• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all use

This section discusses adpositional phrases that act as predicative complements (from now on: complementives); cf. Hoekstra (1984a/1987), Mulder and Wehrmann (1989) and Hoekstra and Mulder (1990) and many others. Complementives differ from arguments in that they do not necessarily saturate a slot in the lexical entry of the verb, but are themselves predicated of some noun phrase in their clause, for which reason they are also often referred to as secondary predicates. The complementive adpositional phrases are generally spatial in nature, and we will therefore restrict our attention mainly to these; the discussion of the other cases will be postponed to the more extensive discussion of complementive adpositional phrases in Section 4.2.1.

[+]  I.  General introduction

When an adpositional phrase is used as a complementive, it specifies a property of some noun phrase that occurs in the same clause. In example (16a), for instance, the adpositional phrase in het zwembad'in the swimming pool' is predicated of the noun phrase Jan. Actually, the adposition can be considered as a two-place predicate that denotes a spatial relation between its complement and the argument the full adpositional phrase is predicated of. In other words, the semantic interpretation of example (16a) is as given in (16b).

a. Jan is in het zwembad.
  Jan is in the swimming.pool
b. in (Jan, het zwembad)

Complementive adpositional phrases can either denote a location or a direction. The examples in (17) involve locational adpositional phrases, which are always headed by a preposition. The two examples differ in that in (17a) the PP simply refers a location, whereas (17b) also involves a change of location.

a. Jan ligt in het zwembad.
  Jan lies  in  the swimming.pool
b. Jan valt in het zwembad.
  Jan falls  into  the swimming.pool

It seems reasonable, however, to not attribute the difference between the location and change of location reading to the PPs themselves. The PP in het zwembad is compatible with both readings, and it is the verb that determines which reading is most salient: if the verb is stative, like liggen'to lie', the locational reading arises; if it is a verb denoting an activity or a process, like vallen'to fall', the change of location reading may arise.
      Directional adpositional phrases can be headed either by a preposition like naar'to', a postposition like in in (18b), or a circumposition. These directional adpositional phrases always involve a change of location, and, as a result of this, they cannot be combined with stative verbs, as is shown in (18a).

a. * Jan ligt het zwembad in.
  Jan lies  the swimming.pool  into
b. Jan valt het zwembad in.
  Jan falls  the swimming.pool  into

      The semantic difference between change of location constructions such as (17b) and directional constructions such as (18b) is often not very clear: (17b) and (18b) seem nearly synonymous. The main difference between locational and directional adpositional phrases is, however, that the latter implies the notion of a path, whereas the former does not. The fact that the adpositional phrases in (17b) and (18b) differ in this way can be made clear by means of the XP met die NP! construction discussed in (10) above. For many (but not all) speakers, the XP must be a directional phrase; if the XP is a locational phrase, the construction gives rise to a marked result for these speakers. This accounts for the difference in acceptability between (19a') and (19b').

a. We gooien die jongen in het zwembad.
change of location
  we  throw  that boy  into the swimming.pool
a'. % In het zwembad met die jongen!
  into the swimming.pool  with that boy
b. We gooien die jongen het zwembad in.
  we  throw  that boy  the swimming.pool  into
b'. Het zwembad in met die jongen!
  the swimming.pool  into  with that boy

      The semantic difference between locational and directional phrases can also be made clear by means of the examples in (20). In the location construction in (20a), it is expressed that Jan is involved in a jumping event as a result of which he obtains some position on the stairs; the perfect-tense construction in (20a') therefore implies that, after finishing the activity of jumping, Jan is on the stairs. In (20b), on the other hand, it is expressed that Jan is involved in the event of ascending the stairs, and that his path on the stairs is covered by means of jumping; the perfect-tense construction in (20b') does not necessarily imply that, after finishing the activity, Jan is situated on the stairs; this may or may not be the case. That (20b') does not necessarily imply that Jan is situated on the stairs is clear from the fact that it is possible to add an adverbial phrase like naar zijn kamer'to his room', which refers to the endpoint of the path covered by Jan; with this adverbial phrase added, (20b') suggests that Jan is in his room. The addition of this adverbial phrase to (20a'), on the other hand, leads to a contradiction and therefore gives rise to an unacceptable result. The number signs in the (a)-examples indicate that they are acceptable with the naar-PP, but only if the PP is construed as an attributive modifier of the noun trap ( de trap naar zijn kamer'the stairs that lead to his room').

a. Jan springt op de trap (#naar zijn kamer).
  Jan jumps  onto the stairs     to his room
a'. Jan is op de trap gesprongen (#naar zijn kamer).
  Jan is on the chairs  jumped     to his room
  'Jan has jumped onto the stairs (to his room).'
b. Jan springt/rent de trap op (naar zijn kamer).
  Jan jumps/runs  the stairs  onto   to his room
b'. Jan is de trap op gesprongen/gerend (naar zijn kamer).
  Jan is the stairs  onto  jumped/run   to his room
  'Jan has jumped/run onto the stairs (into his room).'

