• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
    2.1.3.Ditransitive and dyadic unaccusative (nom-dat) verbs
    quickinfo

    Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 discussed verbs with at most one internal nominal argument: (i) impersonal and intransitive verbs without an internal argument, and (ii) monadic unaccusative and transitive verbs with an internal theme argument. These verbs can be further divided into unergative and unaccusative verbs, that is, verbs with and verbs without an external argument. This section continues by discussing verbs with two internal nominal arguments, and we will show that such verbs must likewise be divided into two groups: unergative verbs like aanbieden'to offer' in (80a) are normally called ditransitive or double object verbs because their internal arguments both surface as objects; unaccusative verbs like bevallen'to please' in (80b) are called nom-dat verbs because their internal theme argument surfaces as (nominative) subject, whereas their second internal argument is realized as a dative phrase; see Subsection I for a more detailed discussion.

    Example 80
    a. Jan biedt Marie het boek aan.
    ditransitive verb
      Jan offers  Marie  the book  prt.
      'Jan is offering Marie the book.'
    b. dat jouw verhalen mijn broer niet bevielen.
    nom-dat verbs
      that  your stories  my brother  not  pleased
      'that your stories didnʼt please my brother.'

    If subjects of nom-dat verbs are indeed internal arguments, we end up with the classification of verbs given in Table 4, which seems to be the one normally assumed in current versions of generative grammar.

    Table 4: Classification of verbs according to the nominal arguments they take (prefinal)
      name external argument internal argument(s)
    no internal
    argument    		 intransitive nominative (subject) —
      impersonal — —
    one internal
    argument     		transitive nominative (subject) accusative (direct object)
      unaccusative — nominative (DO-subject)
    two internal
    arguments    		 ditransitive nominative (subject) dative (indirect object)
    accusative (direct object)
      nom-dat — dative (indirect object)
    nominative (DO-subject)

    Table 4 shows that transitive verbs can be confused with nom-dat verbs given that they both take a subject and an object. In languages like German, the two verb types can readily be distinguished by means of case-assignment: transitive verbs assign accusative case to their object, whereas nom-dat verbs assign dative case. Since Dutch does not distinguish these two cases morphologically, Subsection II will introduce a number of other tests that can help to distinguish the two verb types. But Subsection I will first provide a brief general introduction to the ditransitive and nom-dat verbs.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  General introduction

    This subsection briefly introduces two verb classes that take two internal arguments: ditransitive and nom-dat verbs. The latter verb class is unaccusative and the standard unaccusativity tests therefore predict that they will take the auxiliary zijn'to be' in the perfect tense. We will see, however, that there are in fact two types of nom-dat verbs: one type that takes the auxiliary zijn and another type that takes the auxiliary hebben'to have'. This supports our finding in Section 2.1.2, sub III, that selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for assuming unaccusativity.

    [+]  A.  Ditransitive (double object) verbs

    Ditransitive verbs take an external argument, which is realized as the subject of the clause, and two internal arguments, which are realized as, respectively, an indirect object (the goal/source argument) and a direct object (the theme argument). Examples of such ditransitive verbs are aanbieden'to offer' and afpakken'to take away' in (81).

    Example 81
    a. Jan biedt MarieIO het boekDO aan.
      Jan offers  Marie  the book  prt.
      'Jan is offering Marie the book.'
    b. Marie pakt JanIO het boekDO af.
      Marie takes  Jan  the book  away
      'Marie takes away the book from Jan.'

    Example (82) provides a small sample of such double object verbs.

    Example 82
    Ditransitive verbs: aanbieden'to offer', aanbevelen'to recommend', afpakken'to take away', beloven'to promise', bevelen'to order', geven'to give', nalaten'to bequeath', onthouden'to withhold', ontnemen'to take away', opbiechten'to confess', schenken'to give', sturen'to send', toesturen'to send', toeroepen'to call', toezeggen'to promise', verbieden'to forbid', verkopen'to sell', vragen'to ask', verhuren'to rent', zenden'to send', etc.

    Although Dutch has no morphologically realized cases on non-pronominal noun phrases, it is generally assumed on the basis of comparable constructions in German that the two objects are assigned different cases: the indirect object is assigned dative, whereas the direct object is assigned accusative case. In many cases, the indirect object need not be overtly realized, but if it is not present, it is normally semantically implied: if we drop the dative noun phrase in the examples in (83), for instance, the goal of the event is assumed to be some salient entity in the domain of discourse.

    Example 83
    a. Jan biedt (Marie/haardat) het boekacc aan.
      Jan offers   Marie/her  the book  prt.
      'Jan offers (Marie/her) the book.'
    b. Marie beloofde (Jan/hemdat) een mooi cadeauacc.
      Marie promised   Jan/him  a beautiful present
      'Marie promised (Jan) a beautiful present.'
    [+]  B.  Nom-dat verbs

    Monadic unaccusative verbs are characterized by having an internal theme argument that surfaces as the DO-subject of the clause. We would therefore also expect there to be a class of unaccusative verbs with two internal arguments, one of which surfaces as a derived subject. Den Besten (1985) has argued that such dyadic unaccusative verbs do indeed exist, and are instantiated by the so-called nom-dat verbs. The name of these verbs is due to the fact that they take a theme argument, which is assigned nominative case, as well as an experiencer argument, which is assigned dative case. This is not directly observable in Dutch, because, as noted in the previous subsection, the difference between dative and accusative case is not morphologically expressed in this language, but it is in German examples such as (84a); (84b) provides the Dutch translation of this example.

    Example 84
    a. dass deine Geschichtennom meinem Bruderdat nicht gefielen.
    German
      that  your stories  my brother  not  liked
    b. dat jouw verhalen mijn broer niet bevielen.
    Dutch
      that  your stories  my brother  not  liked
      'that my brother didnʼt like your stories.'

    The experiencer argument (indirect object) is normally obligatorily expressed or at least semantically implied. In the latter case, the implicit experiencer is often construed as referring to the speaker, but it can also be interpreted generically.

    Example 85
    a. Deze tekstverwerker bevalt in het algemeen goed.
      this word processor  pleases  in general  well
      'Generally speaking, Iʼm/people are pleased with this word processor.'
    b. Het lezen van dit boek valt mee.
      the reading of this book  falls  prt.
      'Reading this book is less difficult than I expected/one may expect.'

    Subsection II will show that subjects of nom-dat verbs differ from subjects of transitive verbs in that they are internal arguments; they behave in various respects like the DO-subjects of monadic unaccusative verbs discussed in Section 2.1.2, and also exhibit behavior similar to that of the derived subjects of the passivized ditransitive verbs in (86).

    Example 86
    a. Het boeknom wordt Marie (door Jan) aangeboden.
      the book  is  Marie   by Jan  prt.-offered
      'The book is offered to Marie (by Jan).'
    b. Het boeknom wordt Jan (door Marie) af gepakt.
      the book  is  Jan   by Marie  away  taken
      'The book is taken away from Jan (by Marie).'
    [+]  C.  Two types of nom-dat verbs

    Section 2.1.2, sub III, suggested that there are two classes of monadic unaccusative verbs, one taking the auxiliary zijn and another taking the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense, and Subsection IIC, will support this claim by showing that the same thing holds for nom-dat, that is, dyadic unaccusative verbs. Two examples are given in (87) in which the order nominative-dative clearly indicates that we are dealing with nom-dat verbs.

    Example 87
    a. dat Peter/hem die fout niet is opgevallen.
      that  Peter/him  that error  not  is  stand.out
      'that Peter/he didnʼt notice that error.'
    b. dat Peter/hem die maaltijd goed smaakte.
      that  Peter/him  that meal  good  tasted
      'that the meal tasted good to Peter/him.'

    Example (88) provides small samples of both types of verbs, which are taken from a more general list from Den Besten (1985:fn.7). Since Dutch does not express case by morphological means, it cannot immediately be established that the verbs in (88) are indeed nom-dat verbs, but this is possible for the German counterparts of these verbs; see Drosdowski (1995) for an extensive list and Lenerz (1977) for a more extensive discussion of the behavior of such German verbs.

    Example 88
    a. Nom-dat verbs selecting zijn'to be': (e.g., gemakkelijk) afgaan'to come easy to', (e.g., goed) bekomen'to agree with', bevallen'to please', lukken'to succeed', invallen'to occur to', meevallen'to turn out better/less difficult than expected', ontgaan'to escape', ontschieten'to slip oneʼs mind', ontvallen'to elude', opvallen'to stand out/catch the eye', overkomen'to happen to', tegenlopen'to go wrong', tegenvallen'to disappoint', ( goed) uitkomen'to suit well', verschijnen'to appear', etc.
    b. Nom-dat verbs selecting hebben'to have': aanspreken'to appeal', aanstaan'to please', behagen'to please', berouwen'to regret', betamen'to befit', bevreemden'to surprise', bijstaan'to dimly recollect', duizelen'to make someoneʼs head swim', heugen'to remember', (e.g., goed) liggen'to appeal to', ontbreken'to fail to', passen'to fit', schaden'to do damage to', schikken'to suit', smaken'to taste', spijten'to regret', tegenstaan'to pall on', tegenzitten'be out of luck', voldoen'to satisfy', ( niet) zinnen'to please', etc.

    Native speakers sometimes have varying judgments on auxiliary selection; for some speakers, the verb bevallen'to please' is (also) compatible with the auxiliary hebben, as is clear from the fact that such cases can readily be found on the internet. To our knowledge, it has not been investigated whether this shift in auxiliary selection affects the other properties of the verb that will be discussed in Subsection II.

    Example 89
    Dat boek is/%heeft Marie/haar goed bevallen.
      that book  is/has  Marie/her  well  pleased
    'Mary liked that book a lot.'

    Further note that it is sometimes difficult to give satisfactory English renderings of the verbs in (88), due to the fact that English normally expresses the same meaning by using completely different syntactic frames; in English, the experiencer is often realized as the subject and not as the object of the clause (which perhaps need not surprise us, given that in English passivization of ditransitive constructions normally requires the goal, and not the theme, argument to be promoted to subject).

    [+]  D.  Some miscellaneous remarks on nom-dat verbs

    In German objects of nom-dat verbs are assigned dative case, just like indirect objects of double object constructions. This may give rise to the expectation that these objects exhibit similar syntactic behavior. There is, however, at least one conspicuous difference between them; the examples in (90) show that whereas dative objects of ditransitive verbs often alternate with prepositional phrases, objects of nom-dat verbs do not have this option. This fact might be related to a difference in thematic roles carried by the respective dative objects; prototypical cases of dative/PP alternation involve recipient/goal arguments, not experiencers. The alternation in the (a)-examples will be discussed in detail in Section 3.3.1.

    Example 90
    a. Jan heeft Marie/haar het boek aangeboden.
      Jan has  Marie/her  the book  prt.-offered
      'Jan offered Marie/her the book.'
    a'. Jan heeft het boek aan Marie/haar aangeboden.
      Jan has  the book  to Marie/her  prt.-offered
    b. Dat boek is Marie/haar goed bevallen.
      that book  is Marie/her  well  pleased
      'Mary liked that book a lot.'
    b'. * Dat boek is aan Marie/haar goed bevallen.
      that book  is to Marie/her  well  pleased

          Some nom-dat verbs seem to be undergoing a reanalysis process in the direction of regular transitive verbs. This is clearly the case with the verb passen'to fit' in (91); besides (91a), in which the experiencer is realized as a dative object, the construction in (91b) is judged acceptable by many speakers. Perhaps this reanalysis goes hand in hand with a change of meaning; although example (91b) can be used in the same sense as (91a), with the subject functioning as an experiencer, it can also be used to express that someone is trying on the shoes, in which case the subject is construed as an agent (an alternative option is that the latter reading is related to the particle verb aanpassen'to fit on', which cannot be used as a nom-dat verb).

    Example 91
    a. Die schoenen passen mij.
      those shoes  fit  me
      'Those shoes fit me.'
    b. Ik pas die schoenen.
      I  fit  those shoes
      'Those shoes fit me.' or 'Iʼm trying on those shoes.'

          Closer inspection of the individual nom-datverbs in (88) reveals that many of these verbs are either morphologically complex in the sense that they are prefixed by the morpheme be-or ont-, or obligatorily accompanied by a verbal particle. Although this has been noted before, it has not been thoroughly investigated whether this is theoretically significant. In this connection, it has been suggested that prefixes like be-and ont-and particles can both be considered secondary predicates; cf. Section 2.2.3, sub IIIB, for discussion.

    [+]  II.  Properties of ditransitive and nom-dat verbs

    Transitive and nom-dat verbs both take a subject and an object. Given that Dutch does not make a morphological distinction between accusative and dative case, the two classes cannot be immediately recognized on the basis of their form. The following subsections will therefore investigate a number of properties of ditransitive and nom-dat verbs; we will show that the subjects of the latter behave in various respects like the theme arguments of the former. This means that nom-dat verbs and transitive verbs differ in ways similar to the intransitive and unaccusative verbs discussed in Section 2.1.2.

    [+]  A.  Thematic role of the subject

    Section 2.1.2, sub IIIA, has shown that intransitive and transitive verbs generally denote actions. The subject of the clause normally functions as an agent and therefore typically refers to a +animate entity. Examples (92a&b) show that the same thing holds for ditransitive verbs; the subject of the double object construction is normally an agent performing the action denoted by the verb, and for this reason it is typically a +animate participant or an institution (which is then seen as a collection of individuals). Although there are some exceptional cases such as (92c), the overall pattern seems consistent with the idea that the subjects of double object constructions are external arguments.

    Example 92
    Ditransitive verbs
    a. Jan/*De gelegenheid bood Marie het boek aan.
      Jan/the occasion  offered  Marie  the book  prt.
      'Jan/The occasion offered Marie/her a book.'
    b. Marie/*De gelegenheid beloofde Jan een mooi cadeau.
      Marie/the  occasion  promised  Jan a beautiful present
      'Marie/the occasion promised Jan a beautiful present.'
    c. Jan/Deze gelegenheid bood haar een kans om zich te bewijzen.
      Jan/this occasion  offered  her  a chance  comp  refl  to prove
      'This occasion offered her an opportunity to prove herself.'

    Nom-dat verbs, on the other hand, denote processes or states. The subject of such verbs functions as a theme, that is, the participant that undergoes the process or is in the state denoted by the verb. That the subject is not an agent also accounts for the fact that the subject of a nom-dat verb often refers to a -animate participant in the state of affairs. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the subject of a nom-dat verb is an internal argument, just like the subject of the unaccusative verbs discussed in 2.1.2. Two examples are given in (93).

    Example 93
    nom-dat verbs
    a. Deze vakantie beviel de jongen/hem goed.
      these holidays  pleased  the boy/him  well
      'These holidays pleased the boy well.'
    b. Deze laffe daad stond Els/haar erg tegen.
      this cowardly deed  palled  Els/her  much  on
      'This cowardly deed disgusted Els/her very much.'

    External arguments are normally noun phrases; see the introduction to Chapter 2. The fact that the subject of a nom-dat verb may be a clause also suggests that it is an internal argument. Note in passing that the subject clause may appear either in sentence-initial or sentence-final position; if it is in final position the regular subject position is occupied by the anticipatory pronoun het'it'.

    Example 94
    a. [Dat de vakantie zo lang duurt], bevalt de jongen prima.
      that the vacation so long lasts  pleases  the boy  much
      'that the vacation lasts so long pleases the boy.'
    a'. Het bevalt de jongen prima [dat de vakantie zo lang duurt].
    b. [Dat hij zoʼn laffe daad gepleegd heeft], stond Els erg tegen.
      that  he  such.a cowardly deed  committed has  pall  Els much  on
      'that he commited such a cowardly disgusted Els/her.'
    b'. Het staat Els tegen [dat hij zoʼn laffe daad gepleegd heeft].
    [+]  B.  ER-nominalization

    Section 2.1.2, sub IIIB, has shown that agentive er-nouns refer to entities that are performing the action denoted by the input verb. Since ditransitive verbs have an external argument, we correctly predict that they can be the input of er-nominalization. Some examples are given in (95).

    Example 95
    a. een gever/schenker van dure cadeaus
      a  giv-er  of expensive presents
    b. een verkoper van tweedehands autoʼs
      a  sell-er  of second.hand cars
    c. de zender van het bericht
      the  send-er  of the message

    For unclear reasons, however, er-nominalization gives rise to a marginal or even impossible result in several other cases. Some examples are given in (96).

    Example 96
    a. ? een aanbieder van boeken
      a  offer-er  of books
    b. * een belover van dure cadeaus
      a  promis-er  of expensive presents
    c. * een ontnemer van eer
      a  take-away-er  of honor

          Since the nom-dat verbs do not have an external argument it is predicted that they cannot be the input for the formation of agentive er-nouns. As is shown in (97), this seems indeed to be borne out. The examples in (97a) and (97b) correspond to some of the nom-dat verbs in (88a) and (88b), respectively.

    Example 97
    a. * een bevaller, *een lukker, *een ontganer, *een ontschieter, *een ontvaller, *een opvaller, *een overkomer
    b. * een aanstaner, *een behager, *een berouwer, *een bevreemder, *een smaker

    Note that, as in the case of the monadic unaccusative verbs, there seem to be a number of lexicalized exceptions. That these forms are not the result of a productive process is clear from the fact that, e.g., the derived form in (98b) cannot be used to refer to the referent of the subject in an example such as Dat boek/Jan viel me tegen'that book/Jan disappointed me'.

    Example 98
    a. meevaller
      better.than.expect-er
      'stroke of luck/unexpected budget credit'
    b. tegenvaller
      disappoint-er
      'disappointment/unexpected budget deficit'
    [+]  C.  Auxiliary selection

    Section 2.1.2, sub IIIC, has argued that all an external argument take the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense. The examples in (99) show that ditransitive verbs also select this auxiliary.

    Example 99
    Ditransitive verbs
    a. Jan heeft/*is Marie het boek aangeboden.
      Jan has/is  Marie the book  prt.-offered
      'Jan has offered Marie the book.'
    b. Marie heeft/*is Jan een mooi cadeau beloofd.
      Marie has/is  Jan a beautiful present  promised
      'Marie has promised Jan a beautiful present.'

    Section 2.1.2, sub III, on the other hand, has argued that, depending on their aspectual properties, monadic unaccusative verbs can take either hebben or zijn in the perfect tense. The same thing holds for dyadic unaccusative verbs. In (100), examples are given of nom-dat verbs taking the auxiliary zijn. In (101), we give some examples of nom-dat verbs taking the auxiliary hebben.

    Example 100
    nom-dat verbs selecting zijn
    a. De ergste rampen zijn/*hebben het meisje/haardat overkomen.
      the worst disasters  are/have  the girl/her  happened
      'The worst disasters have happened to the girl/her.'
    b. Dit boek is/*heeft de jongen/hemdat goed bevallen.
      this book  is/has  the boy/him  well  pleased
      'The boy/he was very pleased by this book.'
    Example 101
    nom-dat verbs selecting hebben
    a. Deze laffe daad heeft/*is het meisje/haardat erg tegengestaan.
      this cowardly deed  has/is  the girl/her  much  on-pall
      'This cowardly deed disgusted the girl/her.'
    b. De soep heeft/*is de gast/hemdat goed gesmaakt.
      the soup has/is  the guest/him  good  tasted
      'The guest/He enjoyed the soup.'

    The fact that the verbs in (100) take the auxiliary zijn is sufficient to conclude that they are unaccusative and, consequently, that the subject is a DO-subject. The fact that the verbs in (101) do not take zijn but hebben is due to the fact that they are atelic; they denote a state of affairs without an implied endpoint.

    [+]  D.  Attributive use of the past/passive participle

    Section 2.1.2, sub IIID, has shown that past/passive participles of transitive verbs can be used attributively to modify nouns corresponding to the direct object of the corresponding active verbs. As is shown in (102a&b), the same thing holds for the past/passive participles of ditransitive verbs. The indirect object normally remains implicit in these cases, but it can also be overtly expressed if it is a pronoun; if it is a non-pronominal noun phrase, the result seems somewhat marked.

    Example 102
    Attributive use of past/passive participle of ditransitive verb
    a. het (haar/?Marie) aangeboden boekTheme
      the her/Marie  prt.-offered  book
      'the book offered (to her/Marie)'
    b. het (hem/?Jan) beloofde cadeauTheme
      the  him/Jan  promised  present
      'the present promised (to him/Jan)'

    The examples in (103) show that, as in the case of transitive verbs, past/passive participles of ditransitive verbs cannot be used to modify a noun corresponding to the subject of the corresponding active verb.

    Example 103
    a. * de haar/Mariedat het boekacc aangeboden jongenAgent
      the her/Marie  the book  prt.-offered  boy
      Intended reading: 'the boy who promised the book to Mary/her'
    b. * de de jongens/hendat het cadeauacc beloofde meisjeAgent
      the the boys/them  the present  promised  girl
      Intended reading: 'the girl who promised the present to the boys/them'

    Using the past/passive participle to modify the indirect object is unacceptable for some speakers but at least marginally acceptable to others. Note that the theme argument must be overtly expressed in these cases; if it is dropped, the examples in (104) become totally unacceptable for all speakers.

    Example 104
    a. het *(?dit boek) aangeboden meisjegoal
      the      this book  prt.-offered  girl
      'the girl who was offered this book'
    b. de *(?dit cadeau) beloofde jongengoal
      the      this present  promised  boy
      'the boy who was promised the present'

          Section 2.1.2, sub III, has shown that past/passive participles of monadic unaccusative verbs selecting zijn can be used attributively to modify a noun corresponding to the subject of the corresponding active verb, whereas the past/passive participle of a monadic unaccusative verbs selecting hebben cannot. The same correlation arises in the case of the dyadic unaccusative verbs; in (105) we give two examples with the past participles of nom-dat verbs selecting zijn, and in (106) two examples with nom-dat verbs selecting hebben.

    Example 105
    Attributive use of past/passive participle of nom-dat verbs selecting zijn
    a. de haar/?het meisjedat overkomen rampenTheme
      the  her/the girl  happened  disasters
      'the disasters that happened to her/the girl'
    b. de hem/?deze jongendat goed bevallen vakantieTheme
      the  him/this boy  well  pleased  holiday
      'the holiday that pleased this boy much'
    Example 106
    Attributive use of past/passive participle of nom-dat verbs selecting hebben
    a. * de haar/het meisjedat tegengestane laffe daadTheme
      the  her/the girl  on-pall  cowardly deed
      Intended reading: 'the cowardly deed that disgusted her/the girl.'
    b. * de hem/de gastdat gesmaakte soepTheme
      the  him/the guest  tasted  soup
      Intended reading: 'the soup he/the guest enjoyed'

    The fact that the past participles in (105) are able to modify the nouns that correspond to the subjects of the corresponding active verbs is sufficient to conclude that the verb is unaccusative. The fact that the past participles in (106) are not able to modify the noun that corresponds to the subject of the corresponding active verb is due to the fact that these verbs are atelic; they denote a state of affairs without an implied endpoint.

    [+]  E.  (Impersonal) passive

    Section 2.1.2, sub IIIE, has shown that whereas intransitive and transitive verbs can be passivized, unaccusative verbs like arriveren'to arrive' cannot. From this we concluded that having an external argument is a necessary condition for passivization. From this, it correctly follows that ditransitive verbs can normally be passivized, as is illustrated in (107). Observe that the agent can be optionally expressed by means of an agentive door-phrase.

    Example 107
    Ditransitive verbs
    a. Het boek werd Marie/haardat (door Jan) aangeboden.
      the book  was  Marie/her   by Jan  prt.-offered
      'The book was given to Marie/her (by Jan).'
    b. Het cadeau werd Jan/hemdat (door Marie) beloofd.
      the present  was  Jan/him   by Marie  promised
      'The present was promised to Jan/him (by Marie).'

    If the nom-dat verbs are indeed dyadic unaccusative verbs, we would expect that they cannot be passivized. The examples in (108) and (109) show that this expectation is indeed borne out; impersonal passivization is excluded.

    Example 108
    Impersonal passive of nom-dat verbs selecting zijn
    a. Die jongen viel haar op.
      that boy  stand  her  out
      'That boy caught her eye.'
    b. * Er werd haar opgevallen (door die jongen).
      there  was  her  out-caught   by that boy
    Example 109
    Impersonal passive of nom-dat verbs selecting hebben
    a. Die jongen bevreemdde haar.
      that boy  surprised  her
      'that boy surprised/puzzled her.'
    b. * Er werd haar bevreemd (door die jongen).
      there  was  her  surprised   by that boy

    The examples in (110) show that the dative object of an active sentence cannot function as the subject of a passive sentence either. This provides additional evidence that nom-dat verbs cannot be considered regular transitive verbs.

    Example 110
    a. * Zijnom werd (door die jongen) opgevallen.
      she  was   by that boy  out-stood
    b. * Zijnom wordt (door die jongen) bevreemd.
      she  was   by that boy  surprised

    Observe that we took examples with human subjects, since it is often claimed that there is an animacy restriction on passivization; clauses that contain a -animate subject cannot be passivized.

    [+]  F.  Argument order (nominative-dative inversion)

    Although word order in the middle field is relatively free in Dutch, the relative order of the arguments of the verb is more or less fixed. As is shown in (111), the subject of a transitive verb normally must precede the direct object.

    Example 111
    Argument order with active transitive verbs
    a. dat de meisjesnom de krantacc lezen.
      that  the girls  the newspaper  read
    b. * dat de krant de meisjes lezen.

    The same thing holds for the arguments of a ditransitive verb. Under neutral intonation, the subject must precede the indirect object, which in turn precedes the direct object. All other orders are excluded.

    Example 112
    Argument order with active ditransitive verbs
    a. dat Jannom de meisjesdat de krantacc aanbood.
      that  Jan  the girls  the newspaper  prt.-offered
      'that Jan offered the girls the newspaper.'
    b. * dat Jannom de krantacc de meisjesdat aanbood.
    c. * dat de krantacc Jannom de meisjesdat aanbood.
    d. * dat de krantacc de meisjesdat Jannom aanbood.
    e. * dat de meisjesdat Jannom de krantacc aanbood.
    f. * dat de meisjesdat de krantacc Jannom aanbood.

          The nom-dat verbs, however, differ in this respect from the (di-)transitive verbs. The examples in (113) and (114) show that two orders are possible; the subject can either precede or the dative object. This provides direct evidence for the claim that these verbs are not regular transitive verbs.

    Example 113
    Argument order with nom-dat verbs selecting zijn
    a. dat het meisjedat de ergste rampennom overkomen zijn.
      that  the girl  the worst disasters  happened  are
      'that the worst disasters happened to the girl.'
    a'. dat de ergste rampennom het meisjedat overkomen zijn.
    b. dat de jongensdat de vakantienom niet erg bevallen is.
      that  the boys  the holidays  not much  pleased  is
      'that the boys arenʼt very pleased by the holidays.'
    b'. dat de vakantienom de jongensdat niet erg bevallen is.
    Example 114
    Argument order with nom-dat verbs selecting hebben
    a. dat het meisjedat deze laffe daadnom erg tegengestaan heeft.
      that  the girl  this cowardly deed  much  on.-pall  has
      'that this cowardly deed disgusted the girl.'
    a'. dat deze laffe daadnom het meisjedat erg tegengestaan heeft.
    b. dat de gastendat de soepnom uitstekend gesmaakt heeft.
      that  the guest  the soup  very well  tasted  has
      'that the soup pleased the guests very much.'
    b'. dat de soepnom de gastendat uitstekend gesmaakt heeft.

    Interestingly, the examples in (115) show that the same freedom of word order is also allowed in the case of passive constructions with ditransitive verbs. This provides evidence for the claim that the subject of a nom-dat verb is an internal argument comparable to the direct object of a ditransitive verb.

    Example 115
    Argument order in passive constructions with ditransitive verbs
    a. dat de meisjesdat de krantnom aangeboden werd.
      that  the girls  the newspaper  prt.-offered  was
      'that the newspaper was offered to the girls.'
    b. dat de krantnom de meisjesdat aangeboden werd.

          The data in (113) to (115) actually also provide evidence for the claim that the base position of the DO-subject of a nom-dat verb is the same as the direct object of a transitive verb. These positions follow the base position of the indirect object, that is, the primed examples of the nom-dat and passive constructions in (113) to (115) are derived by moving the derived subject into the regular subject position of the clause. In other words, the structure of the primeless examples in (113) to (115) is as schematically indicated in (116a), in which e represents the empty subject position, and those of the primed examples is as in (116b), in which the nominative noun phrase has been moved into this subject position.

    Example 116
    a. dat e ... NPdat NPnom ...
    b. dat NPnom-i ... NPdatti ...

    The difference between the structures in (116a) and (116b) seems to be related to the information structure of the clause. If the nominative argument occupies the position in (116a), it is interpreted as belonging to the focus (new information) of the clause. If it occupies the position in (116b) it belongs to the presupposition (old information) of the clause. This is clear from the fact that existentially quantified subject pronouns, which typically belong to the focus of the clause, must follow the dative noun phrase.

    Example 117
    a. dat de meisjes wat overkomen is.
    nom-dat verb
      that  the girls  something  happened  is
      'that something has happened to the girls.'
    a'. * dat wat de meisjes overkomen is.