Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.2.Relational nouns

quickinfo

This section deals with so-called relational nouns, that is, nouns that require the presence of an argumentin order to become complete referential constituents. Subsection I starts by showing that this argument can be realized either by a postnominal van-PP or a prenominal genitive noun phrase/possessive pronoun. Subsection II distinguishes a number of different types of relational nouns. The difference between relational and non-relational nouns is briefly discussed in Subsection III. Finally, Subsection IV will apply the complement/adjunct tests from Section 2.2.1 and show that the postnominal van-PP and prenominal genitive noun phrase/possessive pronoun should indeed be considered an argument of the relational noun, and not an adjunct.

I. Form and position of the argument
II. Types of relational nouns
- A. Referential properties of the noun phrase
- B. Semantic subclasses
III. Differences between relational and non-relational nouns
IV. Application of the complement/adjunct tests

[+] I. Form and position of the argument

The distinction between relational and non-relational nouns is generally assumed to apply to the class of basic (non-derived) nouns. Relational nouns seem to require or, at least, imply a complement, inasmuch as they can only be meaningfully interpreted in relation to some other entity. Thus, ordinarily speaking, one cannot meaningfully refer to a father without including a reference to one or more children; nor can one refer to a body part like a head without relating the object to its possessor. In the former case, the relation is one of kinship, and in the latter we are dealing with a “part-of” relationship. In either case, the relationship is “inherent”: the nouns vader'father' and hoofd'head' denote inalienably possessed entities (Fillmore 1968). The entity related to the head noun will be called the related argument. Like verbs, relational nouns will be represented in the lexicon with an argument frame, with an empty slot for the related argument. The syntactic frame for the noun vader'father' is given in (129). As can be seen from this representation, related arguments occur either in postnominal position in the form of a van-PP, as in (129a), or in prenominal position if they are realized as a genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun, as in (129b).

129

a.		___ [PPvan ...]Rel: de vader van Jan
		the father of Jan

b.		pronoun/NP-sRel ____: zijn/Jans vader
		his/Janʼs father

From the above it can be inferred that relational nouns can have only one internal argument, which, on the whole, seems indeed to be the case. Thus, as illustrated in example (130a), one and the same relational noun cannot be complemented by both a prenominal possessive pronoun/genitive noun phrase and a postnominal van-PP, even if the head noun is semantically related to both entities. To express such a relation a van-PP with two coordinated noun phrases must be used, or a possessive pronoun (or, marginally, a genitive noun phrase) referring to both entities, as in (130b&c).

130

a.		Jans/zijn	vader	van Marie
		Janʼs/his	father	of Marie

b.		de vader	[van Jan en Marie]
		the father	of Jan and Marie

c.		hun/??[Jan en Marie]ʼs	vader
		their/Jan and Marieʼs	father

Potential counterexamples to the claim that relational nouns take at most one argument are nouns that denote a time interval or a path, which can be followed by two PPs denoting the starting and the endpoint of the interval/path, respectively. However, neither of these PPs is obligatory, as long as one of them is expressed, which may suggest that we are actually dealing with a single argument position defining a time interval or a path. This time interval or path may be fully specified (giving both the starting and the endpoint), or partially unspecified (giving only the starting or the endpoint). For a discussion of the PPs in (131), see Section P1.3.1.2.2, sub II.

131

a.		de periode	van Kerst	tot Nieuwjaar
		the period	from Christmas	to New Yearʼs day

a'.

de periode *(van Kerst/tot Nieuwjaar)

b.		de route	van Amsterdam	naar Tilburg
		the route	from Amsterdam	to Tilburg

b'.

de route *(van Amsterdam/naar Tilburg)

[+] II. Types of relational nouns

Relational nouns can be subdivided in at least two ways. The first way is to look at the referential properties of the noun phrase they head: in some cases the referent of the relational noun is uniquely identified by virtue of its relation to its related argument, whereas in other cases it is not. The second way is to consider the type of denotation of the noun itself. We will discuss these in the next two subsections.