Note in passing that example (20a), but not (20b), can also be interpreted in such a way that Jan is occupying a position on the stairs and that he is jumping up and down at that position. Under this interpretation, we are dealing with an adverbially used PP. For the moment, it suffices to note that under this interpretation the verb springen takes the auxiliary hebben'to have' in the perfect tense (and not zijn'to be' as in the primed examples in (20)), and that the PP can be omitted; cf. (21a). Subsection IIA will discuss more differences between adverbial and complementive adpositional phrases.

a. Jan heeft (op de trap) gesprongen.
  Jan has  on the stairs  jumped
  'Jan has jumped on the stairs.'
b. * Jan heeft de trap op gesprongen.
  Jan has  the stairs  onto  jumped

      We have suggested in our discussion of the examples in (17) that the actual interpretation of locational prepositional phrases is regulated by the aspectual properties of the verb: stative verbs like those in (22a) are only compatible with adpositional complementives denoting a location, whereas activity verbs like springen'to jump' or process verbs like vallen'to fall' require that the adpositional complementives denote a change of location or a direction. Some verb classes impose even more strict constraints on the interpretation of the adpositional complementive in that they are compatible with only one of the two interpretations available for springen/vallen: the verbs of change of location in (22b), which can be seen as the causative counterparts of the verbs in (22a), force a change of location reading on the adpositional phrase, and the verbs of traversing in (22c) are only compatible with adpositional phrases denoting a direction (change of location along a path).

a. Verbs of location (monadic): hangen'to hang', liggen'to lie', staan'to stand', zitten'to sit'
b. Verbs of change of location (dyadic): hangen'to hang', leggen'to lay', zetten'to put'
c. Verbs of traversing: rijden'to drive', fietsen'to cycle', wandelen'to walk', etc.

The examples in (23) to (25) illustrate the restrictions imposed by the verb types in (22) on the interpretation of the adpositional complementive. In (23), the locational verb staan'to stand' indicates that the car is situated on the hill; note in passing that the complementive adpositional phrase in this example differs from the adverbial phrase in (21) in that it is obligatorily present.

De auto staat op de heuvel.
  the car  stands  on the hill
'The car is standing on the hill.'

In (24a) the car is also situated on the hill, but in addition it is claimed that a change of location is involved: the car ends up on the hill as a result of some activity by Jan. That the verb zetten is not compatible with a directional adpositional phrase is clear from the fact illustrated in (24b) that the prepositional phrase cannot be replaced by the postpositional phrase de heuvel op.

a. Jan zet de auto op de heuvel.
change of location
  Jan puts  the car  onto the hill
  'Jan is putting the car onto the hill.'
b. *? Jan zet de auto de heuvel op.

Example (25a) also indicates a change of location, but in addition it is expressed that the car is covering some path. That rijden preferably takes a directional adpositional phrase is clear from the fact that it is at best marginally compatible with the prepositional phrase op de heuvel in (25b).

a. Jan rijdt de auto de heuvel op.
  Jan drives  the car  the hill  onto
  'Jan is driving the car onto the hill.'
b. ?? Jan rijdt de auto op de heuvel.
change of location

It should be noted, however, that the acceptability of examples such as (25b) also seems to depend on properties of the referent of the complement of the preposition. In case it is a relatively small object, the result improves.

a. Jan rijdt de auto de weeginstallatie op.
  Jan drives  the car  the balance  onto
  'Jan drives the car onto the balance.'
b. ? Jan rijdt de auto op de weeginstallatie.

      The verb of traversing rijden can be used not only as a dyadic verb, as in (24) to (26), but also as a monadic unaccusative verb: Jan rijdt de heuvel op'Jan is driving onto the hill'. In the latter case, it has an intransitive counterpart that functions as a regular activity verb. As in the case of springen'to jump', the activity verb differs from the verb of traversing in selecting the auxiliary hebben instead of zijn, and in that the adpositional phrase is optional and functions as an adverbial phrase indicating the location where the activity takes place; see the contrast between the perfect tense form of the unaccusative construction in (27a) and the perfect tense form of the intransitive construction in (27b): we refer the reader to Section V2.1.2, sub IV for a number of potential problems concerning auxiliary selection.

a. Jan is *(de heuvel op) gereden.
  Jan is     the hill  onto  driven
  'Jan has driven onto the hill.'
b. Jan heeft (op de heuvel) gereden.
  Jan has   on the hill  driven
  'Jan has driven (on the hill).'

      As was already mentioned above, motion verbs like vallen'to fall' and springen'to jump' are not specialized in the way the verbs in (22) are. This is clear from the fact that they can be combined with both a prepositional and a postpositional phrase, as has already been shown in (17b)/(18b) and (20). The same thing holds for the verbs slaan'to hit' and gooien'to throw' in resultative constructions such as (28).

a. Jan sloeg de spijker in de muur.
change of location
  Jan hit  the nail  into the wall
a'. Jan sloeg de spijker de muur in.
  Jan hit  the nail  the wall  into
  'Jan hit the nail into the wall.'
b. Jan gooide de spijker in de doos.
change of location
  Jan threw  the nail  into the box
b'. Jan gooide de spijker de doos in.
  Jan threw  the nail  the box  into
  'Jan threw the nail into the box.'

The following two subsections briefly discuss some of the basic properties of complementive locational and directional adpositional phrases. A more comprehensive discussion will be given in Section 4.2.

[+]  II.  Locational adpositional phrases

Subsection I has shown that a complementive locational PP specifies a property of some noun phrase in the same clause. For example, the adpositional phrase in het zwembad in (29a) is predicated of the noun phrase Jan. In this respect, (29a) behaves just like the copular construction in (29b), in which the AP aardig is predicated of the noun phrase Jan.

a. Jan is in het zwembad.
  Jan is in the swimming.pool
b. Jan is aardig.
  Jan is nice

Traditional grammar would not consider examples such as (29a) to be copular constructions; the adpositional phrase is analyzed as an adverbial phrase. One reason for this is that assuming that (29a) is a copular construction would force us to assume that the set of copular verbs should be extended considerably by including the locational verbs in (22a) and motion verbs such as vallen'to fall' and springen'to jump' in order to account for the similarity between (29a), on the one hand, and examples like (17) and (20), on the other.
      From the perspective of present-day theoretical linguistics, there is no compelling reason for assuming that there is a principled syntactic distinction between the copular verbs and the verbs of location and motion, although they do, of course, differ in the semantic contributions that they make: copular verbs mainly express aspectual and modal meanings, whereas verbs of location and motion denote states, processes and activities. But from a syntactic point of view, these verbs can all be assumed to take a complementive adpositional phrase that, in turn, takes the subject of the clause as its logical subject; in short, they are all unaccusative verbs. In fact, this is precisely what is to be expected, given that complementive adjectives can also occur as complements of verbs other than the copulas, such as the verb vallen in (30b) or the verb schoppen'to kick' in the resultative construction in (30c). Treating the locational PPs in the primed examples in (30) not as adverbial phrases but as complementives enables us to analyze them in the same way as the corresponding primeless examples, and thus to provide a natural account for the fact that the predication relations in the primeless and primed examples are identical: the AP dood and the PP in het zwembad are predicated of the nominative subject of the clause in the (a)- and (b)-examples, whereas they are predicated of the accusative object of the clause in the (c)-examples.

a. Jan is dood.
  Jan is dead
a'. Jan is in het zwembad.
  Jan is in the swimming.pool
b. Jan viel dood.
  Jan fell  dead
b'. Jan viel in het zwembad.
  Jan fell into the swimming.pool
c. Marie schopte Jan dood.
  Marie kicked  Jan  dead
c'. Marie schopte de bal in het zwembad.
  Marie kicked the ball into the swimming.pool

We therefore reject the traditional view that locational PPs always function as adverbial phrases in favor of the more subtle view that, depending on the syntactic context, locational PPs can be used both adverbially and predicatively.
      Complementives are always predicated of either the nominative or the accusative argument within their clause, as illustrated in the examples in (30). Below, we will briefly discuss these two cases.

[+]  A.  Adpositional phrases predicated of the nominative argument in the clause

Complementive adpositional phrases that are predicated of the (DO-)subject of the clause are generally the complement of a locational verb like liggen'to lie' or a motion verb like vallen'to fall' in (31).

a. De baby lag in het zwembad.
  the baby  lay  in the swimming.pool
  'The baby was lying in the swimming pool.'
b. De baby viel in het zwembad.
  the baby fell  into the swimming.pool

We have claimed above that these verbs are unaccusative in constructions such as (31). This is, however, not so clear for the locational verb liggen in (31a), given that it does not meet the conditions sufficient for assuming unaccusative status; the examples in (32a&b) show that the verb liggen does not take the auxiliary zijn in the perfect tense and that its past/passive participle cannot be used attributively. The only property that suggests unaccusative status for this verb is that the impersonal passive is excluded, but this is not sufficient to conclude that we are dealing with an unaccusative verb.

a. De baby heeft/*is in het zwembad gelegen.
  the baby has/is  in the swimming.pool  lain
  'The baby has lain in the swimming pool.'
b. * de in het zwembad gelegen baby
  the  in the swimming.pool  lain  baby
c. * Er werd in het zwembad gelegen (door de baby).
  there  was  in the swimming.pool  lain   by the baby

The verb vallen does meet the conditions for unaccusative status, but this is of course not very telling, because it also acts as an unaccusative verb if the locational PP is not present.

a. De baby is/*heeft in het zwembad gevallen.
  the baby is/has  into the swimming.pool  fallen
  'The baby has fallen into the swimming pool.'
b. de in het zwembad gevallen baby
  the  into the swimming.pool  fallen  baby
  'the baby that has fallen into the swimming pool'
c. * Er werd in het zwembad gevallen (door de baby).
  there  was  into the swimming.pool  fallen   by the baby

      More conclusive support in favor of the claim that addition of a complementive PP results in unaccusative status for monadic verbs can be obtained from motion verbs like kruipen'to crawl'. This verb normally has all the properties of regular intransitive verbs: it takes the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense, its past/passive participles cannot be used attributively, and it allows the impersonal passive.

a. De baby kruipt al.
  the baby  crawls  already
b. De baby heeft/*is al gekropen.
  the baby has/is  already  crawled
c. * de gekropen baby
  the  crawled  baby
d. Er werd gekropen (door de baby).
  there  was  crawled   by the baby

However, if we add a locational PP, as in (35a), the behavior of kruipen changes. First, the verb can then take either hebben or zijn in the perfect tense, where the choice between the two options is related to meaning. Example (35a) is actually ambiguous between two readings: on the first reading, the crawling event takes place at the location referred to by the PP onder de tafel; on the second reading, change of location is involved in the sense that the baby ends up under the table as a result of the crawling event. If the first reading is intended, the auxiliary hebben is used, but if the second reading is intended, the auxiliary zijn must be used.

a. De baby kroop onder de tafel.
  the baby  crawled  under the table
b. De baby heeft/is onder de tafel gekropen.
  the baby  has/is  under the table  crawled

The difference between the two readings is related to the syntactic function of the PP: if the PP just refers to the place where the event is taking place, we are dealing with an adverbial phrase; if change of location is involved, the PP is not an adverbial phrase. This claim can be supported by applying the VP adverb test to the examples in (35b): if the auxiliary hebben is used, as in (36a), the clause can be paraphrased by means of an . .. en pronoun doet dat PP'... and pronoun does it PP' clause, which shows that we are dealing with an adverbial PP modifying the VP; if zijn is used, this paraphrase is not possible, so that we can conclude that the PP does not act as a VP adverb.

a. De baby heeft gekropen en hij deed dat onder de tafel.
  the baby has  crawled  and  he  did  that  under the table
b. * De baby is gekropen en hij deed dat onder de tafel.
  the baby is crawled  and  he  did  that  under the table

In the change of location construction, the PP acts like a complementive, which is clear from the fact that, like adjectival and nominal complementives, the PP in (37b) must be left-adjacent to the verb in clause-final position. Example (a) show that the placement of the adverbially used PP is much freer.

a. De baby heeft <onder de tafel> vaak <onder de tafel> gekropen <onder de tafel>.
  the baby has   under the table  often  crawled
b. De baby is <*onder de tafel> vaak <onder de tafel> gekropen <*onder de tafel>.
  the baby is     under the table  often  crawled

When we now consider the behavior of the examples in (35), it turns out that if the PP is used adverbially (that is, refers to the place where the event takes place), the verb behaves like a regular intransitive verb. However, if it is used as a complementive (that is, when we are dealing with the change of location reading), the verb acts as an unaccusative verb. This is shown in the first three rows in Table 4. The two final rows of this table summarize the data in (36) and (37).

Table 4: Adverbial versus complementive adpositional phrases
  example adverbial use of PP complementive use of PP
auxiliary selection De baby heeft/is onder de tafel gekropen
'the baby has/is under the table crawled'
hebben zijn
attributive use of
past/passive participle
De onder de tafel gekropen baby
the under the table crawled baby
'the baby that crawled under the table'
impersonal passive Er werd onder de tafel gekropen
there was under the table crawled
adverb test (36a&b) +
“freer” placement of PP (37a&b) +

Given that the PP can be used either as an adverbial phrase or as a complementive in (35a), we might expect the same uses to be possible with locational verbs such as zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', hangen'to hang' and staan'to stand'. The difference between the two readings in (38) should be that under the adverbial reading of the PP, it is claimed that the sitting event takes place in the garden, whereas under the complementive reading, it is claimed that Marie is in the garden. Since the first reading logically implies the latter, it will be clear that it is difficult to distinguish these two readings. There is, however, evidence that PPs can be used as the complement of locational verbs, but to discuss this here would lead us too far afield. We therefore postpone discussion of this evidence to Section

Marie zit in de tuin.
  Marie sits  in the garden
'Marie is sitting in the garden.'
[+]  B.  Adpositional phrases predicated of the accusative object in the clause

Subsection A has shown that, like adjectival complementives, adpositional complements of locational and motion verbs are predicated of the subject of their clause; the primed and primeless (a)- and (b)-examples in (39) behave on a par. For that reason, we would expect that resultative constructions such as (39c), in which the adjective is predicated of the accusative object of the clause, have an adpositional counterpart as well, and example (39c') shows that this expectation is indeed borne out. For completeness' sake, note that adjectival and adpositional predicates also alternate in the absolute met-construction; cf. Section 4.2.3.

a. Jan is dood.
  Jan is dead
a'. De bal ligt in het zwembad.
  the ball  lies  in the swimming.pool
b. Jan viel dood.
  Jan fell  dead
b'. De bal viel in het zwembad.
  the ball  fell  into the swimming.pool
c. Marie sloeg de hond dood.
  Marie hit  the dog  dead
c'. Marie gooide de bal in het zwembad.
  Marie threw  the ball  into the swimming.pool

Given that slaan and gooien are normally used as regular transitive verbs, the complementives in the (c)-examples of (39) are of course optional. There are, however, some verbs that are specialized in requiring a locational PP (or some other predicative complement). Some examples are the verbs of change of location leggen'to lay', hangen'to hang' and zetten'to put' in the primeless examples of (40), which can be seen as the causative counterparts of the locational verbs liggen'to lie', hangen'to hang' and zitten/staan'to sit/stand' in the primed examples; cf. (22) in Subsection I.

a. Jan legt het boek op de tafel.
  Jan lays  the book  onto the table
  'Jan puts the book on the table.'
a'. Het boek ligt op de tafel.
  the book  lies  on the table
  'The book is lying on the table.'
b. Jan hangt de jas in de kast.
  Jan hangs  the coat  into the closet
b'. De jas hangt in de kast.
  the coat  hangs  in the closet
c. Jan zet de kleuter op het bed.
  Jan puts  the toddler  onto the bed
c'. De kleuter zit op het bed.
  the toddler  sits  on the bed
d. Jan zet het boek in de kast.
  Jan puts  the book  into the bookcase
d'. Het boek staat in de kast.
  the book  stands  in the bookcase

The fact that the PP is optional in (39c') shows that the subject of the PP can also appear as the direct object of the verb. This need not always be the case, however: the noun phrase een gat'a hole' cannot be used alone as the theme argument of the transitive verb slaan'to hit' in (41a), but gives rise to a fully acceptable result if the locational PP in de muur'in the wall' is present. Similarly, adding the locational PP onder het tafelkleed'under the table cloth' to the otherwise intransitive verb blazen'to blow', licenses the introduction of the accusative argument het stof.

a. Jan sloeg een gat *(in de muur).
  Jan hit a  hole     in the wall
b. Jan blies het stof *(onder het tafelkleed).
  Jan blew  the dust     under the table cloth

The primeless examples in (40) as well as the examples in (41) therefore show that, just as in the case of complementive adjectives, the accusative noun phrase is introduced in the sentence as an argument of the adpositional phrase, and not as an argument of the verb.

[+]  III.  Directional adpositional phrases

The discussion of example (20) in Subsection I has already made clear that directional adpositional phrases involve the notion of a path. Directional adpositional phrases can be headed by pre-, post- and circumpositions; for our present purpose of illustrating the main properties of directional phrases, we will only use examples involving postpositions; see Section for a list of directional prepositions. Directional adpositional phrases typically occur as the complement of motion verbs like vallen'to fall' or duiken'to dive'. They are not possible as the complement of a stative locational verb like liggen; the stative reading of these verbs is apparently not compatible with the path reading inherently expressed by directional phrases.

a. * Jan ligt het water in.
  Jan lies  the water into
b. Jan viel/dook het water in.
  Jan fell/dived  the water into

Like the locational PPs discussed in Subsection II, directional adpositional phrases trigger unaccusative behavior on the verb by which they are selected. This will become clear by comparing the primeless and primed examples in (43). The (b)-examples show that whereas duiken normally takes hebben in the perfect tense, it takes zijn if a postpositional phrase is present. The (c)-examples show that the attributive use of the past/passive participle also requires the postpositional phrase to be present. The (d)-examples, finally, show that the presence of the postpositional phrase blocks impersonal passivization.

a. Jan dook
  Jan dived
a'. Jan dook het water in.
   Jan  dived  the water into
b. Jan heeft/*is gedoken.
  Jan has/is  dived
b'. Jan is/*heeft het water in gedoken.
   Jan is/has  the water into  dived
c. * de gedoken jongen
  the  dived  boy
c'. de het water in gedoken jongen
   the  the water into  dived  boy
d. Er werd gedoken.
  there  was  dived
d'. *? Er werd het water in gedoken.
   there  was  the water into  dived

      Example (44a) shows that the postpositional phrase exhibits complementive behavior in the sense that, like other complementive phrases, the postposition must be left-adjacent to the verb in clause-final position. It should be noted, however, that this does not hold for the complete postpositional phrase, as the complement of the postposition (viz. het water) need not be adjacent to the postposition but may occupy a position more to the left. This is shown in (44b).

a. Jan is <*het water in> waarschijnlijk <het water in> gedoken <*het water in>.
  Jan is      the water into  probably  dived
b. Jan is < het water > waarschijnlijk < het water > in gedoken.
  Jan is     the water  probably  into  dived

      Directional adpositional phrases also behave like the locational PPs from Subsection II in that they can be used in resultative constructions. So alongside (30b') and (41b) it is possible to have examples such as (45). The fact that the accusative noun phrase de asbak in example (45b) is only possible if the postposition in is also present shows that this noun phrase is introduced into the structure as an argument of the postpositional phrase and not of the verb; cf. the discussion of (41).

a. Marie gooide de bal het water in.
  Marie threw  the ball  the water  into
b. Jan blies het stof *(de asbak in).
  Jan blew  the dust    the ashtray into
  'Jan blew the dust into the ashtray.'

      Finally, note that directional phrases cannot occur as the complement of the causative counterparts of locational verbs like liggen'to lie'; the locational PPs in (40) cannot be replaced by directional adpositional phrases. This suggests that, unlike the verb gooien in (45a) and like locational verbs like liggen'to lie' in (42a), the verbs in (46) are not compatible with the path reading inherently expressed by directional phrases.

a. * Jan legt het boek de tafel op.
  Jan lays  the book  the table  onto
b. * Jan hangt de jas de kast in.
  Jan hangs  the coat  the closet  into
c. * Jan zet de kleuter het bed op.
  Jan puts  the toddler  the bed  on
d. * Jan zet het boek de kast in.
  Jan puts  the book  the bookcase  into
  • Hoekstra, Teun1984Transitivity. Grammatical relations in government-binding theoryDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications
  • Hoekstra, Teun, Lansu, Monic & Westerduin, Marion1987Complexe verbaGLOT1061-77
  • Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René1990Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential predicationThe Linguistic Review71-79
  • Mulder, René & Wehrmann, Pim1989Locational verbs as unaccusativesBennis, Hans & Kemenade, Ans van (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989Dordrecht111-122
report errorprintcite