Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

9.3.1.Complementive use

quickinfo

Section 9.2 has shown that attributively used adjectives can be either verbal or truly adjectival in nature. This section adopts as its starting point the hypothesis that only participles of the latter type can be used as complementives: Subsection I will examine this for the past/passive participles and Subsection II for the present participles, subsection III concludes with a discussion of the complementive use of modal infinitives.

I. Past/passive participles
II. Present participles
III. Modal infinitives

[+] I. Past/passive participles

This subsection discusses the complementive use of past/passive participles. According to the tests listed in Section 9.2, Table 6, past/passive participles like geslacht'slaughtered' and getrouwd'married' can be used as truly adjectival attributive participles, whereas past/passive participles like aangeboden'offered' and gevallen'fallen' cannot; cf. the discussion of (63) and (64). Consequently, if only truly adjectival participles can be used in the function of a complementive, we expect only the former to be possible in copular constructions. As we have seen in (65), repeated here as (96), this expectation indeed seems to be borne out.

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

b.	Dat stel	bleek	getrouwd.
	that couple	turned.out	married
	'That couple turned out (to be) married.'

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

d.	??	De jongen	bleek	gevallen.
		the boy	turned.out	fallen

The participles geslacht and getrouwd also exhibit truly adjectival behavior in the constructions in (96a&b) with respect to the tests in Table 6. The participle getrouwd, for example, has no aspectual content but refers to the state of being married. Furthermore, (97a) show that it can be prefixed with the negative marker on-, and (97b) that it can only be modified by time adverbs that refers to an interval on the time axis, such as jarenlang'for years'.

a.	Het stel	bleek	ongetrouwd.
	the couple	turned.out	unmarried
	'The couple turned out to be unmarried.'

b.	Het stel	bleek	jarenlang/??om drie uur	getrouwd.
	the couple	turned.out	for.years/at 3 oʼclock	married
	'The couple turned out to have been married for years.'

The two remaining tests in Table 6 cannot be used for independent reasons: the verb trouwen'to marry' has only one argument (a DO-subject), and comparative formation is impossible due to the fact that the truly adjectival participle getrouwd is not scalar; one is either married or not. Given that examples like (96a&b) exhibit truly adjectival behavior they are sometimes also referred to as adjectival passives.
The remainder of this subsection wil focus on the verb types of past/passive participle that can be used as complementive. Section 9.2.1 has shown that past/passive participles of intransitive verbs and nom-dat verbs that select the auxiliary hebben cannot be used attributively. The examples in (98) show that the same thing holds for the complementive use of these participles.

a.	*	De jongen	is	gehuild.	is = copular
		the boy	is	cried

b.	*	De moed	is	(ons)	ontbroken.	is = copular
		the courage	has	us	lacked

The subsections below will therefore focus on past/past participles of verb types that can also be used attributively, and will also discuss a number of tests that can be used to distinguish this complementive use of these participles from their use in perfect tense and passive constructions.

[+] A. Transitive and unaccusative verbs

Given that the copular zijn'to be' is homophonous with the passive auxiliary and the auxiliary of time selected by unaccusative verbs, copular constructions with adjectival past/participle participles are sometimes difficult to distinguish from perfect tense and passive constructions. The following subsections discuss some tests that can be used to distinguish them.

[+] 1. Distinguishing past perfect, passive and copular constructions

In the copular constructions in (96), we have used the copular verb blijken'to turn out' instead of zijn'to be' in order to avoid problems that arise due to the fact that the copular verb zijn'to be' is homophonous with the perfect and passive auxiliaries zijn; if we replace blijken in (96b-d) by zijn, as in (99), it is not immediately clear whether we are dealing with a copular or a passive/past perfect construction. Note that we can put (96a) aside for the moment because transitive verbs do not take the perfect auxiliary zijn'to be', but hebben'to have' (but see the discussion in Subsection 2).

a.	Het stel	is getrouwd.
	that couple	is married
	Past perfect construction: 'The couple has married.'
	Copular construction: 'The couple is married.'

b.	Het boek	is aangeboden.
	the book	is prt.-offered
	Passive construction: 'The book has been offered.'

c.	De jongen	is gevallen.
	the boy	is fallen
	Past perfect construction: 'The boy has fallen.'

Example (99c) is grammatical, in contrast to (96d), but we are not dealing with a copular construction since the participle can only refer to the process of falling and not to the state of being fallen. This is also clear from the fact, illustrated in (100), that adverbials like al jarenlang cannot be used. From this we conclude that we are dealing with the perfect auxiliary zijn.