[+] A. Referential properties of the noun phrase

The referents of relational nouns can often be uniquely identified by virtue of their relation to their related argument. This is especially true if the related argument stands in a one-to-one relationship with the relational noun, as in the examples in (132): normally speaking, a person has only a single father, an object has only a single form, and a house has just a single roof. The result of this is that in many cases noun phrases headed by a relational noun cannot take the form of an indefinite noun phrase.

132

a.	de vader	van Jan
	the father	of Jan
	'Janʼs father'

a'.	#	een vader van Jan
		a father of Jan

b.		de vorm	van de berg
		the shape	of the mountain

b'.	#	een vorm van de berg
		a shape of the mountain

c.		het dak	van het huis
		the roof	of the house

c'.	#	een dak van het huis
		a roof of the house

This does not hold, however, if the related argument stands in a one-to-many relationship with the relational noun: (133a) can be used when the speaker knows that Jan has more than one brother; in all other cases, the speaker will use (133b). Note that the fact that the related argument is not sufficient to uniquely identify the referent of the noun phrase in (133a) does not mean that the PP is an adjunct, as is clear from the fact that it cannot be dropped.

133

a.		Hij	is een broer	*(van Jan).
		he	is a brother	of Jan

b.		Hij	is de broer	*(van Jan).
		he	is the brother	of Jan

[+] B. Semantic subclasses

There are various types of relational nouns. Here we will give examples of various nominal types that exhibit the property that they normally take a related argument. The list is not intended as exhaustive, and only aims at giving an impression of the type or relationships that may be involved.

[+] 1. Kinship nouns

Kinship nouns are typical examples of relational nouns: example (134a) is odd because there is no mention of a relational argument. Addition of such an entity in the form of a genitive noun phrase or a PP-complement, as in (134b), renders the sentences acceptable; see Section 2.2.2, sub IV for further discussion.

134

a.	??	Ik	zag	een/de vader	(in het park).
		I	saw	a/the father	in the park

b.		Ik	zag	Jans vader/de vader van Jan.
		I	saw	Janʼs father/the father of Jan

[+] 2. Body parts

Body part nouns like hoofd'head' and neus'nose' also typically take a related argument: the primed examples in (135) are odd because the inalienable possessor is not mentioned. Of course, example (135b') is possible but not under the intended inalienable possession reading: the noun neus'nose' no longer functions as a relational noun, but as an ordinary noun, with the result that the noun phrase refers to someone elseʼs nose.

135

a.	Jan	heeft	pijn	in zijn hoofd
	Jan	has	pain	in his head
	'Jan has a headache.'

a'.	*	Jan	heeft	pijn	in een hoofd.
		Jan	has	pain	in a head

b.		Peter brak	zijn neus.
		Peter broke	his nose

b'.	#	Peter brak	een neus
		Peter broke	a nose

The impossibility of the indefinite article in the primed examples in (135) is due to the unique relation between the relational noun and inalienable possessor, in the sense that the possessor has only one head/nose, so that the referent of the noun phrase can be inferred from the identity of the possessor. For the same reason the indefinite article is excluded in the examples in (136).

136

a.		het/*een	hoofd	van Jan
		the/a	head	of Jan

b.		de/*een	neus	van Peter
		the/a	nose	of Peter

In cases in which the relation is non-unique, as in the pair arm'arm' and Jan in (137), the indefinite article can be used. Note, however, that despite the non-uniqueness of the relation, the possessive pronoun or definite article can also be used when it is not known, or when it is immaterial, whether we are dealing with Janʼs left or right arm.

137

a.		Jan heeft	zijn/een arm	gebroken.
		Jan has	his/an arm	broken

b.		De/een arm	van Jan	is gebroken.
		the/an arm	of Jan	is broken

For completeness’ sake, we want to show that in constructions such as (135a), the relational argument can also co-occur with the definite article; the construction in (138a) is fully acceptable under the same inalienable possession reading as (135a). This reading only arises, however, if the inalienably possessed noun phrase is the complement of a locational PP, which is clear from the fact that, in most varieties of Dutch, (138b) is only possible with the non-inalienable possession reading. The use of the number sign means to indicate that in certain eastern and southern dialects of Dutch and in Frisian an inalienable possession reading of (138b) is possible, but then the example is construed as a semi-copular construction with the meaning "Janʼs nose is broken". In this section more information can be found on the inalienable possession reading in Frisian.

138

a.	Ik	heb	pijn	in het hoofd.
	I	have	pain	in the head
	'I have a headache.'

b.	#	Jan	heeft	de neus	gebroken.
		Jan	has	the nose	broken

[+] 3. Nouns denoting physical properties

There are more relations that can be characterized as “inherent” than the two discussed above. For instance, all concrete objects have shape, size, weight, sides, and so forth. Although it can neither be said that concrete objects “possess” these properties nor that these properties are “part of” these objects, the relationship between them is certainly “inherent”. Not surprisingly, then, these nouns exhibit the same behavior as the nouns above: like the relational noun vader'father' in (134) or the inalienable possessed noun hoofd'head' in (135), the noun vorm'shape' in (139a) cannot be used in isolation from some related argument. As soon as a suitable related argument is added, as in (139b), the sentence becomes acceptable. Note that the noun phrase in (139b) is introduced by the definite article; again, this is possible thanks to the unique relation between relational nouns and their related arguments, which enables us to infer the referents of the former from the referents of the latter.

139

a.	??	Ik	zag	een/de vorm.
		I	saw	a/the shape

b.		Ik	zag	de vorm van de berg.
		I	saw	the shape of the mountain

[+] 4. Nouns denoting entities that stand in a part-whole relation with other entities

Another relation that counts as “inherent” is the part-whole relation between the denotations of the nouns kaft'cover' and boek'book', or dak'roof' and gebouw'building': example (140) shows that these nouns behave just like the inalienable possessed noun hoofd'head' in (135).

140

a.	??	Ik	zag	een/de kaft.
		I	saw	a/the cover

b.		De kaft van het boek	was knalgeel.
		the cover of the book	was canary yellow

[+] III. Differences between relational and non-relational nouns

Non-relational nouns can be distinguished from relational nouns by the fact that they always allow a non-related interpretation, so that they need not be combined with a van-PP or a genitive noun phrase/possessive pronoun.

141

a.		Ik	ontmoette	de vader/broer	*(van Jan).
		I	met	the father/brother	of Jan

b.		Ik	zag de fiets	(van Jan).
		I	saw the bike	of Jan

Furthermore, non-relational nouns differ from the relational nouns that are uniquely identified by their related argument in that an indefinite interpretation is easily possible; in fact, it is the default interpretation when the noun is unmodified. Compare, in this respect, the primeless examples in (142), headed by the non-relational nouns fiets'bicycle', horloge'watch', and appel'apple', to the examples in (132) and (133). One way of accounting for this difference is by analyzing the van-PPs of the relational nouns as complements and those of the non-relational nouns in the primed examples in (142) as optional adjuncts of the head noun; the discussion in Subsection IV will show that the complement/adjunct tests support this distinction.

142

a.	Ik	zag	een fiets.
	I	saw	a bike
	'I saw a bike.'

a'.	de fiets	van mijn broer
	the bicycle	of my brother
	'my brotherʼs bicycle'

b.	Hij	kocht	een horloge.
	he	bought	a watch
	'He bought a watch.'

b'.	het horloge	van goud
	the watch	of gold
	'the golden watch'

c.	Ik	eet	een appel.
	I	eat	an apple
	'Iʼm eating an apple.'

c'.	de appel	aan de boom
	the apple	on the tree
	'the apple in the tree'

[+] IV. Application of the complement/adjunct tests

If the assumption put forward in Section 2.2.2, sub III, that the van-PPs of relational nouns are complements is correct, they may also be expected to behave syntactically as complements. The four tests given in Section 2.2.1 provide the means to establish the correctness of such an analysis.

[+] A. Obligatoriness of PP

The semantics of relational nouns normally requires the presence of an argument; cf. see also Section 1.2.3. Consider in this respect the sentences in example (143). Generally speaking, the primeless examples are not felicitous, as the nouns vader'father' and kaft'cover' require a related argument. It is through the relation with this complement that its meaning can be established. This is illustrated in the primed examples.

143

a.	*?	Els	heeft	een vader	ontmoet.
		Els	has	a father	met
		'Els has met a father.'

a'.		Els	heeft	de vader	#(van Jan)	ontmoet.
		Els	has	the father	of Jan	met

b.	*?	Jan	heeft	een kaft	gescheurd.
		Jan	has	a cover	torn
		'Jan has torn a cover.'

b'.		Jan	heeft	de kaft	#(van dit boek)	gescheurd.
		Jan	has	the cover	of this book	torn

There are however circumstances in which relational nouns can be felicitously used without a related argument, which we will discuss in the following subsections.

[+] 1. Recoverability from the context

Examples like (143a'&b') are acceptable if the intended related argument can be inferred from the (linguistic or extra-linguistic) context. This means that the related entity of a relational noun need not take the form of a complement. Example (134a), repeated here as (144a), is rendered acceptable by the addition of the adjunct PP met zijn zoontje'with his little son' in (144b). This shows that the complement (van-PP or genitive noun phrase) can be left implicit if the related argument is recoverable from the context.

144

a.	??	Ik	zag	een/de vader	(in het park).
		I	saw	a/the father	in the park

b.	Ik	zag	een vader	met zijn zoontje.
	I	saw	a father	with his sondim
	'I saw a father with his little son.'

The same thing is shown in (145). The complement of the nouns vorm or kaft expressing the related argument need not be present, since the related entity can be recovered from the preceding sentence.

145

a.		Ik zag een berg.	De vorm	was opvallend.
		I saw a mountain	the form	was remarkable

b.		Ik kocht een boek.	De kaft	was knalgeel.
		I bought a book	The cover	was canary.yellow

The examples in (145) also show that the existence of a generally accepted (and expected) close association between two entities makes it possible for a definite article to precede a relational noun, even if the referent of the noun phrase has not been previously introduced into the discourse. Reference to the related entity of the relational noun will be sufficient to ensure identification of the noun phrase. More examples illustrating the same point are given in (146).

146

a.	Ik zag een raar huis.	Het dak had de vorm van een puntmuts.
	I saw a strange house.	the roof had the shape of a pointed.hat
	'I saw a strange house. The roof had the shape of a pointed hat.'

b.		Ik zag een auto.	De voorkant	was zwaar	beschadigd.
		I saw a car	the front	was badly	damaged

In the case of kinship relations and body parts, however, the use of a possessive determiner is often preferred in such cases, as shown by example (147). Note that in (147a) the definite article is less acceptable when we know the girl (and her father), which explains why in (147a') the definite article is not acceptable. With body parts, like neus'nose' in examples (147b&b'), the use of the definite article is odd in either context. See Section 5.1 for a more detailed discussion of the role of the definite and indefinite article in determining reference.

147

a.	Ik zag een meisje spelen.	Haar/De vader	stond	naast haar.
	I saw a girl play	her/the father	stood	next to her
	'I saw a girl play. Her/the father was standing by her side.'

a'.		Ik zag Marie gisteren.	Haar/*De vader	was bij haar.
		I saw Marie yesterday	her/the father	was with her

b.		Ik	zag	een meisje	spelen.	Haar/*De neus	was gebroken.
		I	saw	a girl	play	her/the nose	was broken

b'.		Ik	zag	Marie gisteren.	Haar/*De neus	was gebroken.
		I	saw	Marie yesterday	her nose/the nose	was broken

[+] 2. Establishing or denying the existence of a relationship

Related to the case discussed in the previous subsection is the fact that the related argument can be omitted in clauses in which the relationship between a relational noun and a related argument is established or explicitly denied.

148

a.		Jan heeft	een broer
		Jan has	a brother

b.		Jan heeft	geen broer
		Jan has	no brother

Examples such as (148) are less common if the related argument stands in a one-to-one relationship with the relational noun: examples such as (149a) are impossible, and examples like (149b&b') carry an additional implication, namely that Janʼs father still lives/has died.

149

a.	*?	Jan heeft een vader
		Jan has a father

b.	Jan heeft	nog steeds	een vader.
	Jan has	still	a father
	'Janʼs father is still alive.'

b'.	Jan heeft	geen vader	(meer).
	Jan has	no father	anymore
	'Janʼs father died.'

In generic contexts like (150), on the other hand, relational nouns like vader'father' are fully acceptable without the related argument, due to the fact that examples like these express that the implied related argument stands in this unique relationship with the relational noun.

150

a.		Iedereen	heeft	een vader.
		everyone	has	a father

b.		Honden	hebben	staarten.
		dogs	have	tails

[+] 3. Restrictive modifiers and exclamation

Examples such as (149a) can be made acceptable by adding information to the relational noun phrase, which is not implied by the noun. Restrictive modification, for example, renders these non-prototypical uses meaningful by adding meaning that does not form an inherent part of the basic meaning of the noun. This is illustrated in the examples in (151).

151

a.		Jan heeft	een aardige vader.
		Jan has	a nice father

b.	Jan heeft	een vader	om	trots	op	te zijn.
	Jan has	a father	comp	proud	of	to be
	'Jan has a father to be proud of.'

c.	Ik	heb	een zeer hoofd/een hoofd als een biet.
	I	have	a sore head/a head like a beet
	'My head hurts./'My head is as red as a beet.'

Using an exclamative intonation contour has a similar effect, even if the noun is not modified. This is due to the fact that the exclamative contour has a similar modifying function as the restrictive modifiers in (151): examples like (152a&b) express that the object has some remarkable characteristic; example (152c) seems to be fully lexicalized.

152

a.	Jan heeft	een vader!
	Jan has	a father
	'Jan has an awfully nice father/a father who is a rogue/...'

b.	Jan heeft	een neus!
	Jan has	a nose
	'Jan has a very large/beautiful/... nose.'

c.	Ik	heb	een hoofd!
	I	have	a head
	'Iʼve got a terrifying headache.'

Slightly different cases are given in (153), in which the modifier seems to indicate that the referents of the noun phrases headed by vorm'shape' and kaft'cover' are not identified by virtue of their relation with some uniquely related argument, but are taken from the sets of remarkable shapes and canary-yellow covers, respectively. In these examples, the relational aspect of the noun seems to have disappeared, and the nouns behave in the same way as non-relational nouns; the use of the indefinite article signals the fact that the speaker is introducing a “new” entity into the domain of discourse, the reference of which cannot be inferred from the mention of a related argument in the preceding discourse.

153

a.	Ik	zag	een vorm die uiterst opvallend was.
	I	saw	a form that extremely remarkable was
	'I saw a shape that was extremely remarkable.'

a'.		Ik	zag	een opvallende vorm.
		I	saw	a remarkable shape

b.	Ik	zag	een kaft die knalgeel was.
	I	saw	a cover that canary.yellow was
	'I saw a cover that was canary yellow.'

b'.		Ik	zag	een knalgele kaft.
		I	saw	a canary.yellow cover

[+] 4. Predicatively used relational nouns

Example (154), finally, shows that relational nouns can also occur without complement if used in predicative position.

154

a.		Dat is een neus.
		that is a nose

b.		Jans vader	is (een) directeur.
		Janʼs father	is a director

[+] B. Occurrence of the PP in postcopular predicative position

According to the second test, only adjunct van-PPs can occur in postcopular predicative position; complement van-PPs or PPs with other prepositions lead to unacceptable results in this position. The examples in (155) seem to support this claim. In (155a&b), for instance, the PPs van Jan'of Jan' and van het gebouw'of the building' are related arguments of the relational nouns vader'father' and dak'roof', respectively. As predicted, the PPs in these examples cannot occur in postcopular position (De Wit 1997).

155

a.		de vader	van Jan
		the father	of Jan

a'.	*	De vader	is van Jan.
		the father	is of Jan

b.		het dak	van	het gebouw
		the roof	of	the building

b'.	*	Het dak	is van het gebouw
		the roof	is of the building

c.		de hoogte van het gebouw
		the height of the building

c'.	*	De hoogte is van het gebouw
		the height is of the building

[+] C. R-pronominalization

The R-pronominalization test also suggests that the van-PPs following relational nouns behave like complements; in (156) the noun phrases functioning as direct objects contain a relational head, and R-pronominalization of the van-PPs is possible. Note that (156) only contains constructions with the unsplit form er ... P; for a discussion of the split form, see Section 2.2.1, sub IV.

156

a.	Ik	heb	het dak	van het gebouw/ervan	gerepareerd.
	I	have	the roof	of the building/of.it	repaired
	'Iʼve repaired the roof of the building.'

b.	Ik	heb	de voorkant	van de auto/ervan	gewassen.
	I	have	the front	of the car/of.it	washed
	'Iʼve washed the front of the car.'

c.		Ik	herkende	de vorm	van de berg/ervan.
		I	recognized	the shape	of the mountain/of.it

[+] D. Extraction of PP

It appears that certain forms of PP-extraction are indeed possible with relational nouns, but not with non-relational nouns, regardless of the preposition heading the adjunct PP (De Haan 1979). The examples in (157) show that, where the head noun is relational, topicalization of the PP is possible.

157

a.	Ik	heb	de vader	van Jan	gezien	(en de moeder van Peter).
	I	have	the father	of Jan	seen	and the mother of Peter
	'Iʼve seen Janʼs father (and Peterʼs mother).'

a'.		Van Jan	heb	ik	de vader	gezien.
		of Jan	have	I	the father	seen

b.	Ik	heb	de kaft	van het boek	gescheurd.
	I	have	the cover	of the book	torn
	'Iʼve torn the cover of the book.'

b'.		Van dat boek	heb	ik	de kaft	gescheurd.
		of that book	have	I	the cover	torn

The same thing holds for relativization and questioning as is shown in, respectively, the primeless and primed examples in (158).

158

a.		de man	van wie	ik	de vader	heb	gezien
		the man	of who	I	the father	have	seen

a'.		Van wie	heb	jij	de vader	gezien?
		of who	have	you	the father	seen

b.		het boek	waarvan	ik	de kaft	heb	gescheurd
		the book	of.which	I	the cover	have	torn

b'.		Van welk boek	heb	jij	de kaft	gescheurd?
		of which book	have	you	the cover	torn

As illustrated in examples (159) and (160), the van-PPs of relational nouns also allow PP-over-V and scrambling.

159

a.	Ik	heb	de vader	gezien	van Jan	(en de moeder van Peter).
	I	have	the father	seen	of Jan	and the mother of Peter
	'Iʼve seen Janʼs father (and Peterʼs mother).'

b.	Marie heeft	de kaft	ontworpen	van dat boek.
	Marie has	the cover	designed	of that book
	'Marie designed the cover of that book.'

160

a.	Ik	heb	van Jan	gisteren	de vader	gezien	(en van Peter de moeder).
	I	have	of Jan	yesterday	the father	seen	and of Peter the mother
	'I saw Janʼs father yesterday (and Peterʼs mother).'

b.	Marie heeft	van dat boek	vorige week	de kaft	ontworpen.
	Marie has	of that book	last week	the cover	designed
	'Marie designed the cover of that book last week.'

[+] E. Conclusion

Table 3 summarizes the results of the four tests for the arguments of relational nouns. The third column indicates whether the results provide evidence for or against the assumption that we are dealing with complements of the relational noun. The positive results suggest that we may safely conclude that the arguments of relational nouns do indeed behave as complements to the noun. Naturally, the discussion here is restricted to the most general cases. For exceptions to the tests, see the discussion in Section 2.2.1.

Table 3: Complements of relational nouns: outcome of Tests 1-4

Test 1: PP obligatory	+	positive
Test 2: Post-copular position	—	positive
Test 3: R-pronominalization	+	positive
Test 4A: Topicalization	+	positive
Test 4B: Relativization/questioning	+
Test 4C: PP-over-V	+
Test 4D: Scrambling	+

References:

Fillmore, Charles1968The case for caseBach, Emmon & Harms, R.T. (eds.)Universals in linguistic theoryNew YorkHolt, Rinehart, and Winston1-88
Haan, Ger de1979Onafhankelijke PP-komplementen van nominaSpektator8330-339
Wit, Petra de1997Genitive case and genitive constructionsUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ArgumentExclamativeInalienable PossessionKinship NounNounR-pronominalizationRelated ArgumentRelational NounScramblingTopicalization

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

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

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles