As illustrated in example (562) the agent argument of a picture noun need not be overtly expressed, even though it will always be semantically implied.

Example (563) shows that theme PPs can sometimes be left out as well, even in cases in which the picture noun is derived from a transitive verb requiring a theme complement, such as schilderij'painting' or tekening'drawing'.

Leaving out the theme arguments does not always yield an acceptable result: with a noun like afbeelding'picture' in (564) leaving out the theme normally gives rise to a degraded result. The difference between (563) and (564) is probably related to the degree of lexicalization: picture nouns like schilderij and tekening'drawing' are highly lexicalized as a result of which they may have lost their argument structure; the picture noun afbeelding'picture', on the other hand, exhibits a lower degree of lexicalization and can be said to have retained the argument structure of the verb, even though its denotation has changed. For more a detailed discussion of this issue, see Section 2.2.5.2.

As pointed out in Section 2.2.5.2, sub II, in some cases the complements of story nouns with a verbal counterpart cannot felicitously be left out, whereas in others explicit mention of the complement(s) is not required. Thus, where the noun has abstract reference, that is, refers to the contents of some object, mention of at least one argument is preferred. This argument need not be the subject matter (theme), but may instead be the creator (agent). This is illustrated in example (565a). In cases such as (565b), where the referent is a concrete object, on the other hand, there is no need for an argument. Finally, in (565c), where the creator of the story noun is also the agent of the whole construction, the story noun can appear without complements.

Where the story noun does not have a verbal counterpart, both the agent and the theme arguments can normally be left out, even if it is the contents of the story noun that is relevant. This is illustrated in example (566).

Sentences like the ones in (566) are quite common with modified story nouns, as in (567a). Such sentences typically serve to start a discourse, with the speaker waiting for encouragement from the hearer, and evoke questions like (567b) from the addressee concerning the identity of the agent or the theme of the story noun, which shows that these are still somehow implied.

Since Section 2.2.1, sub III, has shown that van-PPs in postcopular predicative constructions are typically interpreted as possessors, it does not come as a surprise that example (568a) can be interpreted with Jan as the possessor of the painting. What is surprising, however, is that Jan can also be interpreted as the agent of the construction. In fact, the examples in (568b&c) are also ambiguous with regard to the distribution of the agent and possessor roles: the preferred interpretation indicated by the labels and given in the translations is entirely based on our knowledge of the world.

Example (569a) shows that placing a theme PP in predicative postcopular position normally yield a degraded result (although some people do accept this example). Examples such as this improve, however, in contrastive contexts with strong emphasis on the subject noun phrase, as is shown in (569b); they are especially acceptable if the agent argument is present.

As expected, the possessor of story noun constructions can be used as the predicative part of copular constructions. As with picture nouns, however, the van-PP in this position can also be interpreted as the agent argument. Examples are given in (570). As in the case of picture nouns, knowledge of the world will affect the preference for one interpretation or the other; cf. example (568).

This test cannot be used in order to establish whether the theme of story nouns functions as a complement of the noun given that it does not have the form of a van-PP. Example (571) shows, however, that the theme-PP can be used in constructions with the verb gaan'to go'.