100

De jongen	is gisteren/*al jarenlang	gevallen.
the boy	is yesterday/for years	fallen
'The boy fell yesterday.'

We are not dealing with a copular construction in (99b) either: the participle does not refer to the state of being offered and (101a) shows that modification by the adverbial phrase al jarenlang is impossible. Furthermore, an indirect object can be added, which is impossible if we are dealing with a truly adjectival participle; cf. Table 6. Since a passive door-phrase is also possible in (101a), we are clearly dealing with a passive construction. Recall that if the passive auxiliary is worden, as in (101b), an inchoative or durative aspect is added, as a result of which the adverb test is no longer conclusive: adverbial phrases that refer to an interval on the time axis become possible in that case.

101

a.	Het boek	is gisteren/*al jarenlang	(door hem)	(aan Marie)	aangeboden.
	the book	is yesterday/for years	by him	to Marie	prt.-offered
	'The book was offered yesterday.'

b.	Het boek	wordt	morgen/al jarenlang	aangeboden.
	the book	is	tomorrow/for years	prt.-offered
	'The book will be/has been offered tomorrow/for years.'

In accordance with our findings with respect to (99b&c), the participle in example (99a) may also have a verbal reading. So, (99a) differs from the unambiguous copular construction with blijken'to turn out' in (96b) in that it need not have the adjectival/state reading, but can also have the (verbal) past perfect reading. In accordance with this, example (102a) shows that the adverbial phrases al jarenlang'for years' and om drie uur'at 3 oʼclock' can both be used felicitously. This does not imply, however, that constructions with zijn are always ambiguous: if the participle is prefixed with on-, as in (102b), we are clearly dealing with an adjective and only the stative reading is possible, which is also clear from the fact that the presence of the adverbial PP om drie uur leads to unacceptability. Furthermore, example (102c) shows that the adjectival reading is excluded if the participle appears after the verb in clause-final position: this is, of course, in accordance with the finding from Section 6.2.2 that adjectives must precede the clause-final verb(s); see also Table 2.

102

a.	Het stel	is al jarenlang/om drie uur	getrouwd.
	the couple	is for years/at 3 oʼclock	married
	.

b.	Het stel	is al jarenlang/*om drie uur	ongetrouwd.
	the couple	is for years/at 3 oʼclock	unmarried
	'The couple has been unmarried for years.'

c.	dat	het stel	om drie uur/*al jarenlang	is getrouwd.
	that	the couple	at 3 oʼclock/for years	is married
	'that the couple married at 3 oʼclock.'

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the ungrammatical version of sentences such as (102c) is sometimes produced. On closer introspection, most speakers will agree that this should be considered a performance error. The same performance error is occasionally made with pseudo-participles like bekend'well-known/famous'.

[+] 2. Distinguishing past perfect and semi-copular constructions

Section 6.2.1, sub IB, has shown that in Dutch dialects that allow possessive datives, the Standard Dutch copular construction in (103a) has the semi-copular alternant in (103b).

103

a.		Zijn band	is lek.
		his tire	is punctured

b.	Hij	heeft	de band	lek.
	he	has	the tire	punctured
	'He has a punctured tire.'

Now, consider the Standard Dutch example in (104a), which can be construed either as a passive or as a copular construction, depending on whether the participle is construed as verbal or adjectival. The actual reading can be established by means of several tests: addition of the adverb gisteren'yesterday', as in (104b), suggests that we are dealing with the verbal (passive) participle, which is confirmed by the fact that the passive door-phrase can be added to such examples; addition of adverbial phrases like al jarenlang, as in (104c), suggests that we are dealing with a copular construction, which is confirmed by the fact that the door-phrase cannot be added. More evidence for these conclusions is that (104d) shows that the participle cannot occur postverbally if the adverbial phrase is al jarenlang.

104

a.	Zijn fiets	is gestolen.
	his bicycle	is stolen
	Passive construction: 'His bike is stolen.'		is = passive auxiliary
	Semi-copular construction: 'His bike is stolen.'		is = copular

b.	Zijn fiets	is gisteren	(door Peter)	gestolen.
	his bicycle	is yesterday	by Peter	stolen
	'His bicycle was stolen (by Peter) yesterday.'

c.	Zijn fiets	is al jarenlang	(*door Peter)	gestolen.
	his bicycle	is for years	by Peter	stolen
	'His bicycle has been stolen for years.'

d.	dat	zijn fiets	gisteren/*al jarenlang	is gestolen.
	that	his bicycle	yesterday/for years	is stolen
	'that his bicycle was stolen yesterday.'

In the non-standard varieties of Dutch that allow the semi-copular construction in (103b), (104a) can be translated as in (105a) on the truly adjectival reading of the participle. This sentence is again ambiguous, as it can also be interpreted as a perfect-tense construction. The construction can be disambiguated in similar ways as (104a): addition of the adverb gisteren in (105b) is only possible on the verbal reading of the participle, whereas addition of al jarenlang in (105c) triggers the adjectival/state reading. Observe that, as expected, the adverbial phrase al jarenlang cannot be used in the corresponding present-tense construction *Hij steelt al jarenlang de fiets'He was stealing the bike for years'. Example (104d), finally, shows that the adverbial phrase al jarenlang cannot be used if the participle follows the auxiliary in clause-final position.

105

a.	Hij	heeft	de fiets	gestolen.
	he	has	the bicycle	stolen
	Past perfect construction: 'He has stolen the bike.'
	Semi-copular construction: 'His bike was stolen.'

b.	Hij	heeft	gisteren	de fiets	gestolen.
	he	has	yesterday	the bicycle	stolen
	'He stole the bicycle yesterday.'

c.	Hij	heeft	al jarenlang	de fiets	gestolen.
	he	has	for years	the bicycle	stolen
	'He has had his bicycle stolen for years.'

d.		dat	hij	gisteren/*al jarenlang	de fiets	heeft	gestolen.
		that	he	yesterday/for years	the bicycle	has	stolen

As the participle can only be interpreted as truly adjectival if the subject enters into a possessive relation with the object, (105a) can also be disambiguated by adding a possessive pronoun to the object: this blocks this possessive relation and, as a result, (106) is only compatible with the verbal reading of the participle.

106

Hij	heeft	haar/zijn fiets	gestolen.
he	has	her/his bicycle	stolen
'He has stolen her/his bicycle.'

Section 6.2.1, sub IB, has also shown that Standard Dutch has a similar semi-copular construction with hebben'to have', which occurs under somewhat more strict conditions than the dialect construction in (105a). A sentence like (107a), for example, is ambiguous between a past perfect and a semi-copular reading. That (107a) can be interpreted as a past perfect construction is clear from the fact that it has the present tense counterpart in (107b), and that it can be interpreted as a semi-copular construction is evident from the fact that hebben can be replaced by the semi-copular verb krijgen'to get' in (107c). Observe that, unlike the dialect construction in (105a), the Standard Dutch semi-copular construction is possible if the object contains a possessive pronoun.

107

a.	Jan heeft	zijn raam	niet	gesloten.
	Jan has	his window	not	closed
	Past perfect construction: 'Jan hasnʼt closed his window.'
	Semi-copular construction: 'Jan doesnʼt have his window closed.'

b.		Jan sluit	zijn raam	niet.
		Jan closes	his window	not

c.		Jan krijgt	zijn raam	niet	gesloten.
		Jan gets	his window	not	closed

The semi-copular and past perfect readings in (107a) are again subject to the familiar restrictions: use of punctual adverbs like gisteren, as in (108a), is only possible on the verbal/eventive reading of the participle, whereas addition of non-punctual adverbs like altijd in (105c) triggers the adjectival/state reading. Placing the participle after the finite verb in clause-final position, as in (108c), is only possible in the perfect-tense construction, that is, if the participle is verbal; this is clear from the fact that this construction is only compatible with punctual adverbial phrases like gisteren.

108

a.	Jan heeft	gisteren	zijn raam	gesloten.
	Jan has	yesterday	his window	closed
	'Jan didnʼt close his window yesterday.'

b.	Jan heeft	altijd	zijn raam	gesloten.
	Jan has	always	his window	closed
	'Jan always has his window closed.'

c.	dat	Jan zijn raam	gisteren/*altijd	heeft	gesloten.
	that	Jan his window	yesterday/always	has	closed
	'that Jan didnʼt close his window yesterday.'

[+] 3. Summary

This subsection has shown that only truly adjectival participles can be used as predicates in (semi-)copular constructions. Sometimes ambiguity arises between the predicative and the passive/past perfect constructions, but it has been shown that some of the tests from Section 9.1 can be used to distinguish the two readings. Further, it has been shown that the relative position of the participle and the remaining verbs in clause-final position is relevant: if the participle follows the verb hebben/zijn, the adjectival reading is blocked.

[+] B. Dyadic unaccusative verbs

Section 9.2.1 has shown that past participles of nom-dat verbs can be used attributively to modify a head noun that corresponds to the DO-subject, provided that the verb takes the auxiliary zijn in the perfect tense. This is shown again in (109).

