Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.3.3.NP-PP alternations

quickinfo

Section 2.3.2 discussed PO-verbs that can be viewed as regular intransitive, transitive and unaccusative verbs taking a PP-complement in addition to their nominal arguments. This section discusses cases in which the PP-complement substitutes for a direct object. Since the alternation involves a direct object, it only arises with transitive and ditransitive verbs, which will be discussed in Subsection I and II, respectively. The discussion below will be relatively brief, given that the alternations under discussion will also be dealt with in Section 3.3.1.5.

I. Alternations between transitive verbs and intransitive PO-verbs
II. PO-verbs with an indirect object

[+] I. Alternations between transitive verbs and intransitive PO-verbs

The examples in (367) show that PP-complements sometimes alternate with direct objects of transitive verbs. Although this alternation normally involves a shift in meaning, it seems that the semantic roles of the two complements are more or less the same; in all cases we seem to be dealing with themes.

367

a.	Jan schiet	(op)	de eend.
	Jan shoot	at	the duck
	'Jan is shooting (at) the duck.'

c.	Jan gelooft	(in)	Marie.
	Jan believes	in	Marie
	'Jan believes/has faith (in) Marie.'

b.	Jan eet	(van)	zijn broodje.
	Jan eats	from	his roll
	'Jan is eating (from) his roll.'

d.	Jan verlangt	(naar)	een broodje.
	Jan desires	naar	a roll
	'Jan requests/longs for a roll.'

The shifts in meaning can be of various types. In (367a), the shift involves the affectedness of the theme: if the theme is realized as a noun phrase, it is affected by the act denoted by the verb, that is, the duck has been hit by Jan; if the theme is realized as a PP, on the other hand, it need not be affected by the action, that is, the duck may or may not have been hit by Jan. In (367b), the shift in meaning concerns whether or not the theme is totally affected. This change of meaning comes out clearly with sentences in the perfect tense: (368a) implies that Jan has finished his roll, whereas (368b) suggests that the roll has not been completely eaten.

368

a.		Jan heeft	zijn broodje	gegeten.
		Jan has	his roll	eaten

b.		Jan heeft	van zijn broodje	gegeten.
		Jan has	from his roll	eaten

In (367c), the addition of the preposition makes more interpretations available: whereas Jan gelooft Marie can only mean that Jan believes Marie, Jan gelooft in Marie can also mean that Jan has faith in Marie. In (367d), the meanings of the two constructions do not really overlap: verlangen naar means something like "to long for", whereas verlangen is rather rendered like "to request".
Syntactically, the PO-verbs in (367) behave more or less like the other intransitive PO-verbs discussed in Section 2.3.2, sub II. We will show this on the basis of er-nominalization, auxiliary selection, attributive use of the past/passive participle, and passivization.

[+] A. Er-nominalization

Section 2.3.2, sub II, has shown that er-nominalization of intransitive PO-verbs is less common than that of regular intransitive verbs. It will therefore not come as a big surprise that the primed examples in (369) show that the PO-verbs in (367) do not allow er-nominalization. It should be noted, however, that this need not be entirely due to the presence of the PP-complement given that the primeless examples of (369) show that er-nominalizations of the corresponding regular transitive verbs are often unacceptable as well. A contrast only arises in the case of the verb eten'to eat', as is clear from the fact that the nominalizations in the (b)-examples only have the total affectedness reading of the regular transitive verb. The contrast between eten'to eat' and the other verbs with respect to er-nominalization may reflect the fact that the transitive use of eten is also more common.

369

a.	*	een	schieter	van	konijnen
		a	shooter	of	rabbits

a'.	*	een	schieter	op	konijnen
		a	shooter	at	rabbits

b.		een	eter	van	kaas
		an	eater	of	cheese

b'.	#	een	eter	van	kaas
		an	eater	from	cheese

c.	*	een	gelover	van	Marie
		a	believer	of	Marie

c'.	*	een	gelover	in Marie
		a	believer	in Marie

d.	*	een	verlanger	van	broodjes
		a	desirer	of	rolls

d'.	*	een	verlanger	van/naar	broodjes
		a	desirer	of/naar	rolls

[+] B. Auxiliary selection

Like the intransitive PO-verbs discussed in Section 2.3.2, sub II, the PO-verbs in (367) all take the auxiliary hebben, which is consistent with assuming unergative status for these verbs; the examples in (370) show that in this respect these verbs behave like the corresponding transitive verbs.

370

a.	Jan heeft	(op)	de eend	geschoten.
	Jan has	at	the duck	shot
	'Jan has shot (at) the duck.'

b.	Jan heeft	(van)	zijn broodje	gegeten.
	Jan has	from	his roll	eaten
	'Jan has eaten (from) his roll.'

c.	Jan heeft	(in)	Marie geloofd.
	Jan has	in	Marie believed
	'Jan has believed/had trust (in) Marie.'

d.	Jan heeft	(naar)	een broodje	verlangd.
	Jan has	naar	a roll	desired
	'Jan has requested/longed for a roll.'

[+] C. Attributive use of the past/passive participle

The past/passive participles of the PO-verbs in (367) cannot be used attributively to modify the subject of the corresponding verbal construction, whereas their present participles can. In this respect they behave like the intransitive PO-verbs discussed in Section 2.3.2, sub II. The ungrammaticality of the examples in (371) with a past/passive participle is compatible with assuming unergative status for the PO-verbs in (367).

371

a.		de	op de eend	schietende/*geschoten	man
		the	at the duck	shooting/shot	man

b.		de	van zijn broodje	etende/*gegeten	man
		the	from his roll	eating/eaten	man

c.		de	in Marie	gelovende/*geloofde	man
		the	in Marie	believing/believed	man

d.		de	naar	een broodje	verlangende/*verlangde	man
		the	naar	a roll	desiring/desired	man

[+] D. Impersonal passive

All PO-verbs in (367) seem to allow passivization, which is sufficient for assuming unergative status for these verbs.

372

a.		Er	werd	op de eend	geschoten.
		there	was	at the duck	shot

b.		Er	werd	van zijn broodje	gegeten.
		there	was	from his roll	eaten

c.		Er	werd	in Marie geloofd.
		there	was	in Marie believed

d.	(?)	Er	wordt	naar een broodje	verlangd.
		there	is	naar a roll	desired

[+] E. Conclusion

The data in the previous subsections show that in all relevant respects the PO-verbs in (367) behave like the intransitive PO-verbs discussed in Section 2.3.2, sub II. Therefore, apart from the fact that PP-complements of these verbs alternate with nominal complements, nothing special need be said about these verbs.

[+] II. PO-verbs with an indirect object

There is a relatively small set of verbs taking both a dative noun phrase and a PP-complement. Some examples are given in (373); a quick inspection of this list reveals that most verbs are verbs of communication.

373

Prepositional object verbs with a dative object: berichten over'inform about', smeken om'to beg for', vertellen over'to tell about', vertellen van'to tell about', verzoeken om'to request', vragen naar'to ask about', vragen om'to ask for', vragen over'to ask about'Prepositional object verbs with a dative object: berichten over'inform about', smeken om'to beg for', vertellen over'to tell about', vertellen van'to tell about', verzoeken om'to request', vragen naar'to ask about', vragen om'to ask for', vragen over'to ask about'

That we are dealing with an alternation of the same type as in Subsection I is clear from the fact that most of these verbs can also be used as ditransitive verbs with a clausal complement; cases in which the PP alternates with a non-pronominal noun phrase are less common, however, which is related to the fact that verbs of communication prefer a complement with propositional content. The examples in (374) show that, like in most regular ditransitive constructions, the dative object cannot be used without the second complement.

374

a.	Jan vraagt	Peter	*((om)	een koekje).
	Jan asks	Peter	om	a cookie
	'Jan is asking (for) a cookie.'

b.	Marie vertelt	Peter	*((over)	het probleem).
	Marie tells	Peter	about	the problem
	'Jan is telling Peter (about) the problem.'

In the following subsections, we will briefly discuss the syntactic properties of these PO-verbs.

[+] A. Er-nominalization

Although the PO-verbs in (373) take an agentive subject, er-nominalization seems to give rise to a marginal result.

375

a.		vragers	?(??om een koekje)
		askers	for a cookie

b.		vertellers	(*?over het probleem)
		tellers	about the problem

[+] B. Auxiliary selection

The PO-verbs in (373) select the auxiliary verb hebben'to have', just like their ditransitive counterparts. This is compatible with assuming unergative status for these verbs.

376

a.	Jan heeft/*is	Peter (om)	een koekje	gevraagd.
	Jan has/is	Peter for	a cookie	asked
	'Jan has asked Peter for a cookie.'

b.	Marie heeft	Peter	(over) het probleem	verteld.
	Marie has	Peter	about the problem	told
	'Marie has told Peter about the problem.'

[+] C. Attributive use of the participles

Past/passive participles of the PO-verbs in (373) cannot be used attributively with a noun corresponding to the nominative argument of the corresponding verbal construction. It is marginally possible, however, to use it if the modified noun corresponds to the dative object; this is also the case if the PO-object is replaced by a direct object, although some speakers seem to like this option (even) less.

377

a.	?	de	(om)	een koekje	gevraagde	jongen	jongen ≠ agent
		the	for	a cookie	asked	boy

b.	??	de	(over) het probleem	vertelde	jongen	jongen ≠ agent
		the	about the problem	told	boy

Replacing the past participle by a present participle triggers an agentive reading on the modified noun.

378

a.	?	de	(om)	een koekje	vragende	jongen	jongen = agent
		the	for	a cookie	asking	boy

b.	?	de	(over) het probleem	vertellende	jongen	jongen = agent
		the	about the problem	telling	boy

[+] D. (Impersonal) passive

The PO-verbs in (373) allow passivization. The assumption that the nominal complements are datives is motivated by the fact that it is often claimed that they cannot be promoted to subject; passivization is taken to result in the impersonal passive in the primeless examples in (379). It should be noted, however, that some speakers at least marginally allow the nominal complement to become the subject of the clause with the PO-verb in (373): for these speakers the primed examples are also more or less acceptable.

379

a.		Er	wordt	Peter/hem om een koekje	gevraagd.
		there	is	Peter/him for a cookie	asked

a'.	%	Peter/Hij	wordt	om een koekje	gevraagd.
		Peter/he	is	for a cookie	asked

b.		Er	werd	Peter/hem	over het probleem	verteld.
		there	was	Peter/him	about the problem	told

b'.	%	Peter/Hij	werd	over het probleem	verteld.
		Peter/he	was	about the problem	told

The passivization test provides a good tool to distinguish PO-verbs with a dative object from the transitive PO-verbs discussed in Section 2.3.2, which do not allow impersonal passivization; the contrast between the two (b)-examples shows that the object must be promoted to subject; the impersonal passives in (380b) are excluded.

380

a.		Jan betrok	zijn studenten/hen	bij de workshop.
		Jan involved	his students/them	in the workshop

b.	*	Er	werd	zijn studenten/hen	betrokken	bij de workshop.
		there	was	his students/them	involved	in the workshop

b'.		Zijn studenten/zij	werden	betrokken	bij de workshop.
		his students/they	were	involved	in the workshop

The passivization test, however, is not always easy to use. For example, normative grammarians have claimed that the PO-verb wijzen op in (381a) takes an indirect object, and that the passive construction in (381b) consequently is an impersonal passive; the noun phrase does not function as a subject and the finite verb should therefore exhibit (default) singular agreement; we refer the reader to the taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/917 and onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/advies/de-luisteraars-werd-werden-erop-gewezen for discussion. This claim goes against our intuitions, according to which example (381b) is only possible with plural agreement (the form normally found in speech). This strongly suggests that we are not dealing with an impersonal but with a regular passive, which is confirmed by the fact that using the object form of the pronoun gives rise to a severely degraded result in (381c). We believe that this unequivocally shows that normative grammar is wrong and that we are not dealing with a PO-verb with a dative object but with a transitive PO-verb, which perhaps receives further support from the fact that the German translation of wijzen op (hindeuten/hinweisen auf) also takes an accusative object.

381

a.	Wij	wijzen	de kijkers	erop	dat	deze film	ongeschikt	is voor kinderen.
	we	point	the viewers	at.it	that	this movie	unsuitable	is for children
	'We inform the viewers that this movie is unsuitable for children.'

b.		De kijkers	worden/*?wordt	erop	gewezen	dat ...
		the viewers	are/is	at.it ·	pointed	that

c.		Hij/*hem wordt	erop	gewezen	dat ...
		he/him was	at.it	pointed	that

For completeness' sake, we want to note that ditransitive verbs selecting an indirect object and a clausal direct object often have a similar choice between impersonal and regular passivization, as is illustrated by (382). Apparently, some speakers allow a dative object to be promoted to subject if no accusative object is present; see Section 3.2.1.3, sub II, for more discussion.

382

a.	De conducteur	verzoekt	alle reizigers/hun om	uit	te stappen.
	the conductor	requests	all travelers/them comp	prt.	to step
	'The conductor asks all travelers/them to get down.'

b.		Er	wordt	de reizigers/hun	verzocht	om	uit	te stappen.
		there	is	the travelers/them	requested	comp	prt.	to step

c.	%	De reizigers/Zij	worden	verzocht	om	uit	te stappen.
		the travelers/they	are	requested	comp	prt.	to step

For our present purposes, the contrast between the types of passivization is not that important: the mere fact that the PO-verbs under discussion allow (impersonal) passivization is sufficient to conclude that they are unergative verbs.

[+] E. The order of the complements

For completeness' sake, it can be noted that the dative argument normally precedes the prepositional complement; the PP-complement can only precede the dative object if it is moved into clause-initial position as the result of topicalization or wh-movement.

383

a.		dat	Jan <Peter>	om een koekje <*Peter>	vroeg.
		that	Jan Peter	for cigarettes	asked

b.		dat	Marie <Peter>	over het probleem *<Peter>	verteld	heeft.
		that	Marie Peter	about the problem	told	has

[+] F. Conclusion

The data in the previous subsections show that the PO-verbs in (374) are unergative, which is especially clear from the fact that they allow passivization. Passivization is different from what is found in the corresponding transitive constructions, of course, given that the theme is not realized as an accusative object. As a result of this, it is the impersonal passive that is normally found. For some speakers a passive construction in which the dative argument of the active construction is promoted to subject is also possible.

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AffectednessArgumentDative ArgumentNon-main VerbPO-VerbPerfect AuxiliaryVerb

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles