Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
Apart from the nominal head, noun phrases can contain one or more other constituents, which can have different forms (nominal, prepositional or clausal) as well as different functions (complement, modifier or apposition). This section will be mainly concerned with PP-complements, although we will also discuss nominal complements insofar as they alternate with these PP-complements. A general problem is that PP-complements and PP-adjuncts within the noun phrase may be
difficult to distinguish because they take the same form. We therefore begin our discussion in Section 2.2.1 by discussing some syntactic differences between them and by introducing four tests that have been proposed for distinguishing between the two. Sections 2.2.2 to 2.2.5 will discuss the various types of PP that are selected by the nouns mentioned in example (53), and apply the complement/adjunct tests from 2.2.1 to these in order to establish that they can indeed be considered complements of the noun.
(53) Types of nouns taking PP-complements
relational nouns (non-derived) Section 2.2.2
ER-nominalizations Section 2.2.3.1
INF-nominalizations Section 2.2.3.2
ING-nominalizations Section 2.2.3.3 deverbal nouns
GE-nominalization Section 2.2.3.4 derived nouns
deadjectival nouns Section 2.2.4
picture nouns (derived/non-derived) Section 2.2.5
2.2.1. Tests for distinguishing PP-complements from PP-adjuncts
Section 2.2.1.1 will start by showing that PP-complements and PP-adjuncts of nouns are sometimes difficult to distinguish, due to the fact that they can have identical forms. Sections 2.2.1.2 to 2.2.1.5 will therefore discuss four tests that have been suggested to tell them apart; these are listed in the table in (54). Since these tests are not watertight, the description of each test will be followed by a discussion of exceptions to the general rules.
(54) Tests for distinguishing complements from adjuncts
NUMBER NAME SECTION
Test 1 Obligatoriness of the PP 2.2.1.2
Test 2 Occurrence of the van-PP in postcopular predicative position 2.2.1.3
Test 3 R-pronominalization of the PP 2.2.1.4
Test 4 Extraction of the PP 2.2.1.5
2.2.1.1. Difficulties in distinguishing PP-complements from PP-adjuncts
As with verbs, complements of nouns are (in principle at least) obligatory elements:
they fill the argument slots in the argument structure of the noun and are therefore needed to complete the denotation of the noun. Modifiers, on the other hand, are optionally adjoined at a higher level within the noun phrase. Schematically, the difference can be represented as follows: [NP [N complement(s)] modifier(s)]. In many cases, however, complements and adjuncts are hard to distinguish: they have the same form and generally follow the head noun. Thus, the most common PP within the noun phrase, the van-PP, can be either a complement or an adjunct. The same may hold for PPs with other prepositions. Some examples will be given below.
I. van-PPs
Van-PPs are probably the most common PPs within a noun phrase, and can function either as a complement or an adjunct. In (55) the van-PPs express the theme arguments of the deverbal nouns kopen ‘buying’ and maker ‘maker’. The PPs clearly function as complements: their (implicit or explicit) presence is required by the semantics of the derived nominal head, and the semantic relation between these arguments and the noun is identical to that between these arguments and the input verbs. The preposition van functions as a functional preposition: it does not have lexical content but merely expresses the relation between the head and the complement.
(55) • PP-complements (functional van) a. het kopen van een krantTheme
the buy of a newspaper
‘the buying of a newspaper’
b. de maker van de filmTheme
the maker of the film
In (56), on the other hand, the van-PPs function as adjuncts: although the information provided by the PPs is needed to identify the paper or book referred to, there is nothing in the semantics of these nouns that requires their presence: whereas it is quite acceptable to simply talk about een fiets ‘a bike’ or een krant ‘a newspaper’, mention of een maker ‘a maker’ will inevitably invoke the idea of an object that has been created, and if the context does not supply any information about that object, the result will be distinctly odd. Moreover, van functions here as a lexical preposition: in (56a) it expresses a possession relation, while in (56b), the relation may be regarded as one of time.
(56) • PP-adjuncts (lexical van) a. de fiets van JanPoss
the bike of Jan
‘Jan’s bike’
b. de krant van gisterenTime
the newspaper of yesterday
‘yesterday’s newspaper’
The examples above suggest that a van-PP only functions as a complement of the head noun when the latter is derived and inherits the arguments of the base. This is indeed the normal rule although there are two exceptional classes: The first class is formed by the relational nouns, first introduced in Section 1.2.3, and the second by the so-called picture/story nouns, which could in a sense be said to have an agent and a theme argument. Some examples are given in (57) and (58).
(57) • Relational nouns
a. Ik heb de moeder van Els gezien.
I have the mother of Els seen
‘I have seen the mother of Els.’
b. De kaft van mijn boek is gescheurd.
the cover of my book is torn
(58) • Picture/story nouns
a. RembrandtsAgent schilderijen van TitusTheme
Rembrandt’s paintings of Titus
b. Multatuli’sAgent verhaal over Woutertje PieterseTheme
Multatuli’s story about Woutertje Pieterse II. PPs with prepositions other than van
PP constituents within the noun phrase can be introduced by other prepositions as well. The PPs in the primeless examples in (59) clearly function as adjuncts, given that the nouns in question can also occur without them, as illustrated by the primed examples. Moreover, all the head nouns in (59) are non-derived, so that there is no question of inherited arguments. Adjunct PPs like these may display a variety of semantic roles (location, direction, means, property, etc.).
(59) • Adjunct PPs with prepositions other than van a. het kantoor op de hoekLocation
the office.building on the corner
a′. Er wordt een kantoor gebouwd op de hoek.
there is an office.building built on the corner
‘They are building an office building on the corner.’
b. de trein naar AmsterdamDirection/uit AmsterdamSource
the train to Amsterdam/from Amsterdam b′. Ik reis graag met de trein.
I travel PRT with the train
‘I like traveling by train.’
c. een meisje met rood haarProperty
a girl with red hair
c′. Ik heb gisteren een meisje ontmoet.
I have yesterday a girl met
‘I met a girl yesterday.’
Some researchers have argued that PP-adjuncts are easily recognizable: whenever the PP is headed by a preposition other than van, the PP is not a complement but an adjunct (cf. Booij & Van Haaften 1987; Hoekstra 1986): they maintain that the PPs aan pleinvrees ‘from agoraphobia’ and naar Amsterdam ‘to Amsterdam’ in the primeless sentences in (60) are adjuncts of the derived nouns lijder ‘sufferer’ and reiziger ‘traveler’, despite the fact that the preposition is identical to that selected by the input verb lijden ‘to suffer’ and reizen ‘to travel’. Others, however, claim that the PPs are complements, inherited from the input verb. One reason to do this is that the PPs in (60a&b) differ in the same way as the PPs in the corresponding verbal constructions in (60a′&b′): in the (a)-examples the selected preposition is functional in the sense that it does not have any lexical content but simply serves to express the relation between the head and its theme argument, whereas in the (b)-examples the preposition is lexical in the sense that it has retained its original directional meaning and introduces a predicative complement.
(60) • PP-complements
a. lijders aan pleinvrees [functional preposition]
sufferers from agoraphobia a′. Els lijdt aan pleinvrees.
Els suffers from agoraphobia
b. reizigers naar Amsterdam [lexical preposition]
travelers to Amsterdam b′. Jan reist naar Amsterdam.
Jan travels to Amsterdam 2.2.1.2. Test 1: Obligatoriness of the PP
Generally speaking, complements must be realized because they provide indispensable information for establishing the denotation of the noun. Adjuncts, on the other hand, are optional and provide additional information which is not required for establishing the denotation of the noun, although, of course, the information may be needed to properly identify the intended referent of the full noun phrase. We will start with a general discussion of this obligatoriness of complements, which is followed by a discussion of some systematic exceptions to the general rule.
I. General description
Complements are obligatory elements, whereas adjuncts are optional, where obligatoriness is to be interpreted as semantic obligatoriness, which is independent of the linguistic or extra-linguistic context. Thus, many derived nouns require the presence of an argument, just like the verbs from which they are derived. Normally the examples in (61) are only acceptable when the theme argument is explicitly expressed; see also Section 2.2.3.
(61) • PP-complements (derived nouns)
a. Ik heb de maker #(van dit kunstwerk) ontmoet.
I have the maker of this work.of.art met
‘I have met the maker of this work of art.’
b. Ik heb de vernietiging #(van deze stad) meegemaakt.
I have the destruction of this city prt.-experienced
‘I have witnessed the destruction of this city.’
The same thing holds for relational nouns like moeder ‘mother’ or zoon ‘son’ in (62). Since they imply some relation between two entities, they require the presence of an argument expressing the second entity; see Section 2.2.2 for more detailed discussion. This is clear from the fact that the examples in (62) are distinctly odd without the PP, when the information expressed by the complement PP is not recoverable from the context.
(62) • PP-complements (relational nouns) a. Ik heb de moeder #(van Els) gezien.
I have the mother of Els seen
‘I have seen the mother of Els.’
b. Ik heb gisteren een zoon #(van Jan) ontmoet.
I have yesterday a son of Jan met
‘I met a son of Jan’s yesterday.’
II. Exceptions
Although complement PPs are normally obligatory, there are circumstances in which the argument can be left out. The most common of these are listed below.
A. Contextual recoverability
The most common case in which the complement is not syntactically expressed is when the referent of the argument is recoverable from the context. In (63a) the required information is provided by the extra-linguistic, and in (63b) by the linguistic context.
(63) a. Ken jij de maker? [pointing at a work of art]
know you the maker
‘Do you know the maker?’
b. Een jongetje liep met zijn ouders in het park.
a boydim walked with his parents in the park De moeder gaf het kind een snoepje.
the mother gave the child a sweet
‘A boy walked with his parents in the park. The mother gave the child a sweet.’
With relational nouns referring to body parts, the latter option is even grammaticalized: not mentioning the internal argument within the noun phrase leads to a default interpretation in which some other argument in the clause is interpreted as the possessor; in (64a&b) the required information is proved by the subject ik ‘I’, and in (64c) by an indirect object hem ‘him’. In these inalienable possession constructions, the article can of course also be replaced by a possessive pronoun explicitly expressing the related argument.
(64) a. Ik heb een/mijn been gebroken.
I have a/my leg broken
‘I have broken a leg.’
b. Ik heb pijn in het/mijn hoofd.
I have pain in the/my head
‘I have a headache.’
c. Dat felle licht geeft hem pijn in het/zijn hoofd.
that glaring light gives him pain in the/his head
‘That glaring light gives him a headache.’
Note that the choice between an indefinite and definite article in (64) depends on whether or not the relevant body part is unique for each individual. When an
indefinite article is used with a unique body part, the inalienable possession reading will not be available: an example like (65a) will be interpreted such that Peter has broken some other person’s nose. A similar effect arises when a definite article is used with a non-unique body part: (65b) will be interpreted that Peter broke some bone or, less favorably, somebody’s leg. Note that modification of the non-unique body part may make the referent unique again and the example acceptable, cf.
(65c).
(65) a. Jan heeft een neus gebroken. [cf. *een neus van Jan ‘a nose of Jan’]
Jan has a nose broken
‘Jan has broken someone’s nose.’
b. Jan heeft het been gebroken. [cf. #het been van Jan ‘Jan’s leg’]
Jan has the bone/leg broken
‘Jan has broken some bone.’
c. Jan heeft het linkerbeen gebroken. [cf. het linkerbeen van Jan ‘Jan’s left leg]
Jan has the left leg broken
‘Jan has broken some bone/somebody’s leg.’
When the possessor is an indirect object, as in (65b), using an indefinite noun phrase with a unique body part even renders the sentence infelicitous. The same thing holds to a somewhat lesser extent when we use a definite noun phrase with a non-unique body part.
(66) a. Dat felle licht geeft hem pijn in het/*een hoofd.
that glaring light gives him pain in the/a head
Intended meaning: ‘That glaring light makes his head hurt.’
b. Peter schopte mij tegen het ??been.
Peter kicked me against the leg
Intended meaning: ‘Peter kicked against my leg.’
B. Generic, predicative and habitual uses
The examples in (67) show that the internal arguments of a noun cannot be expressed in generic contexts. Example (67c) shows that these contexts also allow the use of an indefinite noun phrase for inalienable possessed unique body parts, which is impossible in the case of specific reference (cf. (65a)).
(67) a. Moeders (*van Jan en Peter) zijn altijd gauw ongerust.
mothers of Jan and Peter are always soon worried
b. Een vader (*van Jan) dient zijn verantwoordelijkheden te kennen.
a father of Jan ought his responsibilities to know
‘A father ought to know his responsibilities.’
c. Een neus (*van Jan) dient recht en slank te zijn.
a nose of Jan must straight and slim to be
‘A nose should be straight and slim.’
Replacing the indefinite noun phrases in (67) by specific ones gives rise to unacceptable results. They may become more acceptable, however, when the noun is modified by adjectives like ideale ‘ideal’ or goede ‘good’. Note that, under the
intended generic reading of (68b), the PP indicates that we are dealing with an ideal of Marie; most likely she is not even married.
(68) a. Een goede moeder (*van Jan) doet zoiets niet.
a good mother of Jan does such a thing not
‘A/*Jan’s good mother doesn’t do a thing like that.’
b. De ideale echtgenoot (#van Marie) doet zoiets niet.
the ideal husband of Marie does such a thing not
‘The/#Marie’s ideal husband doesn’t do a thing like that.’
The predicatively used noun phrases in (69) exhibit a behavior similar to the generic noun phrases in (67) and (68): the complement of the noun cannot be expressed. As in (68b), the PP in (69c) again indicates that we are dealing with an ideal of Marie; this sentence certainly does not imply that Peter is Marie’s husband.
(69) a. Zij is een goede moeder (*van Jan).
she is a good mother of Jan
b. Hij wordt beschouwd als een verantwoordelijke vader (*van Jan).
he is regarded as a responsible father of Jan c. Peter is de ideale echtgenoot (#van Marie).
Peter is the ideal husband of Marie
Nouns derived from a pseudo-intransitive verb with an habitual reading inherit the property that mention of the complement is not required; the The (a)-examples in (70′) illustrate the normal, non-habitual use of the verb roken ‘to smoke’ and the derived noun roker ‘smoker’; the (b)-examples illustrate their habitual use.
(70) a. Piet rookte gisteren deze sigaren. a′. de roker van deze sigaren Piet smoked yesterday these cigars the smoker of these cigars b. Piet rookt. b′. een roker
Piet smokes a smoker C. Quantified and existential contexts
Complements can be left unexpressed when a noun is quantified, modified or negated. This is illustrated in example (71a) for the quantifier iedere ‘every’ and in (71b) for the negator geen ‘no’. Such constructions are only fully acceptable when the sentence can be given a generic interpretation, as in (71), or when the implied argument is (con)textually recoverable, as in (72).
(71) a. Iedere moeder houdt van haar kind.
every mother loves of her child
‘Every mother loves her child.’
b. Geen vader doet z’n kind zoiets aan.
no father does his child such a thing prt.
‘No father will ever do such a thing to his child.’
(72) a. Alle moeders kwamen te laat.
all mothers came too late
‘All the mothers came late.’
b. Sommige vaders wilden graag meedoen.
some fathers wanted eagerly join.in
‘Some fathers were eager to join in.’
In contexts where the focus is on the existence of the referent, or on establishing a relation between a noun and some other entity, this other entity typically does not appear in the form of a PP either. In example (73a), for instance, a relationship is established between the noun phrases een koningin ‘a queen’ and dit land ‘this country’. In such a context, the noun koningin, which normally requires a complement, can appear as an indefinite noun phrase without a complement. The same thing is true of the noun phrase een dampkring ‘an atmosphere’ in (73b).
(73) a. Dit land heeft een koningin.
this country has a queen
b. Er ligt een dampkring om de aarde.
there lies an atmosphere around the earth
‘The earth is surrounded by an atmosphere.’
Where the noun appears in a definite noun phrase, on the other hand, a related argument is always implied and the relation between the noun and implied entity presupposed (e.g., “the queen of this country” and “the atmosphere of the earth” in examples (74a&b)).
(74) a. Ik heb de koningin gezien.
I have the queen seen
‘I have seen the queen.’
b. Het ruimteschip keerde terug in de dampkring.
the spaceship turned back into the atmosphere
‘The spaceship re-entered the atmosphere.’
D. Incorporation (compounding)
Incorporation of one of the arguments of a deverbal noun is quite a common process in Dutch, particularly with ER- and ING-nominalizations. Examples of incorporation with ER-nouns can be found in (75). These examples show that incorporation results in °adicity reduction of the derived noun, as the argument slot originally held by the incorporated argument is no longer available. This means that whereas the ER-noun normally requires the expression of a particular argument, this is no longer possible if this argument has been incorporated.
(75) a. Mijn oom is hondenfokker (*van terriërs).
my uncle is dog.breeder of terriers
b. De krantenverkoper (*van ochtendbladen) deed goede zaken.
the newspaper.seller of morning.papers did good business c. De bordenwassers (*van soepborden) staakten voor meer loon.
the dish.washers of soup.dishes went on strike for higher wages In the case of ING-nominalizations, theme incorporation also seems to result in adicity reduction, although the effects may not be as strong as with ER
-nominalization. Section 1.3.1.3.3 has already shown that incorporation is possible both with NP- and PP-themes of the input verb.
(76) a. De plotselinge prijsstijging *(van de benzineprijs) veroorzaakte veel paniek.
the sudden price increase of the gas.price caused much panic
‘The sudden increase in (petrol) prices caused a lot of panic.’
b. De prijsuitreiking (??van de Oscars) is volgende week.
the prize.presentation of the Oscars is next week
‘The (Oscar) presentation will be next week.’
c. De hertenjacht (??op jong wild) zou verboden moeten worden.
the deer.hunt on young game should prohibited must be
‘Deer hunting should be prohibited.’
Adicity reduction is not restricted to those cases where an argument is incorporated. In many cases incorporation of some other element (an adjunct) may also block the expression of a theme argument. This is illustrated in (77) for an ER -noun with an incorporated purpose adjunct and an incorporated instrument adjunct;
see Section 2.2.3.1.2, sub E, for more discussion.
(77) a. Mijn broer is broodschrijver (*van kinderboeken).
my brother is bread.writer of children’s books
b. Dit is een schilderij van een voetschilder (*van stillevens).
this is a painting of a foot-painter of still.lives
‘This is a painting by a foot-painter.’
Example (78a) shows that, after incorporation of the theme argument of an ING -nominalization derived from a ditransitive verb, the resulting compound noun is preferably used without any arguments: expression of the recipient seems possible,
Example (78a) shows that, after incorporation of the theme argument of an ING -nominalization derived from a ditransitive verb, the resulting compound noun is preferably used without any arguments: expression of the recipient seems possible,