109

a.	Die opmerking	is ons	opgevallen.	perfect auxiliary zijn
	that remark	is us	prt.-noticed
	'We have noticed that remark.'

a'.	de	ons	opgevallen	opmerking
	the	us	prt.-noticed	remark
	'the remark that we have noticed'

b.	De moed	heeft	ons	ontbroken.	perfect auxiliary hebben
	the courage	has	us	lacked
	'We (have) lacked the courage.'

b'.	*?	de	ons	ontbroken	moed
		the	us	lacked	courage

Since the past participle ontbroken cannot be used attributively, it does not come as a surprise that it cannot be used predicatively (cf. *de moed is/bleek ontbroken). Example (110) shows, though, that the past participle of the nom-dat verb opvallen cannot be used predicatively either. This is, however, in accordance with the conclusion reached in 9.2.1, sub II, that past participles of nom-dat verbs like opvallen do not have a truly adjectival interpretation; cf. (57).

110

a.	*	De opmerking	is/blijkt	opgevallen.
		the remark	is/turns.out	prt.-noticed

For completeness’ sake, note that (109a) is not ambiguous between the perfect tense and the copular construction as truly adjectival participles generally do not allow nominal arguments; that (109a) cannot be a case of the copular construction is also illustrated by the fact illustrated in (111) that only adverbs that refer to a certain point on the time axis, like gisteren, lead to a felicitous result; cf. Table 6.

111

Die opmerking	is ons	gisteren/*al jaren	opgevallen.
that remark	is us	yesterday/for years	prt.-noticed
'We noticed that remark yesterday.'

[+] C. Object experiencer psych-verbs

Section 9.2.1 has also shown that past participles of object experiencer psych-verbs can be used attributively if the modified noun corresponds to the +human object of the corresponding active verb. This is illustrated again in (112).

112

a.		Die berichten	verontrusten	de jongen.
		those messages	disturb	the boy

a'.		de	verontruste	jongen
		the	disturbed	boy

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

b'.		de	opgewonden	jongen
		the	excited	boy

The examples in (113) show that the past participles can also be used predicatively; in these cases no confusion arises with perfect-tense constructions, given that these psych-verbs select the auxiliary hebben'to have'. Observe that the truly adjectival status of the participles is also evident from the fact that they can be modified by intensifiers like heel/zeer'very'.

113

a.		De jongen	is al jaren/*gisteren	(heel)	verontrust	(over die berichten).
		the boy	is for years/yesterday	very	disturbed	about those messages

b.		De jongen	is al jaren/*gisteren	(zeer)	opgewonden	(over het avontuur).
		the boy	is for years/yesterday	very	excited	about the adventure

[+] D. Summary

The discussion in this subsection has shown that the complementive use of past/passive participles is more restricted than their attributive use: it is only possible if the participle is truly adjectival, that is, with a subset of transitive and monadic unaccusative verbs, and object experiencer verbs; cf. Table 5.

[+] II. Present participles

Section 9.2.1, sub II, has shown that the truly adjectival reading of present participles is restricted to object experiencer psych-verbs. If only truly adjectival participles can be used in predicative position, we would expect that only the participles of psych-verbs can occur in the copular construction. The following subsections will show that this expectation is more or less borne out, although various provisos must be made. Let us first start with a brief overview.

[+] A. Intransitive and transitive verbs

Present participles of intransitive and transitive verbs cannot be used in the copular construction. This was shown in (74a&b), and some more examples are given in (114) and (115). The ungrammaticality of the predicative constructions in the primed examples contrast sharply with the acceptability of the corresponding attributive constructions: cf. het vloekende/werkende meisje'the cursing/working girl' and het zingende/etende meisje 'the singing/eating girl'.

114

a.		Het meisje	vloekt.
		the girl	curses

a'.	*	Het meisje	is	vloekend.
		the girl	iscopula	cursing

b.		Het meisje	werkt.
		the girl	works

b'.	*	Het meisje	is	werkend.
		the girl	iscopula	working

115

a.		Het meisje	zingt	een lied.
		the girl	sings	a song

a'.	*	Het meisje	is	zingend.
		the girl	iscopula	singing

b.		Het meisje	eet	een appel.
		the girl	eats	an apple

b'.	*	Het meisje	is	etend.
		the girl	iscopula	eating

The examples in (116) show, however, there are many metaphorically used present participles that can be used not only attributively, but also predicatively. Given that the meanings of these forms are highly specialized, we may be dealing with genuine adjectives. Note that the non-metaphorically used present participles in (116c'&d') yield unacceptable results.

116

a.	een	moordend	tempo
	a	killing	tempo
	'a punishing tempo'

c.	een	moordende	scholier
	the	killing	student
	'the student who is killing'

a'.

Het tempo is moordend.

c'.

De scholier is moordend.

b.	een	sprekende	gelijkenis
	a	speaking	resemblance
	'a remarkable/telling resemblance'

d.	de	sprekende	voorzitter
	the	speaking	chairman
	'the chairman, who is speaking'

b'.

De gelijkenis is sprekend.

d'.

De voorzitter is sprekend.

[+] B. Monadic unaccusative verbs

Example (74c) has shown that present participles of unaccusative verbs normally cannot be used in the copular construction; the examples in (117) illustrate this again. The ungrammaticality of the predicative constructions in the primed examples again contrasts sharply with the acceptability of the corresponding attributive constructions de vertrekkende gasten'the leaving guests' and de vallende jongen'the falling boy'.

117

a.	De gasten	zijn	vertrokken.
	the guests	are	left
	'The guests have left.'

a'.	*	De gasten zijn vertrekkend.
		the guests arecopula leaving

b.	De jongen	is gevallen.
	the boy	is fallen
	'The boy fell/has fallen.'

b'.	*	De jongen	is	vallend.
		the boy	iscopula	falling

The primed examples in (118) provide some potential counterexamples to the claim that the complementive use of present participles of unaccusative verbs is excluded.

118

a.		De man is gestorven.
		the man is died
		'The man has died.'

b.	Het schip	is gezonken.
	the ship	is sunk
	'The ship has sunk.'

c.	Het verzet	is gegroeid
	the resistance	is grown
	'The resistance has grown.'

a'.		De man is stervende.
		the man is dying

b'.		Het schip is zinkende.
		the ship is sinking

c'.		Het verzet is groeiende.
		the resistance is growing

a''.		de stervende man
		the dying man

b''.		het zinkende schip
		the sinking ship

c''.		het groeiende verzet
		the growing resistance

Whether we are really dealing with copular constructions in these cases is not clear, however. First, the present participles in the primed examples are inflected by means of an -e ending, which is normally not possible with predicatively used adjectives. Second, the present participles seem to refer to ongoing processes, just like the attributively used verbal present participles in the doubly-primed examples: the subject of the clause is claimed to be undergoing a change of state. This is clear from the fact that the primed examples can be properly paraphrased by means of the durative aan het + infinitive construction; (118b'), for instance, is virtually synonymous with Het schip is aan het zinken'The ship is sinking'.
Other potentially problematic cases involve motion verbs like lopen'to walk', bussen'to travel by bus' or liften'to hitchhike', which can be used either as intransitive or as unaccusative verbs; cf. Section V2.1.2, sub I. The unaccusative forms of these verbs in (119b) require a directional PP to be present and select the perfect auxiliary verb zijn'to be', whereas the forms of these verbs in (119a) simply behave as intransitive verbs: they occur without a predicative complement and select the perfect auxiliary verb hebben'to have'. The examples in (119c) show that the present participle of these motion verbs can be used as the predicate in a copular construction.

119

a.		De jongen	heeft	gelopen/gebust/gelift.	intransitive verb
		the boy	has	walked/bused/hitchhiked

b.	De jongen	is naar Amsterdam	gelopen/gebust/gelift.	unaccusative verb
	the boy	is to Amsterdam	walked/bused/hitchhiked

c.	De jongen	is/bleek	(*naar Amsterdam)	lopend/bussend/liftend.
	the boy	is/ turned.out	to Amsterdam	walking/busing/hitchhiking
	'The boy has/appeared to have come on foot/by bus/hitchhiking.'

The examples in (119c) differ from the primed examples in (118) in that they do not refer to an ongoing event. A sentence like Ik ben lopend does not imply that the speaker is walking at the moment of utterance, but just expresses that he came on foot. This suggests that the present participles in (119c) are truly adjectival, which seems to be supported by the fact that the predicative complement naar Amsterdam'to Amsterdam' cannot be used, in contrast to what is the case with the attributively used verbal participles in de naar Amsterdam lopende jongen'the boy that is walking to Amsterdam'.

[+] C. Dyadic unaccusative verbs

Nom-dat verbs normally resist formation of truly adjectival participles, regardless of whether they select the auxiliary zijn or hebben in the perfect tense. This is demonstrated in (120). Section 9.2.1, sub IIB, has already shown that the present participle of the verb opvallen'to strike' constitutes an exception in this respect.

120

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

a'.	*	De maaltijd	is	(goed)	bevallend.	vs. de goed bevallende maaltijd
		the meal	iscopula	good	pleasing

b.	De maaltijd	heeft	ons	goed	gesmaakt.
	the meal	has	us	good	tasted
	'We (have) enjoyed the meal very much.'

b'.	*	De maaltijd	is	(goed)	smakend.	vs. de goed smakende maaltijd
		the meal	iscopula	good	tasting

[+] D. Object experiencer psych-verbs

This leaves us with the present participles of the object experiencer psych-verbs. The primed examples in (121) show that these can readily be used as the predicates in copular constructions. The fact that the present participles can be modified by the intensifiers zeer/heel'very' confirms that we are dealing with truly adjectival participles in these examples.

121

a.		Het bericht	verontrust	mij.
		the message	disturbs	me

a'.		Het bericht	is (heel)	verontrustend.
		the message	is very	disturbing

b.		Het avontuur	wond	ons	op.
		the adventure	excited	us	prt.

b'.		Het avontuur	is (zeer)	opwindend.
		the adventure	is very	prt.-exciting

c.		Het boek	intrigeert	ons.
		the book	intrigues	us

c'.		Het boek	is (zeer)	intrigerend.
		the book	is very	intriguing

The examples in (122) show that the result is occasionally unacceptable. If so, the intended assertion can generally be expressed by means of a genuine adjective, which suggests that the adjectival use of the present participle is blocked by the availability of this alternative.

122

a.		Die opmerkingen	irriteren	mij.
		those remarks	annoy	me

a'.		Die opmerkingen	zijn	erg irritant/??irriterend.
		those remarks	are	very annoying

b.		Het schilderij	bekoorde	mij.
		the painting	beguiled	me

b'.		Het schilderij	is erg bekoorlijk/*?bekorend.
		the painting	is very beguiling

c.		Het boek	interesseert	mij.
		the book	interests	me

c'.		Het boek	is erg interessant/*interesserend.
		the book	is very interesting

This “blocking" approach to the unacceptable versions of the primed examples in (122) seems to be supported by the fact that the present participles cannot be used attributively on their adjectival/state reading either; this reading can only be expressed by the genuine adjectives. Note in passing that the primeless examples in (123) show that the attributive use of the present participles on their verbal/eventive reading gives rise to varying degrees of acceptability.

123

a.		een irriterende opmerking
		'a remark that is annoying someone'

a'.		een irritante opmerking
		'an annoying remark'

b.	?	een bekorend schilderij
		'a painting that is beguiling someone'

b'.		een bekoorlijk schilderij
		'a charming painting'

een interesserend boek

c'.		een interessant boek
		'an interesting book'

The fact that the present participles in (122) cannot be used as complementives thus follows from the fact illustrated by (123) that they are always verbal in nature, if possible at all.

[+] E. Summary

Table 7 summarizes the tendencies that were observed in the previous subsections. Occasionally, participles occur in copular constructions that are not expected on the basis of these tendencies, but these exceptions are mostly idiosyncratic in nature.

Table 7: The predicative use of present participles

intransitive verbs	*Het meisje is vloekend	(114a')
transitive verbs	*Het meisje is zingend	(115a')
unaccusative verbs possible exceptions: (i) present participles with -e (ii) motion verbs	*De gasten zijn vertrekkend Het schip is zinkende De jongen bleek lopend	(117a') (118b') (119c)
nom-dat verbs (i) with zijn as an auxiliary (ii) with hebben as an auxiliary	De maaltijd is (goed) bevallend De maaltijd is (goed) smakend	(120a') (120b')
object experiencer psych-verbs	Het avontuur is (erg) opwindend	(121b')

[+] III. Modal infinitives

This subsection discusses the predicative use of modal infinitives. We will show that this use differs from the attributive use of these elements in that it is only compatible with the ability reading. This would follow from our more general claim that complementives cannot be verbal in nature, given that we have already established in Section 9.2.2 that modal infinitives are verbal under the obligation reading. We will conclude with a number of potentially problematic cases.

[+] A. Predicatively used modal infinites have an ability reading only

Apart from their attributive use, modal infinitives can also be used as predicates in copular and vinden-constructions. Predicatively used te-infinitives differ from the attributively used ones, however, in that they have an ability reading only; example (124a), for example, does not readily allow an interpretation according to which the books must be read: the only readily available reading is that the books are easily accessible.

124

a.	Deze boeken	zijn/leken	(gemakkelijk)	te lezen.
	these books	are/appeared	easily	to read
	'These books are easily accessible.'

a'.	Jan vindt	de boeken	(gemakkelijk)	te lezen.
	Jan considers	the books	easily	to read
	'Jan believes that the books can be read easily.'

b.	Deze afstand	is/leek	(gemakkelijk)	af	te leggen.
	this distance	is/appeared	easily	prt.	to cover
	'This distance can be covered easily.'

b'.	Jan vindt	de afstand	(gemakkelijk)	af te leggen.
	Jan considers	the distance	easily	to cover
	'Jan believes that the distance can be covered easily.'

Note that the adjective gemakkelijk acts as an adverb modifying the te-infinitive and not as a predicative complement of the verb zijn/lijken. Because adverbs are not morphologically distinguished from the other adjectives in Dutch, the examples in (124) are easily confused with the easy-to-please-construction, which does involve a predicative adjective. Fortunately, there are several criteria for distinguishing the two constructions: (i) the predicative adjective is obligatorily present in the easy-to-please-construction, whereas the adverbial adjective can be dropped in the case of the modal infinitives; (ii) the infinitival clause has an obligatory complementizer om in the easy-to-please-construction, whereas this complementizer cannot co-occur with modal infinitives; (iii) in attributive constructions the infinitival clause from the easy-to-please-construction follows the modified noun, whereas the modal infinitive precedes it. These tests are more extensively discussed in Section 6.5, sub IV.

[+] B. Verb type

Section 9.2.2 has shown that the noun modified by attributively used modal infinitives must function as the accusative object in the corresponding active sentence. Something similar holds for predicatively used modal infinitives; the noun phrase they are predicated of must function as the accusative object in the corresponding active sentence. This is clear from the contrast between the examples in (124) and (125): the modal infinitives in the former are transitive and the result is fine, whereas the modal infinitives in the latter are, respectively, intransitive and unaccusative and the result is unacceptable.

125

a.	*	Er	is	te lachen.
		there	is	to laugh

b.	*	Er	is	te vallen.
		there	is	to fall

It should be noted, however, that examples such as (126) have been given as counterexamples to the claim that intransitive verbs cannot act as modal infinitives. The fact that these examples have an ability reading makes it plausible that we are indeed dealing with modal infinitives. The difference between the examples in (125) and (126) is not clear to us. For the moment, we can only observe that the examples in (126) are special in that there is a certain preference to use the verb vallen instead of zijn and that some adverbial or quantified phrase like niet or veel must be present.

126

a.	Er	valt/?is	hier	niet	te werken.
	there	falls/is	here	not	to work
	'One cannot work here.'

b.	Er	valt/??is	hier	veel	te lachen.
	there	falls/is	here	much	to laugh
	'One can laugh a lot here.'

[+] C. Categorial status

Section 9.2.2 has observed that arguments and predicative complements can only be expressed in the attributive construction if the modal infinitives have the verbal/obligation reading; cf. (91). The fact that arguments and predicative complements cannot occur if the modal infinitives is used predicatively supports our claim that they are always truly adjectival.

127

a.	*?	Deze brief	is aan de studenten	te sturen.
		this letter	is to the students	to send

b.	*?	De boeken	zijn	in de kast	te zetten.
		the books	are	in the cupboard	to put

A potential problem for this claim is, however, that predicatively used modal infinitives can be combined with the predicative parts of collocations like schoon maken'to clean' or kwaad/bang maken'to anger/frighten'. This is shown in (128).

128

a.	Dit fornuis	is gemakkelijk	schoon	te maken.
	this cooker	is easily	clean	to make
	'This cooker can be cleaned easily.'

b.	Jan is gemakkelijk	kwaad/bang	te maken.
	Jan is easily	angry/afraid	to make
	'Jan can be made angry/afraid easily.'

A similar argument can be made in favor of the claim that predicatively used modal infinitives are always truly adjectival, based on the fact that the addition of a (passive) door-phrase gives rise to a marginal result, whereas the addition of a voor-phrase is fully acceptable if the adverb gemakkelijk is present. The percentage sign in (129a) indicates that our judgment is controversial since similar examples have been given in the literature as acceptable; but note that speakers who accept the door-phrase in (129a) report that the sentence has the ability reading, which suggests that the modal infinite is adjectival here, not verbal.

129

a.	%	Dit boek	is	door Peter	te lezen.
		this book	is	by Peter	to read
		'This book must be read by Peter.'

b.	Dit boek	is voor Peter	gemakkelijk	te lezen.
	this book	is for Peter	easily	to read
	'This book can be read by Peter easily.'

Another argument in favor of assuming non-verbal status of the predicatively used modal infinitives is that they at least preferably precede the finite verb in clause-final position.

130

a.		dat	deze boeken	(gemakkelijk)	te lezen	zijn/leken.
		that	these books	easily	to read	are/appeared

a'.

dat

deze boeken (gemakkelijk) zijn/leken te lezen.

b.		dat	deze afstand	(gemakkelijk)	af	te leggen	is/leek.
		that	this distance	easily	prt.	to cover	is/appeared

b'.

dat deze afstand (gemakkelijk) af is/leek te leggen.

The fact that some speakers seem to allow the modal infinitives to follow the copular verbs in (130) is not conclusive for arguing that they are verbal given that postverbal placement of the modal infinitive is excluded for all speakers if there is more than one verb in clause-final position, as in (131).

131

a.		dat	deze boeken	me	altijd	(gemakkelijk)	te lezen	hebben	geleken.
		that	these books	me	always	easily	to read	have	appeared

a'.

dat deze boeken me altijd (gemakkelijk) hebben geleken te lezen.

b.		dat	deze afstand	me altijd	(gemakkelijk)	af	te leggen	heeft	geleken.
		that	this distance	me always	easily	prt.	to cover	have	appeared

b'.

dat deze afstand me altijd (gemakkelijk) <af> heeft geleken <af> te leggen.

The fact that the modal infinitives may precede the verbs in clause-final position, on the other hand, does show that they are not verbal; The examples in (132) show that te-infinitives that are unequivocally verbal never occupy this preverbal position.

132

a.	*	dat	Jan deze boeken	te lezen	bleek.
		that	Jan these books	to read	turned.out

a'.

dat Jan deze boeken bleek te lezen.

b.	*	dat	Jan deze afstand	af	te leggen	bleek.
		that	Jan this distance	prt.	to cover	turned.out

b'.

dat Jan deze afstand af bleek te leggen.

[+] D. Potential problems

Before concluding the discussion, we have to point out a problem for our earlier claim that modal infinitives cannot be used as predicates on their obligation reading. Consider the examples in (133), which do allow an obligation reading.

133

a.	dat	Jan dat	te doen	heeft.	heeft can be replaced by krijgt
	that	Jan that	to do	has
	'that Jan has to do that.'

b.	dat	Jan dat boek	te lezen	heeft.	heeft can be replaced by krijgt
	that	Jan that book	to read	has
	'that Jan has to read that book.'

The fact that the infinitives may precede the clause-final finite verb indicates that they are not verbal. This raises the question as to whether we are dealing with predicatively used modal infinitives in this construction. An affirmative answer to this question is suggested by the fact that the verb hebben can also be used in other predicative constructions, such as (134). Observe that hebben can be replaced by krijgen'to get' in (134), an option that is also available in the examples in (133).

134

		dat	Jan het raam	niet open	heeft.	heeft can be replaced by krijgt
		that	Jan the window	not open	has

To our knowledge, the question as to whether we are dealing with predicatively used modal infinitives in (133) has not been investigated yet. There are two potential arguments against the assumption that we are dealing with modal infinitives in these constructions. The first argument, illustrated in (135), is that the te-infinitive can be predicated of a subject of a transitive verb in the hebben construction, whereas we have seen in (124) that the modal infinitive is normally predicated of the direct object in the copular construction.

135

dat	Jan (mij)	te gehoorzamen	heeft.	heeft cannot be replaced by krijgt
that	Jan me	to obey	has
'that Jan has to obey (me).'

The second argument, illustrated in (136), is that the hebben construction occurs with intransitive and unaccusative verbs, whereas attributively or predicatively used modal infinitives of these verbs normally do not occur; cf. (84) and (125).

136

a.	dat	Jan te werken	heeft.	heeft cannot be replaced by krijgt
	that	Jan to work	has
	'that Jan has to work.'

b.	dat	Jan te komen	heeft.	heeft cannot be replaced by krijgt
	that	Jan to come	has
	'that Jan has to come.'

It is not clear to us whether these two arguments are sufficient to refute the claim that we are dealing with modal infinitives in (133); the examples in (135) and (136) are possibly of a different nature than those in (133), given that hebben can only be replaced by the semi-copular krijgen in the first set of examples.

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AuxiliaryBlockingCopular VerbMotion VerbNom-Dat VerbParticiplePassive ParticiplePast ParticiplePresent ParticipleUnaccusative VerbVerbal Infinitive

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

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

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles