Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

6.2.1.The three main construction types

quickinfo

This section discusses the three subtypes of three main types of constructions containing a complementive adjective: Subsection I discusses the copular construction, Subsection II the resultative construction, and Subsection III the vinden-construction.

I. The copular construction
- A. The regular copular construction
- B. The semi-copular construction
II. The resultative construction
III. Non-resultative constructions

[+] I. The copular construction

Subsection A starts with a discussion of the Standard Dutch copular construction. In certain dialects, the Standard Dutch construction productively alternates with a construction involving the verb hebben'to have'; this semi-copular construction will be the topic of Subsection B and we will see that Standard Dutch has a similar construction, which is, however, somewhat more restricted in use.

[+] A. The regular copular construction

Section 6.1 has shown that the prototypical occurrence of the complementive adjective is in the copular construction, exemplified in (13). All examples in (13) express that the set referred to by de jongens is a subset of the set denoted by the adjective, albeit that the actual choice of the copula may add certain meaning aspects: the copula zijn is neutral and expresses a purely predicative “N is A" relation; the copula worden'to become' adds an inchoative aspect; the copula blijven'to remain', on the other hand, indicates that some state remains the same; the copula lijken'to seem' indicates that the assertion is based on the subjective perception of the speaker.

a.		De jongens	zijn	groot.
		the boys	are	big

c.		De jongens	bleven	kwaad.
		the boys	remained	angry

b.		De jongens	werden	kwaad.
		the boys	became	angry

d.		De jongens	lijken	moe.
		the boys	seem	tired

Unlike the complementive constructions discussed in Section 6.2.1, sub II/III, the copular construction can be used with all types of set-denoting adjectives; see Section 1.3.2.2 for examples.

[+] B. The semi-copular construction

The eastern varieties of Dutch have an alternative way of conveying the assertions expressed by the Standard Dutch regular copular constructions in (13). Some typical examples of this semi-copular construction, which is often referred to as the band-lek construction, are given in (14); cf. Van Bree (1981) and Cornips (1994).

a.		Jan	heeft	de band	lek.
		Jan	has	the tire	punctured

b.		Hij	heeft	de vrouw	ziek.
		he	has	the wife	ill

Semi-copular constructions in (14) differ from regular copular constructions, however, in that they typically express a possessive relationship between the nominative argument Jan/hij and the logical subject of the adjective; translated into Standard Dutch, the examples in (14) would yield the sentences in (15).

a.		Jans band	is lek.
		Janʼs tire	is punctured

b.		Zijn vrouw	is ziek.
		his wife	is ill

Although the semi-copular construction in (14) is unacceptable in Standard Dutch, there are two acceptable constructions that resemble it. First, consider the examples in (16), which may be rejected by some speakers of Standard Dutch in this form, but which become fully acceptable if the clauses are extended with certain adverbs; see the examples in (18) below.

a.		Jan heeft	de kwast	schoon.
		Jan has	the brush	clean

b.		Jan heeft	het raam	open.
		Jan has	the window	open

The dialectal and Standard Dutch constructions in (14) and (16) differ in at least the following two respects; cf. Broekhuis & Cornips (1994). First, in contrast to what is the case in (14), the examples in (16) do not express a possessive relation. This can be made clear by adding a possessive pronoun to the subject of the adjective: example (17) shows that this leads to an unacceptable result with the dialect construction in (14a), but to a fully acceptable result with the Standard Dutch construction in (16a). Note that example (17a) is acceptable in Standard Dutch with a similar meaning as (17b).

a.	#	Jan heeft	mijn band	lek.
		Jan has	my tire	punctured

b.		Jan heeft	mijn kwast	schoon.
		Jan has	my brush	clean

Second, the Standard Dutch examples in (16) imply that the subject of the clause can affect the state that the object is in, which is clear from the fact that adverbial phrases like nog niet'not yet' or eindelijk'finally' can be added to these examples, as in (18). These adverbial phrases express that the subject of the clause is actively involved in the process of cleaning the brush or closing the window: Jan is in the process of cleaning the brush or opening the window and has not yet/finally succeeded in obtaining the desired result.

a.		Jan heeft	de kwast	nog niet/eindelijk	schoon.
		Jan has	the brush	not yet/finally	clean

b.		Jan heeft	het raam	nog niet/eindelijk	open.
		Jan has	the window	not yet/finally	open

This involvement is also clear from the fact that the verb hebben can be replaced by the verb krijgen'to get', or houden'to keep', as in (19). In such cases, it is possible to use the subject-oriented adverbial phrase met moeite'with difficulty', which underlines the fact that Jan is involved in the process of cleaning the brush or opening the window by expressing that Jan has some difficulty in obtaining the desired result. The use of krijgen and houden is not possible in the dialect constructions in (14) without a shift of meaning in the direction of the Standard Dutch construction: for example, Jan kreeg zijn band niet lek can only be interpreted in such a way that Jan is deliberately puncturing his tire.

a.		Hij	kreeg/hield	de kwast	(met moeite)	schoon.
		he	got/kept	the brush	with difficulty	clean

b.		Hij	kreeg/hield	het raam	(met moeite)	open.
		he	got/kept	the window	with difficulty	open

A second Standard Dutch construction that also involves hebben + adjective is given in (20a). Given that het cannot be replaced by the demonstrative pronoun dat'that', we have to conclude that this construction involves the non-referring element het that we also find in constructions such as (20b) and which is discussed more extensively in Section 6.6.

a.	Ik	heb	het/*dat	benauwd.
	I	have	it/that	hard.to.breathe
	'Iʼm out of breath.'

b.		Het/*Dat	is benauwd.
		it/that	is hard.to.breathe

The verb hebben in (20a) can be replaced by krijgen'to get', as is shown in (21a), but the fact that the adverbial PP met moeite'with difficulty' cannot be added suggests that the subject of the clause is not a controller, but acts as a kind of experiencer. If we use the verb houden, as in (21b), the translation with to keep is no longer appropriate; instead, the proper translation requires the copular verb to remain. This suggests again that the subject functions as an experiencer in this construction.

a.	Ik	krijg	het	(*met moeite)	benauwd.
	I	get	it	with difficulty	hard.to.breathe
	'Iʼm getting out of breath.'

b.	Ik	houd	het	benauwd.
	I	remain/*keep	it	hard.to.breathe
	'Iʼm remaining out of breath.'

In examples such as (22), it does seem possible to add the adverbial PP met moeite and to use the verb houden with the meaning to keep. This is only apparent, however, as example (22a) turns out to be ambiguous: on one reading, the pronoun het is a non-referring expression, just as in (20); on the second reading it is a deictic pronoun that refers to some entity in the domain of discourse (e.g., het gerecht'the dish'), as is clear from the fact that het can be replaced by the demonstrative dat'that'. The examples in (22b&c) are only licensed on the second reading, which actually involves the same construction type as in (16).

a.		Ik	heb	het/dat	warm.
		I	have	it/that	warm

b.		Ik	krijg	het/dat	met moeite	warm.	het = het gerecht
		I	get	it/that	with difficulty	warm

c.		Ik	houd	het/dat	warm.	het = het gerecht
		I	keep	it/that	warm

For completeness’ sake, note that the pronoun het in example (22b) can also be interpreted as an anticipatory pronoun introducing a(n implicit) locational phrase: Ik krijg het met moeite warm (in de kamer)'I can hardly heat the room'; see Section 6.6, sub III, for a discussion of this construction.
The meanings of (20a) and (22a) are very close to the meaning of the copular construction Ik ben benauwd/warm'I am short of breath/warm'. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that the adjective is predicated of the subject ikin (20a) and (22a), since a paraphrase by means of a copular construction is often excluded with structurally similar examples. This is illustrated in (23); the examples in (23a) express a totally different meaning than the examples in (23b). The English paraphrases attempt to express this difference.

a.	Ik	heb	het	gezellig/goed/prettig.
	I	have	it	cozy/good/nice
	'Iʼm feeling comfy/good/fine.'

b.	Ik	ben	gezellig/goed/prettig.
	I	am	cozy/good/nice
	'Iʼm a sociable/good/nice guy.'

[+] II. The resultative construction

Complementive adjectives in copular constructions such as (13) are always predicated of the subject of the clause. In the constructions in (24), on the other hand, the adjectives are predicated of the accusative object of the clause.

a.		Marie	sloeg	de hond	dood.
		Marie	hit	the dog	dead

b.		Jan verfde	zijn haar	zwart.
		Jan dyed	his hair	black

c.		Jan drinkt	de fles	leeg.
		Jan drinks	the bottle	empty

The constructions in (24) express that the accusative object becomes part of the denotation set of the adjective as a result of the activity expressed by the verb. In other words, the construction inherently expresses that the logical subject of the adjective is not part of the set denoted by A yet, but will become part of A as the result of the action denoted by the verb. Example (24c), for instance, expresses that the bottle is not empty yet but attains this state as a result of the event of drinking. It is for this reason that this construction is often called the resultative construction.
As the resultative construction implies a change of state, it can arise with stage-level adjectives only; individual-level predicates, such as intelligent, are not compatible with the meaning of the resultative construction since they denote a (more or less) permanent property of their subject; cf. Section 1.3.2.2, sub IV. This contrast between stage- and individual-level predicates is illustrated in (25).

a.		De spinazie	maakt	de jongen	ziek/%lang.
		the spinach	makes	the boy	ill/long

b.		Die les	maakt	de jongen	nerveus/%intelligent.
		that lesson	makes	the boy	nervous/intelligent

The examples of the resultative construction in (24) and (25) are all transitive in the sense that both a nominative and an accusative noun phrase are present. The following subsections will show, however, that the construction is also compatible with other syntactic frames; see also V2.2.3.

[+] A. Weather verbs

Consider again the primeless examples in (10), repeated here as (26a&b). Since the weather verbs regenen'to rain' and vriezen'to freeze' do not take a referential noun phrase as their subject, we conclude that the nominative noun phrase de jongen in the primed examples is in fact the logical subject of the resultative adjectives. This, in turn, implies that this noun phrase is in fact a DO-subject and that weather verbs are unaccusative.

a.		Het/*De jongen	regent.
		it/the boy	rains

b.		Het/*De jongen	vriest.
		it/the boy	freezes

a'.		De jongen	regent	nat.
		the boy	rains	wet

b'.		De jongen	vriest	dood.
		the boy	freezes	dead

That the weather verbs in resultative constructions are unaccusative is supported by the fact that they indeed exhibit the properties typical of unaccusative verbs. First, the singly-primed examples in (27) show that weather verbs in resultative constructions, in contrast to those in non-resultative constructions, take the auxiliary zijn'to be' in the perfect tense. Second, the doubly-primed examples show that the past/passive participle of the verb can be used attributively if it modifies a head noun that corresponds to the nominative argument of the verbal resultative construction, provided at least that the resultative adjective is also present. The triply primed examples, finally, show that the impersonal passive of the resultative construction is impossible.

a.		Het	heeft/*is	geregend.
		it	has/is	rained

b.		Het	heeft/*is	gevroren.
		it	has/is	frozen

a'.		De jongen	is/*heeft	nat geregend.
		the boy	is/has	wet rained

b'.		De jongen	is/*heeft	dood gevroren.
		the boy	is/has	dead frozen

a''.		de	nat	geregende	jongen
		the	wet	rained	boy

b''.		de	dood	gevroren	jongen
		the	dead	frozen	boy

a'''.	*	Er	werd	nat	geregend.
		there	was	wet	rained

b'''.	*	Er	werd	dood	gevroren.
		there	was	dead	frozen

[+] B. Intransitive verbs

As in the case of the weather verbs in (26), an additional nominal argument must be introduced if a complementive adjective is used with an intransitive verb. Consider the primeless examples in (28). Example (28a) shows that a verb like lopen cannot take a noun phrase like zijn schoenen as a direct object. However, if the adjective kapot'worn-out' is added, as in (28b), this noun phrase must be present. Again, we have to conclude that the noun phrase zijn schoenen is introduced in the structure as the subject of the adjective (although it acts as the direct object of the verb in the sense that it is assigned accusative case by it). The primed examples give similar data with the intransitive verb huilen'to cry'.

a.		Jan loopt	(*zijn schoenen).
		Jan walks	his shoes

a'.		Jan huilt	(*zijn ogen).
		Jan cries	his eyes

b.	Jan loopt	*(zijn schoenen)	kapot.
	Jan walks	his shoes	worn.out
	'Jan is wearing his shoes out.'

b'.		Jan huilt	*(zijn ogen)	rood.
		Jan cries	his eyes	red

[+] C. Unaccusative verbs

Unaccusative resultative constructions occur not only with verbs that do not take a referential subject, such as the weather verbs discussed in Subsection A, but also with regular unaccusative verbs like vallen'to fall' in (29a). Some unaccusative verbs, like slibben'to silt' in (29b), must occur in a resultative construction.

a.		Jan viel	dood.
		Jan fell	dead

b.	De sloot	slibt	*(dicht).
	the ditch	silts	shut
	'The ditch silts up.'

The examples in (30) show that the verbs in (29) exhibit the typical properties of unaccusative verbs: the primeless examples show that they take the perfect auxiliary zijn'to be', the singly-primed examples that the past/passive participle of the verb can be used attributively if it modifies a head noun that corresponds to the nominative argument of the verbal construction (provided that the resultative adjective is also present), and the doubly-primed examples that the impersonal passive is excluded.

a.		Jan is/*heeft	dood	gevallen.
		Jan is/has	dead	fallen

b.		De sloot	is/*has	dicht	geslibd.
		the ditch	is/has	shut	silted

a'.		de	dood	gevallen	jongen
		the	dead	fallen	boy

b'.		de	dicht	geslibde	sloot
		the	shut	silted	ditch

a''.	*	Er	werd	dood	gevallen.
		there	was	dead	fallen

b''.	*	Er	werd	dicht	geslibd.
		there	was	shut	silted

The unaccusative verbs differ from the intransitive verbs in (28) in that the subject of the adjective must also satisfy the selection restrictions of the verb; it is not possible to introduce an additional noun phrase that has no semantic relation to the verb, that is, the subject of the adjective must be a noun phrase that can also act as the subject of the regular unaccusative construction. As the noun phrase de vaas in (31a) can act as the subject of the unaccusative verb breken'to break', it can also occur as the subject of the resultative adjective kapot'broken' in (31b). The addition of a noun phrase like Jan in (31c) is excluded, however, as this noun phrase has no thematic relation with the unaccusative verb breken.

a.		De vaas	breekt.
		the vase	breaks

b.		De vaas	breekt	kapot.
		the vase	breaks	broken

c.	*	De vaas	breekt	Jan	treurig.
		the vase	breaks	Jan	sad

The unacceptability of (31c) contrasts sharply with the acceptability of the (b)-examples in (28). This contrast is arguably related to case assignment. Since unaccusative verbs do not have the ability to assign accusative case, (31c) is ungrammatical because the noun phrase Jan remains case-less. If intransitive verbs are in principle able to assign accusative case, the noun phrase zijn schoenen is licensed in (28b); that intransitive verbs do not take an accusative object in the absence of a resultative adjective is simply due to the fact that they cannot license them semantically. This account is based on Chomskyʼs (1981) Case Filter, which requires that every phonetically realized noun phrase be assigned case, and, of course, presupposes that case is also assigned if it has no morphological reflex.
To conclude, we want to point out that there are a number of exceptions to the claim that the subject of the resultative predicate must satisfy the selection restrictions of the unaccusative verb. Some examples, which involve predicative PPs, are given in (32); these examples involve metaphoric or at least more or less fixed expressions.

a.	Het plan	viel	in duigen/in het water.
	the plan	fell	in pieces/into the water
	'The plan failed.'

b.	Het huis	vloog	in brand.
	the house	flew	in fire
	'The house burst into flames.'

[+] D. Transitive verbs

With transitive constructions, the subject of the resultative adjective often seems thematically unrelated to the verb. This is illustrated in (33). Example (33a) shows that the verb verven'to paint' may take the noun phrase de deur'the door' as its direct object, but not the noun phrase de kwast'the brush' (at least, under the intended reading in which de kwast is the instrument used). Still, both noun phrases are acceptable in the resultative construction, as is illustrated in (33b) and (33c), respectively. Example (33d) shows, however, that the two noun phrases cannot be present simultaneously.

a.		Jan verft	de deur/#de kwast.
		Jan paints	the door/the brush

c.		Jan verft	de kwast	kapot.
		Jan paints	the brush	broken

b.		Jan verft	de deur	groen.
		Jan paints	the door	green

d.	*	Jan verft	de deur	de kwast	kapot.
		Jan paints	the door	the brush	broken

The ungrammaticality of (33d) may seem unexpected given that the noun phrase de deur'the door' is semantically licensed by the verb verven'to paint' and the noun phrase de kwast'the brush' is semantically licensed by the adjective kapot'broken'. It must therefore again be attributed to case assignment: if a transitive verb can assign accusative case only once, one of the two noun phrases remains case-less, which violates Chomskyʼs Case Filter; cf. the discussion of example (31c).
Although the verb verven is used transitively in (33a), we cannot immediately conclude that it is also used transitively in (33c), because this verb is occasionally also used as a pseudo-intransitive verb: Jan verft'Jan is painting'. Thus, we may be dealing with an intransitive verb in (33c) as well. This suggestion is supported by the paraphrases in (34): example (33b) is preferably paraphrased by means of the transitive verb verven, as in (34a), whereas example (33c) must be paraphrased by the intransitive verb verven in (34b).

a.	Jan verft	de deur	zo	dat	hij	groen	wordt.
	Jan paints	the door	such	that	it	green	becomes
	'Jan is painting the door such that it gets green.'

a'.	?	Jan verft	zo	dat	de deur	groen	wordt.
		Jan paints	such	that	the door	green	becomes

b.	*	Jan verft	de kwast	zo	dat	hij	kapot	gaat.
		Jan paints	the brush	such	that	it	broken	gets

b'.	Jan verft	zo	dat	de kwast	kapot	gaat.
	Jan paints	such	that	the brush	broken	gets
	'Jan is painting in such a manner that the brush gets broken.'

Example (35) provide more cases of transitive verbs with a pseudo-intransitive counterpart, and in which a resultative adjective can introduce a noun phrase that is not thematically related to the verb; (35a') does not express that zijn ouders'his parents' are the objects being eaten, but that Janʼs parents are getting poor, because Jan is eating so much; similarly, in (35b'), de longen'the lungs' are not being smoked, but are just getting black as the result of Janʼs smoking.

a.		Jan eet	(brood).
		Jan eats	bread

a'.		Jan eet	zijn ouders	arm.
		Jan eats	his parents	poor

b.		Jan rookt	(sigaretten).
		Jan smokes	cigarettes

b'.		Jan rookt	zijn longen	zwart.
		Jan smokes	his lungs	black

The discussion suggests that, despite appearances, complementive adjectives cannot introduce an additional argument into the structure in the case of “truly" transitive verbs; this is possible only with (pseudo-)intransitive and weather verbs. In other words, if an (underlying) object is present, as in the case of the regular unaccusative verbs in Subsection C and the transitive verbs, this object must be construed as the subject of the complementive adjective in the resultative construction. This is confirmed by the fact that in “truly" transitive resultative constructions, the accusative object must, generally speaking, be overtly realized; cf. (36).

a.		Marie sloeg	(*de hond)	dood.
		Marie hit	the dog	dead

b.		Jan verft	(*zijn haar)	zwart.
		Jan dyes	his hair	black

c.		Jan drinkt	(*de fles)	leeg.
		Jan drinks	the bottle	empty

There are, however, some exceptional constructions in which the accusative object is omitted: example (37a) is a fixed expression and example (37b) is an advertisement slogan. Such examples normally have a generic interpretation; see Vanden Wyngaerd (1994:ch.4) and references cited there for more discussion.

a.	Geld	maakt	niet	gelukkig.
	money	makes	not	happy
	'Money doesnʼt make one happy.'

b.	Omo wast	door en door	schoon.
	Omo washes	through and through	clean
	'Omo washes your laundry thoroughly clean.'

Finally, observe that the accusative object of the “truly" transitive resultative construction may take the form of a reflexive. Unlike regular accusative objects, the reflexive need not take the complex form zichzelf'himself' but may also appear in its simplex form zich; cf. Section N5.2.1.5. This is demonstrated by means of the contrast between (38a) and (38b).

a.		Jan bewondert	zichzelf/*zich.
		Jan admires	himself/refl

b.		Jan maakt	zichzelf/zich	belachelijk.
		Jan makes	himself/refl	ridiculous

In (38b), the reflexive can be replaced by a regular referential noun phrase, such as Marie. Occasionally, however, this is impossible in the resultative construction. If so, the reflexive must appear in its simplex form zich. This is demonstrated in (39).

a.	Jan werkt	*Marie/zich/??zichzelf	suf.
	Jan works	Marie/refl/himself	dull
	'Jan works *Marie/himself to death.'

b.		Jan schreeuwt	*Marie/zich/??zichzelf	schor.
		Jan screams	Marie/refl/himself	hoarse

[+] E. Special verbs

Some verbs are typically used in resultative constructions: either they do not occur in other syntactic frames at all or they receive a special meaning in this construction. An example of the former is the verb verklaren'to declare': example (40b) shows that dropping the complementive adjective results in ungrammaticality, regardless of whether the noun phrase het beroep is present or not.

a.		De rechter	verklaarde	het beroep	gegrond.
		the judge	declared	the appeal	just

De rechter verklaarde (het beroep).

An example of the latter case is the verb of creation maken. In the resultative construction it is deprived of its normal meaning “to create/repair", as shown by the contrast between (41a) and (41a'). Note that in examples such as (41b), for which the create/repair reading is less likely, the complementive adjective must be present.

a.	Jan maakt	de tafel	kapot.
	Jan makes	the table	broken
	'Jan is destroying the table.'

a'.	Jan maakt	de tafel.
	Jan makes	the table
	'Jan is creating/repairing the table.'

b.		De spinazie	maakt de jongen	ziek.
		the spinach	makes the boy	ill

b'.	*	De spinazie	maakt	(de jongen).
		the spinach	makes	the boy

The examples with the verb houden'to keep' in (42) are in a sense the opposite of the resultative constructions discussed in this section; instead of expressing that the subject becomes part of the set denoted by A, it is expressed that the subject remains part of the set denoted by A. Examples (42a&b) are more or less lexicalized, and (42c&d) are clearly idiomatic.

a.		De politie	hield	de identiteit van de misdadiger	geheim.
		the police	kept	the identity of the criminal	secret

b.		De jongen	hield	het huis	schoon.
		the boy	kept	the house	clean

c.		Jan hield	zijn hoofd	koel.
		Jan kept	his head	cool

d.	Jan houdt	zijn kinderen	klein.
	Jan keeps	his children	small
	'Jan keeps his children down.'

Example (43) is a more or less isolated case, in which a desired result is expressed. This construction is severely restricted in the sense that the adjective dood'dead' cannot readily be replaced: *?Jan wenste zijn vader ziek/gelukkig'Jan wished his father ill/happy'. Note that in non-resultative constructions involving wensen, such as Ik wens je een prettige verjaardag'I wish you a happy birthday', the particle toe can be optionally added. This is not possible in (43), however.

Jan wenste	zijn baas	dood.
Jan wished	his boss	dead
'Jan wished that his boss would die.'

[+] III. Non-resultative constructions

A second type of complementive construction in which the adjective is predicated of an accusative object is the vinden-construction in (44). This construction expresses that the subject of the clause has a subjective opinion about the accusative object, the subject of the adjective; the examples in (44) assert that Marie is of the opinion that the propositions “Jan is kind/unsuitable" is true.

a.		Marie vindt	Jan aardig.
		Marie considers	Jan nice

b.		Marie acht	Jan ongeschikt.
		Marie considers	Jan unsuitable

That the verb takes some kind of proposition as its complement is very clear in the case of the verb vinden; example (44a), for example, can be paraphrased as in (45a), in which the noun phrase Jan and the adjective are part of a subordinate clause. This paraphrase also shows that the noun phrase Jan is thematically dependent on the adjective only. However, a similar paraphrase cannot be given in the case of (44b).

a.	Marie vindt	dat	Jan aardig	is.
	Marie considers	that	Jan nice	is
	'Marie thinks that Jan is kind.'

b.	*	Marie acht	dat	Jan ongeschikt	is.
		Marie considers	that	Jan unsuitable	is

Note also that not all verbs that take a finite propositional object can occur in the vinden-construction. Verbs of saying such as zeggen'to say' and beweren'to claim' are excluded from this construction. This is illustrated in (46).

a.		Marie zegt	dat	Jan aardig	is.
		Marie says	that	Jan nice	is

a'.	*	Marie zegt	Jan aardig.
		Marie says	Jan nice

b.		Marie beweert	dat	Jan aardig	is.
		Marie claims	that	Jan nice	is

b'.	*	Marie beweert	Jan aardig.
		Marie claims	Jan nice

Because the vinden-construction expresses a subjective opinion, it requires that the adjective denote a property that can be subject to subjective evaluation: adjectives that denote a property that can be objectively established are not compatible with the meaning of the construction. Some examples are given in (47).

a.	%	Marie vindt/acht	Jan dood/ziek/ongelukkig.
		Marie considers	Jan dead/ill/unhappy

b.		Ik	vind	de tafel	mooi.
		I	consider	the table	beautiful

b'.	%	Ik	vind	de tafel	kapot.
		I	consider	the table	broken

The requirement that the adjective be subject to subjective evaluation is also clear from modification of measure adjectives like hoog'high' in (48): if the modifier indicates the precise extent to which the subject has the property expressed by the adjective, like 70 cm in (48a), the example is unacceptable; if the modifier is less specific or absent, as in (48b), the extent to which the subject is considered to have the property expressed by the adjective is left open to subjective evaluation and the example is fully acceptable as a result.

a.	%	Ik	vind	de tafel	70 cm	hoog.
		I	consider	the table	70 cm	high

b.		Ik	vind	de tafel	(vrij)	hoog.
		I	consider	the table	rather	high

In contrast to the resultative construction, the vinden-construction requires two arguments to be present in the structure. The two constructions have in common, however, that the accusative argument, that is, the logical subject of the adjective, may take the form of either a complex or a simplex reflexive. This is illustrated in (49), in which the reflexive could in principle be replaced by a regular referential noun phrase, just as in (38b).

a.		Marie vindt	zichzelf/zich	ongeschikt	voor die baan.
		Marie considers	herself/refl	unsuitable	for that job

b.		Marie acht	zichzelf/zich	te goed	voor dat werk.
		Marie considers	herself/refl	too good	for that work

Vinden-constructions that only allow the simplex form of the reflexive never involve the verbs vinden or achten'to consider', but do occur with the perception verb voelen'to feel'. This can be seen by comparing, for instance, the examples in (49b) to those in (50a). The simplex reflexives in (50) cannot be replaced by a referential noun phrase, such as Jan; the same thing is found in the resultative constructions in (39), which likewise allow the simplex reflexive zich only.

a.		Marie voelt	zich/??zichzelf/*Jan	te goed	voor dat werk.
		Marie feels	refl/herself/Jan	too good	for that work

b.		Marie voelt	zich/??zichzelf/*Jan	volkomen	fit.
		Marie feels	refl/herself/Jan	completely	in.shape

Other non-resultative constructions that resemble the vinden-construction are given in (51). Like example (44a), (51a) can be paraphrased by means of a finite embedded clause, as in (51a'). Example (51b), which cannot be paraphrased in this way, conveys that the subject of the clause has wrongly attributed the property expressed by the adjective to the object of the clause. The constructions in (51) seem idiomatically restricted, and differ from the vinden-construction in that the adjectives need not refer to properties that are subject to subjective evaluation.

a.		Marie meldde	Jan ziek/beter.
		Marie reported	Jan ill/recovered

a'.		Marie meldde	dat	Jan ziek/beter	is.
		Marie reported	that	Jan ill/recovered	is

b.	Marie waande	Jan dood/veilig.
	Marie thought	Jan dead/safe
	'Marie wrongly believed him to be dead.'

b'.	*?	Marie waande	dat	Jan dood/veilig	was.
		Marie thought	that	Jan dead/safe	was

The construction with noemen'to call' in (52a) also resembles the vinden-construction. However, since this verb is often used in the act of defining certain notions, as in (52b), the construction has some semantic resemblance to the resultative construction as well.

a.		Jan	noemde	mij	vervelend.
		Jan	called	me	annoying

b.	Ik	noem	dit	voortaan	X.
	I	call	this	henceforth	X
	'From now on, I will call this X.'

Finally, the examples in (53) give some constructions that have more or less the same semantic content as the vinden-construction, but in which the adjective must be preceded by the element als or a preposition such as voor.

a.		Ik	beschouw	die daad	als	zeer onverantwoord.
		I	consider	this act	as	very irresponsible

b.	Marie zag	Jan als onvolwaardig.
	Marie saw	Jan as imperfect
	'Marie considered Jan as imperfect.'

c.	De personeelschef	hield	de sollicitant	voor ongeschikt.
	the personnel manager	kept	the applicant	for unfit
	'The personnel manager looked upon the applicant as unfit.'

References:

Bree, Cor van1981<i>Hebben</i>-constructies en datiefconstructies binnen het Nederlands taalgebied: een taalgeografisch onderzoekLeidenUniversity of LeidenThesis
Broekhuis, Hans & Cornips, Leonie1994Undative constructionsLinguistics32173-190
Chomsky, Noam1981Lectures on government and bindingStudies in generative grammar 9DordrechtForis Publications
Cornips, Leonie1994Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van HeerlenAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Wyngaerd, Guido vanden1994PRO-legomena. Distribution and Reference of infinitival subjectsLinguistic Models 19Berlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AdjectiveAuxiliaryAuxiliary SelectionCaseCase FilterComplementiveCopular ConstructionIntransitive VerbNon-referring PronounPerception VerbPredicationPronounReflexive PronounResultative ConstructionSecondary PredicationSemi-copular ConstructionStage-level AdjectiveSubjectSubjective/objective AdjectiveTransitive VerbUnaccusative Verb

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles