaarlijke gevangenen aan jonge politieagenten.

    Example 357
    a. de overdracht van de gevangenenTheme aan de politieRec door de bewakersAgent
      the transfer  of the prisoners  to the police  by the guards
    b. (?) de overdracht van de gevangenenTheme door de bewakersAgent aan de politieRec
    c. ? de overdracht aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme door de bewakersAgent
    d. *? de overdracht aan de politieRec door de bewakersAgent van de gevangenenTheme
    e. ?? de overdracht door de bewakersAgent van de gevangenenTheme aan de politieRec
    f. * de overdracht door de bewakersAgent aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme

          The examples in (358a&b) show that both the theme and the agent argument can take the form of a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. With a prenominal theme the postnominal recipient- and agent-PP again seem to be able to appear in either order, whereas in the case of a prenominal agent it is clearly preferred that the theme-PP precedes the recipient. The unacceptability of (358c) shows again that a recipient argument cannot appear as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase; cf. example (356).

    Example 358
    a. hun/PetersTheme overdracht aan de politieRec door de bewakersAgent
      their/Peterʼs  transfer  to the police  by the guards
    a'. (?) hun/PetersTheme overdracht door de bewakersAgent aan de politieRec
    b. hun/PetersAgent overdracht van de gevangenenTheme aan de politieRec
      their/Peterʼs  transfer  of the prisoners  to the police
    b'. ?? hun/PetersAgent overdracht aan de politieRec van de gevangenenTheme
    c. * hun/PetersRec overdracht van de gevangenenTheme door de bewakersAgent
      their/Peterʼs  transfer  of the prisoners  by the guards
    [+]  E.  Ing-nominalizations derived from verbs with prepositional arguments

    Ing-nominalizations can also inherit PP-arguments from base verbs like jagen op'to hunt for', which select their own specific preposition. In all cases, the ing-nominalization inherits the preposition selected by the input verb: in the examples in (359) the theme does not appear as a van-PP, but as a PP headed by op. These examples also show that it is easier to place the agentive door-phrase in front of the inherited PP-complement than to place it in front of a theme that is realized as a postnominal van-PP; cf. (346). Possibly, this is related to the fact that these PP-complements may undergo PP-over-V in the corresponding verbal construction.

    Example 359
    a. De jacht op groot wildTheme door adellijke herenAgent is verachtelijk.
      the hunt  on big game  by noble gentlemen  is despicable
      'The hunting of big game by the nobility is despicable.'
    b. De jacht door adellijke herenAgent op groot wildTheme is verachtelijk.

    Another difference between these ing-nominalizations and those derived from transitive verbs is illustrated in the examples in (360), which show that in dyadic constructions involving inheritance of a PP argument, only the agent argument can appear as a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase, which suggests that the selected preposition must be overtly realized.

    Example 360
    a. Hun/JansAgent jacht op groot wildTheme is verachtelijk.
      their  hunt  on big game  is despicable
    b. * Hun/JansTheme jacht door adellijke herenAgent is verachtelijk.
      their  hunt  by noble gentlemen  is despicable

          The inherited PP-argument need not be a theme; in the nominalization of the verb aanbevelen voor'to recommend for' in (361), for example, it involves a third argument of the verb (which we may conveniently assign the thematic role goal) that is preceded by the preposition voor instead of aan. The (a)-examples show that the theme argument preferably precedes the goal argument, and the (b)-examples illustrate again that it is easier to place an agentive door-PP like door de commissie'by the committee' in front of an inherited PP-complement than in front of a theme realized as a postnominal van-PP. The order in (361c) order in (361c), which combines the two dispreferred orders in (361a') and (361b''), seems impossible.

    Example 361
    a. De aanbeveling van JanTheme voor die baanGoal werd genegeerd.
      the recommendation  of Jan  for the job  was ignored
    a'. ?? De aanbeveling voor de baanGoal van JanTh werd genegeerd.
    b. De aanbeveling van JanTh voor de baanGoal door de commissieAg werd genegeerd.
    b'. De aanbeveling van JanTh door de commissieAg voor de baanGoal werd genegeerd.
    b''. ?? De aanbeveling door de commissieAgt van JanTh voor de baanGoal werd genegeerd.
    c. * De aanbeveling door de commissieAg voor de baanGoal van JanTh werd genegeerd.

    The examples in (362) show that also in this case either the agent or the theme argument of the ing-nominalization can appear prenominally as a genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun, whereas the goal argument must appear as a postnominal PP.

    Example 362
    a. zijn/PetersTheme aanbeveling voor de baan door de commissieAgent
      his  recommendation  for the job  by the committee
    b. hun/Jan en PetersAgent aanbeveling van JanTheme voor de baan
      their/Jan and Peterʼs  recommendation  of Jan  for the job
    [+]  F.  Ing-nominalizations derived from verbs taking a complementive

    Unlike inf-nominalizations, ing-nominalizations do not normally accept as input verbs selecting an adjectival complementive (predicative complement). This is illustrated by the primed examples in (363), which show that these constructions are unacceptable regardless of whether the predicate is post- or prenominal.

    Example 363
    a. Jan is dood gevallen.
      Jan has  dead  dropped
      'Jan dropped dead.'
    a'. * De <dood> val van Jan <dood> schokte ons.
      the  dead  fall  of Jan  horrified  us
    b. De regering heeft het gebied veilig verklaard.
      the government  has  the area  safe  declared
      'The government has declared the area safe.'
    b'. * De <veilig> verklaring van het gebied <veilig> (door de regering) verraste ons.
      the    safe  declaration  of the area  by the government  surprised  us

    Exceptions to the rule that verbs taking an adjectival complementive cannot be the input of ing-nominalization are heiligverklaring'canonization/beatification' and goedkeuring'approval'. This may be related to the fact that in these examples the adjective and the verb are more or less fixed collocations; the adjectives may therefore be interpreted like a kind of verbal particle, which can likewise be part of ing-nominalizations: cf. onderdompeling'immersion', which is derived from the particle verb onder dompelen'immerse'.
          If the complementive is introduced by a preposition like tot'to' or als'as', ing-nominalization is also possible. This is illustrated in examples (364a&b). In such constructions the complementive can only occur postnominally; placing it in prenominal position results in ungrammaticality.

    Example 364
    a. De benoeming van Jan tot voorzitter was verstandig.
      the  appointment  of Jan  to chairman  was  wise
      'Janʼs appointment to chairman was wise.'
    b. De kroning van Karel V tot keizer was een historische gebeurtenis.
      the  crowning  of Charles V  to emperor was  a historical event
      'The crowning of Charles V as emperor was a historical event.'
    c. Peters karakterisering van ons voorstel als fantasieloos was onterecht.
      Peterʼs  characterization  of our proposal  as unimaginative  was not justified
    d. Haar omschrijving van de reis als boeiend was ironisch bedoeld.
      her  description  of the trip  as fascinating  was  ironically  meant
      'Her description of the trip as fascinating was meant ironically.'
    [+]  G.  Conclusion

          The preceding subsections have been concerned with the most important aspects of complementation of ing-nominalization, in particular the form and position of the various arguments and their relation to the nominalized head. Let us summarize the main points. In unaccusative ing-nominalizations, the theme argument is obligatorily present and typically appears postnominally as a van-PP. The theme argument of dyadic ing-nominalizations is also obligatory (when they have specific reference). This theme argument can be realized as a postnominal van-PP, in which case it is preferably placed adjacent to the head, or as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. The presence of the agent, on the other hand, is optional. In triadic ing-nominalizations, themes are typically expressed, while recipients and agents are often omitted. If the latter are expressed, they are realized as aan- and door-PPs, respectively, and follow the theme in postnominal position. The agent preferably follows both theme and recipient. In all cases, the theme and agent argument may also take the form of a prenominal genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun, provided that they are +human.
          Schematically, the above can be represented as in Table 8, which gives us the basic patterns of ing-nominalizations. This table does not include ing-nominalizations derived from verbs taking a PP-complement or a complementive introduced by als/tot, which are also inherited by the nominalization.