Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

9.2.1.Past and present participles

quickinfo

Section 9.1 has shown that participles can be divided into two groups: present participles like vechtend'fighting' and past/passive participles like gekust'kissed'. Both types can be used as attributive adjectives, which is clear from the fact that they are inflected in prenominal position; see Table 1 and Table 3 in Section 9.1, subsection I starts with a discussion of the verb types of the participles that can be attributively used. Since attributively used participles often exhibit verbal behavior, subsection II continues with an investigation of the categorial status of attributively used participles, subsection III concludes with a brief discussion of the temporal and aspectual properties of noun phrases with an attributively used participle.

I. Verb types
II. Categorial status
III. Tense and aspect
- A. Present participles
- B. Past/passive participles

[+] I. Verb types

Whether a certain past/passive or present participle can be used attributively depends on the verb type involved; we will see that this is related to the fact that attributively used present and past/passive participles must enter into a well-defined logical relation with the noun they modify; cf. Koster (1978) and Hoekstra (1984a).

[+] A. Transitive verbs

That attributively used present and past/passive participles enter into different logical relations with the nouns they modify can be illustrated by means of the transitive sentence in (18a) and the corresponding attributive constructions. If we use the present participle of the verb slachten'to butcher' attributively, the modified noun corresponds to the subject of the sentence; (18b) expresses that it is the butcher that slaughters the lambs. If we use the past/passive participle, however, the head noun corresponds to the direct object of the sentence, as shown in (18c).

a.		De slager	slacht	de lammeren.
		the butcher	slaughters	the lambs

b.	de	(de lammeren)	slachtende	slager
	the	the lambs	slaughtering	butcher
	'the butcher that is slaughtering (the lambs)'

c.	de	(door de slager)	geslachte	lammeren
	the	by the butcher	slaughtered	lambs
	'the lambs that are slaughtered (by the butcher)'

The examples in (18) therefore show that the attributively used present and past/passive participle enter into different logical relations with the noun they modify. This is confirmed by the fact that the examples in (19) are only compatible with the less common readings on which the butcher functions as a theme and the lambs as the agent.

a.	#	de	geslachte	slager
		the	slaughtered	butcher
		Not: 'the butcher that is slaughtering (the lambs)'

b.	#	de	slachtende	lammeren
		the	slaughtering	lambs
		Not: 'the lambs that are slaughtered (by the butcher)'

The noun phrase de lammeren in (18b) and the agentive door-phrase in (18c), which correspond to, respectively, the direct object and the subject of the sentence in (18a), can be omitted. This seems to be related to the fact that the noun phrase de lammeren can in principle also be dropped in (18a), and that the door-phrase is optional in the corresponding passive construction. If an argument is obligatory in a transitive construction, as in (20a), it must normally also be realized in the attributive construction. The number signs in (20) indicate that the examples are acceptable without the noun phrase de vazen. but only if the nominative argument is interpreted as theme (“the boy is breaking down"), which is of course not relevant here.

a.	De jongen	breekt	#(de vazen).
	the boy	breaks	the vases
	'The boy is breaking the vases.'

b.	de	#(de vazen)	brekende	jongen
	the	the vases	breaking	boy
	'the boy who is breaking the vases'

Not all transitive verbs that have a participle can be used attributively. The (a)-examples in (21) show, for instance, that the present and past/passive participle of main verb hebben'to have' cannot be used attributively, and the (b)-examples show that the same thing holds for the present (but not the past/passive) participle of the verb krijgen'to get'.

a.	Jan heeft	nog	een platenspeler.
	Jan has	still	a record player
	'Jan still has a record player.'

b.	Peter	kreeg	een CD-speler.
	Peter	got	a CD-player
	'Peter was given a CD-player.'

a'.	*	de	een platenspeler	hebbende	man
		the	a record player	having	man

b'.	??	de	een CD-speler	krijgende	man
		the	a CD player	getting	man

a''.	*	de	gehadde	platenspeler
		the	had	record player

b''.		de	gekregen	CD-speler
		the	gotten	CD player

Note in passing that the idiomatic combinations gelijk hebben'to be right' and gelijk krijgen'to be backed up' can be used attributively with the present participle hebbende. Attributive use of the past/passive participles is categorically excluded, however.

a.	(?)	een	altijd	gelijk	hebbende	jongen
		an	always	right	having	boy
		'a boy who is always right'

a'.

het (door de jongen) gehadde gelijk

b.	(?)	een	altijd	gelijk	krijgende	jongen
		an	always	right	getting	boy
		'a boy with whom everybody always agrees in the end'

b'.

het (door de jongen) gekregen gelijk

The examples in (23) show that the attributive use of participles of stative verbs like weten'to know' and kennen'to be familiar with' often give rise to a degraded result as well.

a.		Jan	weet	het antwoord.
		Jan	knows	the answer

b.		Jan	kent	dat restaurant
		Jan	knows	that restaurant

a'.	?	de	het antwoord	wetende man
		the	the answer	knowing man

b'.	?	de	dat restaurant	kennende	man
		the	that restaurant	knowing	man

a''.	?	het	geweten	antwoord
		the	known	answer

b''.	*	het	gekende	restaurant
		the	known	restaurant

The degraded status of the primed and doubly-primed examples in (21) and (23) may be related to the fact that these transitive verbs cannot be used in the passive voice either. We leave it to future research to establish whether this is the proper generalization.

[+] B. Ditransitive verbs

The examples in (24) show that the participles of ditransitive verbs essentially behave like transitive verbs. The only thing that needs mentioning here is that the indirect object can be expressed overtly in the attributive construction. The question mark in (24b) intends to express that many speakers prefer to realize the indirect object by means of an aan-PP if it is a full noun phrase.

a.		Jan geeft	de jongen/hem	een boek.
		Jan gives	the boy/him	a book

het

?(aan)

de jongen

gegeven

boek

b'.		het	(aan)	hem	gegeven	boek
		the	to	the boy/him	given	book

We will see in Subsection I 1, however, that there is more to say about ditransitive verbs, but in order not to complicate matters unnecessarily we will confine ourselves here to the examples in (24).

[+] C. Intransitive verbs and verbs that take a PP-complement

Since past/passive participles of transitive verbs cannot be used attributively if the head of the noun phrase corresponds to the subject, we expect that in the case of intransitive verbs only present participles can be used attributively. This expectation is indeed borne out, as is illustrated in (25) by means of the intransitive verbs huilen'to weep' and dromen'to dream'.

a.		De jongen	huilt.
		the boy	weeps

b.		het meisje	droomt.
		the girl	dreams

a'.		de	huilende	jongen
		the	weeping	boy

b'.		het dromende	meisje
		the dreaming	girl

a''.	*	de	gehuilde	jongen
		the	wept	boy

b''.	#	het	gedroomde	meisje
		the	dreamt	girl

The examples in (26) show that verbs with a PP-complement essentially behave like intransitive verbs. Given that examples of the type in (26c) do occur in English (the looked-at portrait), the ungrammaticality of (26c) seems to be related to the fact that Dutch does not allow pseudo-passives; see the contrast between English The portrait was stared at and Dutch *Het portret werd naar gestaard.

a.		De jongen	staarde	naar het portret.
		the boy	stared	at the portrait

b.		de	naar het portret	starende	jongen
		the	at the portrait	staring	boy

c.	*	het	door de jongen	(naar)	gestaarde	portret
		the	by the boy	at	looked	portrait

[+] D. Monadic unaccusative verbs

Subjects of unaccusative verbs are referred to in this work as DO-subjects, since they are assumed to originate in a similar position and stand in a similar logical relation to the verb as direct objects of transitive verbs; subjects of unaccusative verbs and objects of transitive verbs are both themes. Given this, it will not come as a surprise that past/passive participles of unaccusative like verbs sterven ‘to die’ or struikelen'to stumble' in the doubly-primed examples of (27) differ from past/passive participles of intransitive verbs like huilen'to weep' or dromen'to dream' in (25) in that they can modify nouns that correspond to their subject; as expected, the former behave just like the past/passive participles of transitive verb slachten'to butcher' in (18) towards their objects. The primed examples in (27) show, however, that present participles of unaccusative verbs are unlike present participles of transitive verbs in that they can modify nouns that correspond to their theme argument.

a.		De jongen sterft.
		the boy dies

b.		De jongen struikelt.
		the boy stumbles

a'.		de stervende jongen
		the dying boy
		'the boy that is dying'

b'.		de struikelende jongen
		the stumbling boy
		'the boy that is stumbling'

a''.		de gestorven jongen
		the died boy
		'the boy that has died'

b''.		de gestruikelde jongen
		the stumbled boy
		'the boy that has stumbled'

In short, DO-subjects behave like direct objects if it comes to attributive modification by a past/passive participle but like subjects of (in)transitive verbs when it comes to attributive modification by a present participle. This shows that the attributive use of past/passive participles is related to the thematic function (agent/theme) of the argument that corresponds to the modified noun, whereas the attributive use of present participles is instead related to the syntactic function (subject/object) of the argument related to the modified noun.
The examples in (28) show that the present and past/passive participles of unaccusatively used motion verbs, like springen'to jump', can also be used in attributive position. Attributive use of the past/passive participle requires that the predicatively used PP be present: omitting the directional postposition PP de sloot in in (28c) results in unacceptability. This is, of course, not surprising given that motion verbs without a complementive PP are always intransitive.

a.	Jan springt	de sloot	in.
	Jan jumps	the ditch	into
	'Jan jumps into the ditch.'

b.	de	de sloot	in	springende	jongen
	the	the ditch	into	jumping	boy
	'the boy that is jumping into the ditch'

c.	de	*(de sloot	in)	gesprongen	jongen
	the	the ditch	into	jumped	boy
	'The boy that has jumped into the ditch.'

The English renderings of the attributive examples in (27) and (28) intend to express that the difference between the attractively used past and present participles is aspectual in nature: whereas past participles express perfective aspect in the sense that the process involved is completed, present participles express durative or imperfective aspect in the sense that the process is still ongoing. Observe that the past/passive and present participles in (18) and (25) exhibit the same aspectual difference.

[+] E. Dyadic unaccusative verbs

Dyadic unaccusative verbs, which are generally called nom-dat verbs, differ from the monadic unaccusative verbs discussed in the previous subsection in that they take an additional object, which would be assigned dative case in German; cf. Section V2.1.3. The behavior of the participles of these nom-dat verbs seems to depend on auxiliary selection. The examples in (29) show that the present and the past participle can both be used attributively if the nom-dat verb selects the perfect auxiliary zijn.

a.	De vakantie	is ons	goed	bevallen.
	the holiday	is us	good	pleased
	'The holiday (has) pleased us very much.'

b.	de	ons	goed	bevallende	vakantie
	the	us	good	pleasing	holiday
	'the holiday that pleases us very much'

c.	de	ons	goed	bevallen	vakantie
	the	us	good	pleasing	holiday
	'the holiday that has pleased us very much'

The examples in (30), on the other hand, show that attributive use of the past/perfect participle is excluded if the auxiliary hebben is selected; only the present participle gives rise to an acceptable result in this case.

a.	De moed	heeft	ons	ontbroken.
	the courage	has	us	lacked
	'We lacked the courage.'

b.	de	ons	ontbrekende	moed
	the	us	lacking	courage
	'the courage we lack'

c.	*?	de	ons	ontbroken	moed
		the	us	lacked	courage

[+] F. Psychological verbs

Like the nom-dat verbs discussed in the previous subsection, object experiencer psych-verbs like opwinden'to excite' in (31a) arguably have a derived subject; cf. Section V2.5.1.3. With respect to the attributive use of their participles, however, such psych-verbs behave like regular transitive verbs like slachten'to butcher' in (18): the present participle opwindend'exciting' in (31b) modifies a head noun that corresponds to the nominative subject, whereas the past participle opgewonden'excited' in (31c) modifies a head noun that corresponds to the object of the active verb.

a.	Het avontuur	wond	de jongen	op.
	the adventure	excited	the boy	prt.
	'The adventure excited the boy.'

b.		het	(de jongen)	opwindende	avontuur
		the	the boy	prt.-exciting	adventure

c.		de	opgewonden	jongen
		the	excited	boy

Note that, although the participles of psych-verbs like opwinden behave on a par with transitive verbs if it comes to attributive use, the present participles of these verbs exhibit different behavior in predicative constructions: the examples in (32) show that present participles of psych-verbs can be used in copular constructions, whereas present participles of transitive verbs cannot; see Section 9.3.1, sub II, for more discussion.

a.	*	De slager	is	slachtend.
		the butcher	is	slaughtering

b.		Het avontuur	is erg opwindend.
		the adventure	is very exciting

[+] G. Verbs with a resultative complementive

The examples in (33) show that participles of verbs in resultative constructions can be used attributively, provided that the complementive adjective is present as well; see Section 6.2.1, sub II, for a comprehensive discussion of the resultative construction.

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

b.		de	zijn schoenen	*(kapot)	lopende	jongen
		the	his shoes	worn.out	walking	boy

c.		de	*(kapot)	gelopen	schoenen
		the	worn.out	walked	shoes

The fact that the noun phrase zijn schoenen'his shoes' in (33a) is not an argument of the intransitive verb lopen'to walk' but the logical subject of the adjective kapot'worn-out' conclusively shows that nouns modified by an attributively used past/passive participle need not correspond to arguments of the corresponding active verb. The same thing can be argued on the basis of the transitive (b)-examples in (34), given that the noun phrase de kwast clearly does not function as the theme of the transitive verb verven'to paint'.

a.		Jan	verft	de muur	(geel).
		Jan	paints	the wall	yellow

b.		Jan	verft	de kwast	#(kapot).
		Jan	paints	the brush	worn.out

a'.		de	de muur (geel)	vervende	man
		the	the wall yellow	painting	man

b'.		de	de kwast #(kapot)	vervende	man
		the	the brush worn.out	painting	man

a''.		de (geel) geverfde	muur
		the yellow painted	wall

b''.		de	#(kapot)	geverfde	kwast
		the	worn.out	painted	brush

For completeness’ sake, we give comparable examples with the unaccusative verb slibben in (35).

a.		De sloot	slibt	*(dicht).
		the ditch	silts	shut

b.		de	*(dicht)	slibbende	sloot
		the	shut	silting	ditch

c.		de	*(dicht)	geslibde	sloot
		the	shut	silted	ditch

[+] H. Summary

The findings on the attributive use of the past/passive and present participles from the previous subsections are summarized in Table 4. The headers indicate that all present participles express durative aspect, whereas all past/passive participles express perfective aspect. The second and third columns indicate what the syntactic function of the modified noun is in the corresponding active sentence: the present and past/passive participles of a transitive verb, for instance, can be used to modify a noun that corresponds to, respectively, the subject and the direct object of the corresponding active verb. The marking n.a. simply expresses that the past/passive participle in question cannot be used attributively. Table 4 does not include our finding from Subsection G, that participles of verbs occurring in resultative constructions can also be used attributively.

Table 4: Verb types and attributively used adjectival participles

verb type	present participle durative aspect	past/passive participle perfective aspect
intransitive verb	subject	n.a.
(di-)transitive verb	subject	direct object
unaccusative verb	DO-subject	DO-subject
nom-dat verbs that select zijn	DO-subject	DO-subject
nom-dat verbs that select hebben	DO-subject	n.a.
object experiencer psych-verbs	(derived) subject	object

[+] I. Some special cases

This subsection discusses two special cases. The first involves ditransitive verbs like betalen'to pay' and voeren'to feed'; we will show that the attributively used past/passive participles of these verbs are able to modify not only the theme of the active verb, but also the goal. The second involves contraction verbs like gaan'to go': we will show that the past/passive and present participles of these verbs cannot be used in prenominal attributive position.

[+] 1. Ditransitive verbs

All of the examples in the previous subsections, with the exception of the resultative constructions discussed in Subsection IG, involve modification of a noun corresponding to the agent (subject) or the theme (direct object/DO-subject) of the relevant verbal construction. At first sight, this seems to exhaust the possibilities; the participles corresponding to the ditransitive verb aanbieden'to offer' in (36a), for instance, cannot modify the noun that corresponds to the goal argument (indirect object) of the verb. The number signs indicate that the noun directeur'the manager' in (36b&c) can be interpreted as corresponding to, respectively, the agent and the theme of the active verb, but this is of course not relevant for our present discussion.

a.	De man	bood	de directeur	een groot bedrag	aan.
	the man	offered	the manager	a large sum	prt.
	'The man offered the manager a large sum.'

b.	#	de	een groot bedrag	aanbiedende	directeur
		the	a large sum	prt.-offered	manager
		Intended meaning: 'the manager that was (being) offered a large sum'

c.	#	de	aangeboden	directeur
		the	prt.-offered	manager
		Intended meaning: 'the manager that has been offered (something)'

Some care must be taken, however, with a small class of ditransitive verbs that are special in that they do not require that the direct object be present. Two examples are the verbs betalen'to pay' and voeren'to feed' in (37).

a.	De firma	betaalt	zijn werknemers	(een goed loon).
	the firm	pays	his employees	a good wage
	'The firm pays its employees a good wage.'

b.		De bezoeker	voerde	de aap	(pindaʼs).
		the visitor	fed	the monkey	peanuts

The number agreement on the finite verb in the primeless examples in (38) shows that, as usual, it is the direct object that is promoted to subject in the passive construction. The primed examples show, however, that if the direct object is absent, it is the goal argument that is instead promoted to subject.

a.		De werknemers	wordtsg/*?wordenpl	een goed loon	betaald.
		the employees	is/are	a food wage	paid

a'.		De werknemers	worden	betaald.
		the employees	are	paid

b.		Er	wordenpl/??wordtsg	de aap	pindaʼs	gevoerd.
		there	are/is	the monkey	peanuts	fed

b'.		De aap	wordt	gevoerd.
		the monkey	is	fed

This special behavior in the passive construction is reflected in the corresponding attributive constructions. In the primeless examples in (39) the modified noun corresponds to the theme and in the primed examples it corresponds to the goal of the verb.

a.		het	(aan de werknemers)	betaalde	loon
		the	to the employees	paid	wage

a'.		de	betaalde	werknemers
		the	paid	employees

b.		de (aan de aap)	gevoerde	pindaʼs
		the to the monkey	fed	peanuts

b'.		de	gevoerde	aap
		the	fed	monkey

One might propose that the availability of the primed examples in (38) and (39) is due to the fact that we are dealing with homophonous verbs: verbs like betalen'to pay' and voeren can be ditransitive verbs with a theme and a goal but they can also be monotransitive verbs that realize their goal argument ( zijn werknemers/de aap) as a direct object. A potential problem for such a proposal would be that the primed examples are marked but acceptable if the direct object is realized, as in (40).

a.	?	de	een goed loon	betaalde	werknemers
		the	a good wage	paid	employees

b.	?	de	pindaʼs	gevoerde	aap
		the	peanuts	fed	monkey

The relative acceptability of the examples in (40) raises some doubt about our earlier conclusion reached on the basis of example (36c) that past/passive participles of ditransitive verbs cannot be used attributively if the noun corresponds to the goal, that is, the indirect object of the active verb. This doubt may even increase once we realize that (36c) considerably improves if the direct object of the corresponding verbal construction is added, as in (41). Note, however, that most (but not all) speakers still consider (41) to be marked.

?	de	een groot bedrag	aangeboden	directeur
	the	a large sum	prt.-offered	manager
	'the manager that has been offered a large sum'

If real, the contrast between (36c) and (41) can perhaps be related to the fact that besides the regular passive in (42a), Dutch has also the so-called krijgen- or semi-passive in (42b), in which it is the indirect object of the ditransitive construction is promoted to subject; cf. V3.2.1. Observe that the direct object must be overtly expressed in (42b), just as in (41). This possibly accounts for the fact that in (36c) the head noun can only be interpreted as corresponding to the theme: after all, the indirect object, but not the direct object, is generally an optionally realized argument; cf. (42a').

a.	De directeurs	werd	een groot bedrag	aangeboden.
	the managers	gotsg	a large sum	prt.-offered
	'A large sum of money was offered to the managers.'

a'.	Er	werd	(de directeurs)	een groot bedrag	aangeboden.
	there	was	the managers	a large sum	prt.-offered
	'A large sum was offered (to the managers).'

b.	De directeurs	kregen	*(een groot bedrag)	aangeboden.
	the managers	gotpl	a large sum	prt.-offered
	'The managers were offered a large sum of money.'

[+] 2. Contraction verbs

This subsection concludes our discussion of the restrictions imposed on attributively used participles with a brief discussion of contraction verbs. These verbs have a stem that ends in a long vowel and an infinitive form that involves -n instead of the regular -en ending. The present participle of these verbs is formed by adding -nd to the stem. The past/passive participles end in a low vowel + /n/. Some examples are given in Table (43).

infinitive	stem	present participle	past participle
doen‘to do’	doe	doend	gedaan
gaan‘to go’	ga	gaand	gegaan
slaan‘to hit’	sla	slaand	geslagen (irregular)
staan‘to stand’	sta	staand	gestaan
vergaan‘to decay/be wrecked’	verga	vergaand	vergaan
zien‘to see’	zien	ziend	gezien

The examples in (44) show that the present participles of these contraction verbs normally cannot readily be used attributively.

a.	*	de	de afwas	doende	man
		the	the dishes	doing	man

c.	*	een	vergaand	lijk
		a	decaying	corpse

b.	*	de	de hond	slaande	man
		the	the dog	hitting	man

d.	*	een	de kust	ziende	man
		a	the coast	seeing	man

The examples in (45) seem to constitute counterexamples to this claim, but it should be noted that these involve more or less fixed combinations.

a.	een	staande	lamp
	a	standing	lamp
	'a floor lamp (on a foot)'

b.	een	meegaand	karakter
	a	with.going	character
	'a docile character'

This is particularly clear in (46a), in which the modified noun does not have the function of subject of the verb corresponding to the present participle: it is not the reception but the people who are standing. This kind of “metaphoric" use of the present participle is abundantly found in Dutch: another clear example of this use, which involves a regular form of the present participle, is given in (46b): again, it is not the buffet that is walking, but the people who are supposed to collect their food.

a.	een	staande	receptie
	a	standing	reception
	'a reception where people stand'

b.	een	lopend	buffet
	a	walking	buffet
	'a buffet'

The attributive use of past participles of contraction verbs generally yields degraded results as well. Possibly this has a phonological/morphological ground: the result is always degraded in contexts that require the attributive -e ending to be present, whereas the result is sometimes much better in singular indefinite noun phrases headed by a neuter noun, where this ending is absent. This is illustrated in (47) by comparing the singular and plural counterparts of noun phrases headed by a neuter noun.

a.	(?)	een	naar Rome	gegaan	echtpaar
		a	to Rome	gone	couple

a'.	*	naar Rome	gegane	echtparen
		to Rome	gone	couples

b.		een	vergaan schip
		a	wrecked ship

b'.	??	vergane	schepen
		wrecked	ships

As in the case of the present participles, there are more or less idiomatic expressions that are acceptable. Some examples are given in (48).

a.	Gedane zaken	nemen	geen keer.
	done business	take	no turn
	'Itʼs no use crying over spilt milk.'

b.	een	geziene	gast
	a	seen	guest
	'a popular visitor'

c.		van	voorbijgaande	aard
		of	passing	nature

d.		de	voorafgaande	dagen
		the	preceding	days

In these examples the participles are probably true adjectives, which may be supported by the minimal pair in (49): example (49a) involves an attributively used participle and the result is degraded; the negative prefix on- in (49b) unambiguously shows that we are dealing with an adjective and the result is perfectly fine (which is confirmed by the fact that the frequency of inflected onvoorziene on the internet is extremely high).

a.	??	een	niet	voorziene	omstandigheid
		a	not	foreseen	circumstance

b.		een	onvoorziene	omstandigheid
		an	unforeseen	circumstance

Note that the judgments given in this subsection are based on introspection and that many of the examples of the sort we have given here as degraded can readily be found on the internet. More research is therefore needed and it may be useful to investigate whether there is a dichotomy between speech and written text in this respect.

[+] II. Categorial status

Subsection I has shown that one of the differences between attributively used present and past/passive participles is aspectual in nature: present participles express durative aspect, whereas the past/passive participles express perfective aspect. The fact that these participles are able to express aspect strongly suggests that they are still verbal in nature. Sometimes, however, we also find attributively used participles that have lost these aspectual properties, in which case we are probably dealing with true (deverbal) adjectives. This difference between verbal and truly adjectival participles will be the topic of this subsection.

Verbal participle: attributively used past/passive or present participle that has retained its aspectual properties

Truly adjectival participle: attributively used past/passive or present participle that has lost its aspectual properties

[+] A. Past/passive participles

This subsection shows that not all attributively used past/passive participles can be used as true adjectives: this is possible with participles of transitive, unaccusative, and object experiencer psych-verbs, but not with participles of nom-dat verbs that select zijn. Participles of intransitive and nom-dat verbs that select hebben are of course not discussed here, given that they cannot be used attributively; cf. Table 4. We conclude with a aummary and a number of potentially problematic cases.

[+] 1. Transitive and monadic unaccusative verbs

Consider again the examples in (18b&c), repeated here in a slightly different form as (51). The present participle in (51a) expresses durative aspect: we are dealing with an ongoing event. The past/passive participle in (51b) expresses perfective aspect: we are dealing with an event that has been completed. What we have ignored so far, however, is that the past/passive participle in (51b) has a second reading in which perfective aspect plays no role: in that case the participle simply refers to the property of being slaughtered, and no action is implied at all. In other words, the verbal nature of the past/passive participle geslachte has perished and the participle is semantically acting like a true adjective, comparable to, e.g., breek -baar'fragile/breakable'.

a.		de	slachtende	slager
		the	slaughtering	butcher

b.	de	geslachte	lammeren
	the	slaughtered	lambs
	Verbal reading: 'the lambs that have been slaughtered'
	Truly adjectival reading: 'the lambs that are slaughtered'			are = copula

That adjectival past/passive participles can be non-verbal in nature can be demonstrated even more clearly by means of the participle gesloten'closed' in (52). This example would be fully appropriate in the context of a newly built swimming pool the opening ceremony of which has been delayed; this means that the event of closing the swimming pool has never occurred and that the verbal reading of gesloten is excluded for extra-linguistic reasons.

		Het zwembad	is nog	steeds	gesloten.
		the swimming pool	is prt	still	closed

The ambiguity in (51b) arises not only with transitive verbs, but also with unaccusative verbs. This is illustrated in (53) for the unaccusative verb trouwen'to marry'. The past participle getrouwd may refer either to the event of getting married, in which case we are dealing with a verbal participle or to the state of being married, in which case the participle is truly adjectival.

het getrouwde	stel
the married	couple
Verbal reading: 'the couple that has married'
Truly adjectival reading: 'the couple that is married'		is = copula

The verbal and truly adjectival participles differ in various respects. First, if the participle is transitive, the subject of the corresponding active clause can be expressed by means of a door-phrase in the case of a verbal past/passive participle; cf. Section 9.2.1. This is not possible, however, with a truly adjectival participle, which is clear from the fact that (54a) has the verbal reading only. The same thing holds if arguments other than the agentive door-phrase are expressed: (54b) illustrates this by means of the (optional) beneficiary argument voor Peter'for Peter'.

a.	de	door de slager	geslachte	lammeren
	the	by the butcher	slaughtered	lambs
	Verbal reading only: 'the lambs that have been slaughtered by the butcher'

b.	de	voor Peter	geslachte	lammeren
	the	for Peter	slaughtered	lambs
	Verbal reading only: 'the lambs that have been slaughtered for Peter'

Second, adjectives and verbs differ in that only the former can be prefixed by means of the negative morpheme on-; see Section 9.1, sub IB3. Consequently, if the participle is prefixed with this morpheme, we can be sure that we are dealing with a truly adjectival past/passive participle. In accordance with this, the examples in (55) have a state reading only. Since the presence of a door-phrase and the prefixation with on- lead to a contradiction with respect to the ±V status of the participle, we correctly predict that example (55b) is unacceptable if the door-phrase is present.

a.	Het	ongetrouwde	stel.
	the	un-married	couple
	Truly adjectival reading only: 'the couple that is unmarried.'

b.	de	(*door de slager)	ongeslachte	lammeren
	the	by the butcher	un-slaughtered	lambs
	Truly adjectival reading only: 'the lambs that arenʼt slaughtered'

The final difference concerns adverb selection. A verbal past/passive participle refers to a certain point on the time axis, at which the action was completed, whereas a truly adjectival participle refers to a larger interval during which the state attributed to the head noun is applicable. As a result of this, the two types of participle combine with different types of adverbial phrases of time: verbal participles combine with adverbial phrases that refer to a certain point on the time axis such as gisteren'yesterday' or with adverbs such as meermaals'several times' or twee keer'twice', which express that an event has taken place more than one time; truly adjectival participles, on the other hand, combine with adverbial phrases that refer to a continuous span of time such as jarenlang'for years'. Consequently, example (56a) only has the verbal reading, which is also clear from the fact that the participle cannot be prefixed with the negative prefix on-, whereas example (56b) only has the truly adjectival reading, which is supported by the fact that on- prefixation is possible.

a.	het	gisteren/twee keer	getrouwde/*ongetrouwde	stel
	the	yesterday/twice	married/unmarried	couple
	Verbal reading: 'the couple that married yesterday/twice'

b.	het	al jarenlang	getrouwde/ongetrouwde	stel
	the	for years	married/unmarried	couple
	Truly adjectival reading: 'the couple that has been married/unmarried for years'

[+] 2. Nom-dat verbs

The fact that suppression of the dative object leads to a degraded result with attributively used past participles of the nom-dat verbs in (57) shows that these participles cannot readily receive a truly adjectival reading. Note that (57a&c) are only marginally acceptable if the dative object is contextually implied or recoverable from the situation.

a.	de	??(ons)	goed	bevallen	vakantie
	the	us	well	pleased	holiday
	'the holiday that pleased (us) very much'

b.	de	*(mij)	overkomen	ongelukken
	the	me	happened	accidents
	'the accidents that happened (to me)'

c.	de	??(mij)	opgevallen	fouten
	the	me	noticed	mistakes
	'the mistakes that I noticed'

The examples in (58) show that the present participles of nom-dat verbs also lack the adjectival properties of on- prefixation and modification by means of adverbial phrases like jarenlang'for years'. It should be noted, however, that we did find some cases such as (58c) on the internet.

de onbevallen vakantie

a'.

de jarenlang bevallen vakantie

de onoverkomen ongelukken

b'.

de jarenlang overkomen ongelukken

onopgevallen fouten

c'.

de jarenlang opgevallen fouten

[+] 3. Object experiencer psych-verbs

The fact that the past participle of object experiencer psych-verbs can be modified by intensifiers like heel'very' and be prefixed by means of on- unambiguously shows that the participles of this type of verb can be interpreted as truly adjectival.

a.		een	(heel)	geïnteresseerde	doelgroep
		a	very	interested	target.group

b.		een	ongeïnteresseerde	doelgroep
		an	indifferent	target.group

The fact that intensification by means of heel'very' is never possible with attributively used participles of other verb types shows that adjectival past participles of object experiencer verbs are special in being gradable. This conclusion is supported by the examples in (60), which show that the participle geïnteresseerd also has a comparative/superlative form; note that the synthetic comparative form geïnteresseerdere can also be found on the internet but is clearly less popular.

a.		een	meer geïnteresseerde	doelgroep
		a	more interested	target.group

b.		de	meest	geïnteresseerde	doelgroep
		the	most	interested	target.group

Although the examples above unambiguously show that past participles of object experiencer psych-verbs have a truly adjectival reading, it is not so clear whether the attributively used object experiencer psych-verbs may have a verbal reading as well: a truly adjectival, stative reading is strongly favored, which is clear from the fact, illustrated in (61a), that adverbs like gisteren'yesterday', which refer to a certain point on the time axis, cannot readily be added. For this reason, we conclude that attributively used past/passive participles of the psych-verb strongly prefer the truly adjectival reading (but see section V2.5.1.3 for a more careful discussion).

a.		het	nog	steeds/*gisteren	geamuseerde	publiek
		the	prt	still/yesterday	amused	audience

b.		De voorstelling	amuseerde	het publiek	nog	steeds/gisteren.
		the performance	amused	the audience	prt	still/yesterday

For completeness’ sake, note that we have not used the verb interesseren in (61) since the use of the adverbial phrase gisteren also gives rise to a marked result in the active construction in (62b); this example improves, however, if a negative element like niet'not' or weinig'little' is added. As can be seen in (61b), this problem does not arise with the verb amuseren.

a.	*	het	gisteren	geïnteresseerde	publiek
		the	yesterday	interested	audience

b.	*	De	voorstelling	interesseerde	het publiek	gisteren.
		the	performance	interested	the audience	yesterday

[+] 4. Summary

The discussion in the previous subsections is summarized by means of Table 5. The verbal types for which the distinctions are marked n.a. were not discussed given that they never allow their past/passive participle in attributive position; see Table 4.

Table 5: The categorial status of attributively used adjectival past/passive participles

	verbal	truly adjectival
intransitive verb	n.a.	n.a.
transitive verb	+	+
unaccusative verb	+	+
nom-dat verbs that selectzijn	+	—
nom-dat verbs that selecthebben	n.a.	n.a.
object experiencer psych-verbs	—	+

[+] 5. Some potentially problematic cases

Although we have established that past/perfect participles of transitive and unaccusative verbs can have a truly adjectival reading, there are cases in which this seems to give rise to less felicitous results. Consider, for instance, the examples in (63) with the past/passive participle of the transitive verb aanbieden'to offer': since only the time adverb gisteren is possible, the participle is apparently able to refer to a completed action, but not to a property that applies during a longer period of time.

a.	het	gisteren	aangeboden	boek
	the	yesterday	prt.-offered	book
	'the book that was offered yesterday'

b.	#	het	jarenlang	aangeboden	boek
		the	for years	prt.-offered	book
		'the book that has been on display for years'

Similar facts can be observed with the unaccusative verb vallen'to fall' in (64). Note that the primed examples are accepted by some speakers with an iterative meaning, but in that case we are of course also dealing with the verbal reading of the participle.

a.	de	gisteren	gevallen	jongen
	the	yesterday	fallen	boy
	'the boy that fell yesterday'

b.	#	de	jarenlang	gevallen	jongen
		the	for years	fallen	boy
		'the boy that was fallen for years'				was = copula

Concomitant with this difference between participles like geslacht/getrouwd and aangeboden/gevallen is that the former but not the latter can readily be used as predicates in a copular construction: as will be discussed more extensively in Section 9.3.1, sub I, only truly adjectival participles can appear in this construction.

a.	De schapen	bleken	geslacht.	transitive
	the sheep	turned.out	slaughtered
	'The sheep turned out to be slaughtered.'

a'.	??	Dat boek	bleek	aangeboden.
		that book	turned.out	prt.-offered

b.	Dat stel	bleek	(al jaren)	getrouwd.	unaccusative
	that couple	turned.out	for years	married
	'that couple turned out to have been married for years'

b'.	??	De jongen	bleek	gevallen.
		the boy	turned.out	fallen

We have used the copular verb blijken'to turn out' in (65) instead of zijn in order to avoid ambiguity with passive and perfect-tense construction. That the use of zijn creates ambiguity is clear from the fact that the primed examples in (65) become fully acceptable if we add the infinitive te zijn'to be': the two primed examples in (66) involve, respectively, the passive and perfect auxiliary zijn, which means that we are again dealing with verbaladjectival participles. Observe that the primeless examples in (66) remain ambiguous: both the verbal and the truly adjectival reading are possible.

a.	De schapen	bleken	geslacht	te zijn.	transitive
	the sheep	turned.out	slaughtered	to have.been/be
	'The sheep turned out to have been/be slaughtered.'

a'.	Dat boek	bleek	(al)	aangeboden	te zijn.
	that book	turned.out	already	prt.-offered	to be
	'That book turned out to have been offered already.'

b.	Het stel	bleek	getrouwd	te zijn.	unaccusative
	the couple	turned.out	married	to have been/be
	'The couple turned out to have been/be married.'

b'.	De jongen	bleek	gevallen	te zijn.
	the boy	turned.out	fallen	to be
	'The boy turned out to have fallen.'

This subsection has shown that two classes of transitive and unaccusative verbs should be distinguished: attributively used past/passive participles of the type geslacht/getrouwd can be both verbal and truly adjectival, whereas those of the type aangeboden/gevallen cannot be truly adjectival. We leave it to future research to investigate what determines whether a certain adjectival participle of a transitive or unaccusative verb can or cannot be interpreted as truly adjectival.

[+] B. Present participles

Although Table 4 has shown that present participles of all verb types can be used attributively, Subsection 1 will argue that the truly adjectival use of present participles is only found with object experiencer psych-verbs, subsection 2 will discuss a number of potential counterexamples to this claim.

[+] 1. Verb types

This subsection shows that truly adjectival present participles can only be derived from object experiencer psych-verbs. The examples in (67) show that present participles normally retain their aspectual properties if used attributively; the intransitive, transitive and unaccusative present participles all express durative aspect, and we therefore have to conclude that we are dealing with verbal participles.

a.	de	lachende	jongen	intransitive
	the	laughing	boy
	Verbal reading only: 'the boy that is laughing'

b.	de	slachtende	slager	transitive
	the	slaughtering	butcher
	Verbal reading only: 'the butcher that is slaughtering (some animal)'

c.	de	vallende	bladeren	unaccusative
	the	falling	leaves
	Verbal reading only: 'the leaves that are falling'

Nom-dat verbs of both types also resist the formation of truly adjectival present participles, which may be related to the fact that dropping the dative object gives rise to a marked result; the primed examples are only acceptable without the dative object if the goal is somehow recoverable from the context.

a.		De vakantie is ons goed bevallen.
		the holiday is us well pleased
		'The holiday pleased us well.'

a'.	de	?(ons)	goed	bevallende	vakantie
	the	us	good	pleasing	holiday
	'the holiday that pleases us very much'

b.		De moed heeft ons ontbroken
		the courage has us lacked
		'We lacked the courage.'

b'.	de	?(ons)	ontbrekende	moed
	the	us	lacking	courage
	'The courage we lack.'

A notable exception is the nom-dat verb opvallen'to strike', which does have a corresponding gradable, truly adjectival participle. That the participle is truly adjectival is clear from the fact that it can be intensified by heel'very' and appear in the comparative and superlative forms.

a.	Die jongen	is	mij opgevallen.
	that boy	has	me prt.-struck
	'That boy attracted my attention.'

b.		een	(heel)	opvallende	verschijning
		a	very	eye.catching	figure

c.		een meer/de meest	opvallende	verschijning
		a more/the most	eye.catching	figure

The examples in (70) show that, in accordance with the hypothesis that only truly adjectival participles can be used predicatively (cf. Section 9.3.1, sub I), the present participle opvallend also differs from the present participles of the nom-dat verbs in (68) in that it can appear in complementive position.

a.	*	Die vakantie	is goed	bevallend.
		the holiday	is well	pleasing

b.	*	De moed	is ontbrekend.
		the courage	is lacking

c.	Die jongen	is erg opvallend.
	that boy	is very eye.catching
	'That boy is conspicuous.'

Object experiencer psych-verbs differ from the other verb types discussed above in that they readily allow a truly adjectival reading of their present participles. Under this reading, the participle has lost its aspectual properties and generally expresses some intrinsic property of the modified head noun. As expected, the object of the corresponding verb can only be expressed if the present participle is verbal: whereas example (71b) is ambiguous, the participle in (71c) can only be interpreted as verbal.

a.		Het argument	overtuigde	ons.
		the argument	convinced	us

b.	een	overtuigende	argument
	a	convincing	argument
	Verbal reading: 'an argument that convinces (someone)'
	Truly adjectival reading: 'a conclusive argument'

c.	een	ons	overtuigende	argument
	a	us	convincing	argument
	Verbal reading only: 'an argument that convinces us'

Since comparative formation and on- prefixation can only apply to truly adjectival participles (cf. Section 1.3.1, sub II), we correctly predict that the examples in (72) only have the non-aspectual reading and that the addition of the object ons'us' leads to ungrammaticality.

a.	een	(*ons)	overtuigender	bewijsvoering
	a	us	more.convincing	argument
	Truly adjectival reading only: 'a more conclusive argument'

b.	een	(*ons)	onovertuigende	bewijsvoering
	a	us	un-convincing	argument
	Truly adjectival reading only: 'an inconclusive argument'

If we are dealing with separable particle verbs, like innemen'to win oneʼs sympathy' in (73a), verbal and truly adjectival present participles differ with respect to their stress properties: like separable verbs, verbal present participles normally have main stress on the particle, whereas truly adjectival participles have main stress on the verbal part; cf. (73b). Apart from interpretation, this claim is supported by the fact that the stress pattern of the verbal type is required if the object is expressed, as in (73c), and that the adjectival stress pattern of the adjectival type is required if comparative formation has applied, as in (73d).

a.	Die opmerking	nam	ons	voor hem	in.
	that remark	captivated	us	for him	prt
	'That remark won our sympathy for him.'

b.		een	innemende/innemende	opmerking
		a	captivating	remark

c.		een	ons	voor hem	innemende/*innemende	opmerking
		a	us	for him	captivating	remark

d.		een	innemender/*innemender	opmerking
		a	more.captivating	remark

[+] 2. Potential counterexamples

Subsection 1 has already mentioned that only truly adjectival present participles can be used predicatively; see also Section 9.3.1, sub II. The examples in (74) are therefore in accordance with the finding of the Subsection 1 that only the present participles of object experiencer psych-verbs can be truly adjectival.

a.	*	De jongen	is	lachend.	is = copular
		the boy	is	laughing

b.	*	De slager	is	slachtend.	is = copular
		the butcher	is	slaughtering

c.	*	De bladeren	zijn	vallend.	zijn = copular
		the leaves	are	falling

d.		De bewijsvoering	is	overtuigend.	is = copular
		the argumentation	is	convincing/conclusive

It should be noted, however, that there are many adjectival compounds consisting of a present participle of an (in)transitive verb as their second member and a noun (75a-i), an adjective (75j&k), or a particle (75l) as their first member; cf. De Haas and Trommelen (1993). That we are dealing with adjectives is clear from the fact that these compounds can all be used in predicative position, and that many of them can be modified by means of the intensifier zeer/heel'very'.

a.		adembenemend
		breath+taking
		'breathtaking'

e.		gezaghebbend
		authority+having
		'authoritative'

i.		zorgwekkend
		worry+raising
		'worrisome'

b.		alwetend
		all+knowing
		'omniscient'

f.		noodlijdend
		need+suffering
		'destitute/needy'

j.		slechthorend
		ill+hearing
		'hard of hearing'

c.		angstaanjagend
		fear+filling.with
		'frightening'

g.		toonaangevend
		tone+setting
		'authoritative'

k.		weldenkend
		right+thinking
		'right-minded'

d.		geestdodend
		mind+killing
		'stultifying'

h.		veelzeggend
		much+saying
		'revealing'

l.		neerbuigend
		down+bending
		'patronizing'

Other potentially problematic cases involve the adjectives in (76), which denote properties of substances and materials. Although adjectives of this type are generally compounds as well, there are also some cases in which we are dealing with a simplex form. An example is laxerend'laxative' in (76c), which is clearly adjectival given that it can be used in predicative position and be modified by the intensifier heel'very'.

a.		een	vochtwerende	verf
		a	damp+proof	paint

a'.		Deze verf	is vochtwerend.
		this paint	is damp+proof

b.	ijzerhoudend	water
	iron+keeping	water
	'chalybeate water'

b'.	Dit water	is ijzerhoudend.
	this water	is iron+keeping
	'This water is chalybeate'

c.		een	laxerend	medicijn
		a	laxative	medicine

c'.		Koffie	is (heel)	laxerend.
		coffee	is very	laxative

Example (77), finally, provides a final set of probably apparent counterexamples for the claim that only the present participles of psych-verbs can be truly adjectival.

a.		een	heel neerbuigende	houding
		a	very patronizing	attitude

b.		een	zeer lovende	bespreking
		a	very commending	review

a'.		Zijn houding	is heel neerbuigend.
		his attitude	is very patronizing

b'.		Zijn bespreking is zeer lovend.
		his review is very commending

a''.	*	Zijn houding	boog	hem	neer.
		his attitude	patronized	him	prt.

b''.	*?	Zijn bespreking loofde het boek.
		his review commended the book

Given that modification by the adverb heel/zeer'very' is possible, the examples in (77) must involve true adjectives, which is also consistent with the fact that the forms in question can be used predicatively. The doubly-primed examples show, however, that the head nouns of these examples do not correspond to the subject of the corresponding active verbal construction, which may indicate that we are dealing with pseudo-participles. These examples clearly deserve more research.

[+] C. Summary

This section has proposed several tests to determine the ±V status of attributively used participles; the results are summarized in Table 6. Row (i) indicates whether the participle expresses aspect, row (ii) whether the arguments of the corresponding active verb can be realized, row (iii) whether prefixation with the negative morpheme on- is possible, row (iv) whether a modifying temporal adverbial phrase refers to specific points or to an interval on the time axis, and row (v) whether the participle can be modified by the intensifier zeer/heel'very' or undergo comparative/superlative formation. The adverbial test in (iv) is suitable only for determining the verbal status of past participles: present participles are durative in nature, and therefore apply to an interval on the time axis by definition. The test concerning intensification and comparative/superlative in (v) is only applicable to object experiencer verbs, given that the other participles are all non-gradable.

Table 6: Tests for determining the ±V status of attributively used adjectival participles

		verbal	truly adjectival
(i)	aspect	+	—
(ii)	arguments	+	—
(iii)	on- prefixation	—	+
(iv)	temporal adverbial phrase (past participles only)	(multiple) point(s) on the time axis	continuous interval on the time axis
(v)	intensification comparative/superlative	—	+ (if scalable)

[+] III. Tense and aspect

Since participle phrases are not finite, tense distinctions are not explicitly made. Nevertheless, often some notion of tense seems to be expressed. This will be discussed in the following subsections.

[+] A. Present participles

Present participle phrases normally refer to states of affairs that take place simultaneously with the state of affairs described in the clause; the implied tense of the participle phrase is the same as the tense of the clause. This can be supported by the fact that the primeless examples in (78) can be paraphrased by means of the primed examples, where the participle phrase has been replaced by a relative clause in which the implied tense of the participle phrase has been made explicit; changing the tense of the relative clauses would make these relative constructions improper paraphrases of the participle constructions.

a.		De	daar	bij het raam	zittende	jongen	is mijn broer.
		the	there	at the window	sitting	boy	is my brother

a'.	De jongen	die	daar	bij het raam zit	is mijn broer.
	the boy	who	there	at the window sits	is my brother
	'The boy who is sitting there at the window is my brother.'

b.		De vrolijk	een deuntje	fluitende jongen	fietste	voorbij.
		the cheerfully	a tune	whistling boy	cycled	past

b'.	De jongen,	die vrolijk een deuntje floot,	fietste	voorbij.
	the boy	who cheerfully a tune whistled	cycled	past
	'The boy, who cheerfully whistled a tune, cycled past.'

In some cases, however, the participle phrase contains an adverbial phrase that indicates that the implied tense deviates from that of the matrix clause. In (79a), for instance, the adverb nu'now' suggests that present tense is implied in the participle phrase, while the matrix clause is in the past; similarly, in (79b), the adverb ooit'formerly/in the past' indicates a past tense, while the matrix clause is in the present.

a.	De	nu	voor zichzelf	werkende	aannemer	werkte	toen	bij een bedrijf.
	the	now	for himself	working	contractor	worked	then	with a company
	'The contractor, who is now working for himself, was then working for a firm.'

b.	Deze	ooit	voor Ajax	spelend	voetballer	is nu	trainer van PSV.
	this	once	for Ajax	playing	soccer player	is now	trainer of PSV
	'This soccer player, who once played for Ajax, is now the trainer of PSV.'

In formal or literary language, a present participle phrase may appear with an auxiliary, which formally expresses perfective aspect. In colloquial speech, the intended meanings of the examples in (80) are expressed by means of non-restrictive relative clauses in the perfect tense.

a.	?	Jan,	zijn trein gemist hebbende,	besloot	een kopje koffie	te gaan	drinken.
		Jan	his train missed having	decided	a cup coffee	to go	drink
		'Jan, having missed his train, decided to have a cup of coffee.'

b.	?	Het meisje,	een uur gewacht hebbende,	ging	teleurgesteld	naar huis	terug.
		the girl	an hour waited having	went	disappointed	to house	back
		'The girl, having waited for an hour, returned home disappointed.'

[+] B. Past/passive participles

Past/passive participle phrases normally describe states of affairs that have taken place prior to the state of affairs referred to in the matrix clause. Here, too, the implied tense is typically identical to that of the matrix clause, which is shown for the primeless examples in (81) by means of the paraphrases in the primed examples; changing the tense of the relative clauses would make these relative constructions improper paraphrases of the participle constructions.

a.		De	van hout	gemaakte	huizen	zien	er	nogal gammel	uit.
		the	of wood	made	houses	look	prt.	rather crumbling	prt.

a'.		De huizen	die	gemaakt	zijn	van hout	zien	er	nogal gammel	uit.
		the houses	which	made	are	of wood	look	prt.	rather crumbling	prt.

b.	De van hout	gemaakte	huizen	brandden	tot aan de grond	af.
	the of wood	made	houses	burnt	to the ground	prt.
	'The houses, made of wood, burnt down completely.'

b'.		De huizen,	die	gemaakt	waren	van hout,	brandden	tot aan de grond	af.
		the houses	which	made	were	of wood	burnt	to the ground	prt.

Exceptions do again occur, which is clear from the fact that both the past and the present relative constructions in (82b) are adequate paraphrases of (82a): the use of the past tense in the paraphrases suggests that the houses under discussion did not survive, while the present tense suggests that the houses are still there. The apparent ambiguity of (82a) is due to the fact that the attributively used participle does not provide any clue concerning the question as to whether the houses still exist.

a.	Hun van hout	gemaakte	huizen	zagen	er	nogal gammel	uit.
	their of wood	made	houses	looked	prt.	rather rickety	prt.
	'Their houses, made of wood, looked rather ramshackle.'

b.	Hun huizen, die gemaakt waren/zijn	van hout,	zagen	er	nogal gammel	uit.
	their houses which made were/are	of wood	looked	prt.	rather rickety	prt.
	'Their houses, which were/are made of wood, looked rather ramshackle.'

References:

Haas, Wim de & Trommelen, Mieke1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvormingSDU Uitgeverij
Hoekstra, Teun1984Transitivity. Grammatical relations in government-binding theoryDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications
Koster, Jan1978Locality principles in syntaxDordrechtForis Publications

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Publication date: 22 November 2023

Keywords: AspectAuxiliaryComplementationComplex VerbImperfective AspectNom-Dat VerbPPParticiplePassivePerfective AspectPresent ParticipleSemi-passiveSeparable Complex VerbVerb

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles