Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.5.5.The status of the postnominal PPs

quickinfo

Before we can apply the adjunct/complement tests provided in Section 2.2.1 to determine whether the postnominal PPs are adjuncts or complements of the picture/story noun, we have to point out that it is often not immediately clear whether a certain postnominal PP is part of the noun phrase or positioned outside the noun phrase where it functions as a complement of the verb or a restrictive adverbial phrase. Therefore, we will first consider the possible functions of these PPs in some more detail and suggest ways of distinguishing between these functions. The overall aim of this section is to find a way of establishing the status of the PPs in the various constructions, as complement of the noun or as an independent constituent (complement of the verb or restrictive adverbial phrase).

I. The postnominal van-PPs of picture nouns
II. The postnominal van/over-PPs of story nouns

[+] I. The postnominal van-PPs of picture nouns

Observations on PP-extraction from noun phrases headed by picture nouns are complicated by the fact that the acceptability of the resulting structures depends on the choice of the verb (Kooij & Wiers 1977/1978, Klein & Van der Toorn 1979, De Haan 1979, etc.). This is illustrated in (522) for the verbs zien'to see' and beschadigen'to damage' by means of topicalization; similar observations can be made with, e.g., relativization and questioning, but this will go unillustrated here. As shown in the primeless examples, both verbs are possible if the van-PPs follow the picture noun. If the PP is topicalized, as in the primed examples, a contrast arises between the two verbs: the result is highly questionable with the verb beschadigen'to damage', but normally fine with the verb zien'to see': an exception is (522c''), where the agentive van-PP apparently blocks topicalization of the theme.

522

a.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van de WestertorenTheme	gezien/beschadigd.
	I	have	a drawing	of the Westertoren	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing of the Westertoren.'

a'.

Van de WestertorenTheme heb ik een tekening gezien/*?beschadigd.

b.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van RembrandtAgent	gezien/beschadigd.
	I	have	a drawing	of Rembrandt	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing by Rembrandt.'

b'.

Van RembrandtAgent heb ik een tekening gezien/??beschadigd.

c.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van de WestertorenTh	van RembrandtAg	gezien/beschadigd.
	I	have	a drawing	of the Westertoren	of Rembrandt	seen/damaged
	'Iʼve seen/damaged a drawing of the Westertoren by Rembrandt.'

c'.

Van Rembrandt heb ik een tekening van de Westertoren gezien/??beschadigd.

c''.

Van de Westertoren heb ik een tekening van Rembrandt ??gezien/*?beschadigd.

One way of accounting for these contrasts is to assume that with verbs like zien'to see' the van-PPs need not form part of the noun phrase, but may function as an independent constituent, e.g., as a complement to the verb or as a restrictive adverbial phrase. This would mean that sentences containing such verbs may be given two different structures: one in which the PP is situated within, and one in which it is situated outside the noun phrase. Of course, this difference in structure should correspond not only to a difference in syntactic behavior, but also in interpretation.
In order to find out whether such an approach is tenable, Subsection A will consider in detail constructions of picture nouns used in combination with three types of verbs: verbs of creation like maken'to make', verbs of transfer like the ditransitive verb kopen'to buy', and verbs such as beschadigen'to damage' that denote activities that in one way or another affect their theme argument. We will look at possible structural and interpretational ambiguities of constructions involving these verbs and suggest ways to disambiguate them. Subsection B will consider the behavior of verbs like zien'to see' and vervalsen'to forge' that seem to defy classification into any of the verb types distinguished so far.

[+] A. Picture nouns with maken'to make', kopen'to buy' and beschadigen'to damage'

Picture nouns are often used in combination with verbs of creation such as schilderen'to paint' or maken'to make'. We will see that the van-PP in such constructions is ambiguous in the way indicated in (523b&b'): it can function either as a complement of the picture noun, as indicated by (523b), or as a restrictive adverbial phrase, as indicated by (523b'). We will also see that this difference in structure can be motivated by appealing to an interpretational difference; see Klein & Van der Toorn (1979).

523

a.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van RembrandtTheme	gemaakt.
	I	have	a drawing	of Rembrandt	made
	'Iʼve made a drawing of Rembrandt.'

Ik heb [NP een tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Theme] gemaakt.

b'.

Ik heb [NP een tekening] [PP van Rembrandt]Adv gemaakt.

By way of comparison, example (524) provides similar constructions with the ditransitive verb kopen'to buy', which represents the second type of verb. Here, however, the ambiguity is of a different kind: the van-PP can be interpreted either as the agent or theme argument of the noun, as in (524b), or as a complement of the verb, as in (524b').

524

a.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van RembrandtAgent/Theme/Source	gekocht.
	I	have	a drawing	of Rembrandt	bought
	'Iʼve bought a drawing by/of/from Rembrandt.'

Ik heb [NP een tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme] gekocht.

b'.

Ik heb [NP een tekening] [PP van Rembrandt]Source gekocht.

Example (525), finally, provides a construction with the affective verb beschadigen'to damage', which, we will see, only allows the interpretation with the PP as complement of the noun: the structure in (525b') does not occur.

525

a.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van RembrandtAgent/Theme	beschadigd.
	I	have	a drawing	of Rembrandt	damaged
	'Iʼve damaged a painting by/of Rembrandt.'

Ik heb [NP een tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme] beschadigd.

b'.

Ik heb [NP een tekening] [PP van Rembrandt]Adv beschadigd.

In what follows, we will refer to van-PPs that are part of the noun phrase as dependent PPs, and van-PPs that are external to the noun phrase and function as an argument of the verb or as a restrictive adverbial phrase as independent PPs. The two types of independent PPs will be distinguished by means of the labels assigned to them.

[+] 1. Scope of the ordinal numeral eerste'first'

The distinction between dependent and independent van-PPs relates to a difference in interpretation, which can be made more conspicuous by adding the ordinal numeral eerste'first'; cf. also (472) and (475) in Section 2.2.5.1. The examples in (526a&b) turn out to be ambiguous: if the van-PP is dependent on the picture noun, as in the primed examples, we are not dealing with the first drawings I ever made or bought, but merely with the first drawing of Rembrandt I made/bought; if the PP is independent of the noun, as in the doubly-primed examples, the drawings in question are the first ones I made or bought. The second reading is not available for (526c), which can only mean that it is the first picture made by or depicting Rembrandt that is damaged. From this, we can conclude that the van-PP cannot be used independently with verbs like beschadigen.

526

a.	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	gemaakt.
	I	have	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	made
	'I (have) made my first drawing of Rembrandt.'

a'.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Theme] gemaakt.

a''.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening] [PP van Rembrandt]Adv gemaakt.

b.	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	gekocht.
	I	have	my first drawing	by Rembrandt	bought
	'I (have) bought my first painting by/of/from Rembrandt.'

b'.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme] gekocht.

b''.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening] [PP van Rembrandt]Source gekocht.

c.	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	beschadigd.
	I	have	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	damaged
	'I (have) damaged my first painting by/of Rembrandt.'

c'.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme] beschadigd.

c''.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening] [PP van Rembrandt]Adv beschadigd.

[+] 2. Negation

Insertion of the negator niet'not' can also be used to disambiguate these sentences, provided that we assume that it can only be placed between the noun and an independent van-PP, i.e., that it cannot occur internal to the noun phrase. This correctly predicts that (527a&b) will only be acceptable on the reading that the picture involved is the first I ever made/bought, whereas the construction in (527c) is unacceptable, as neither of the two possible structures is available.

527

a.	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	niet	van Rembrandt	gemaakt.
	I	have	my first drawing	not	of Rembrandt	made
	'I didnʼt make my first drawing of Rembrandt.'

a'.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening niet van Rembrandt]Theme gemaakt.

a''.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening] niet [PP van Rembrandt]Adv gemaakt.

b.	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	niet	van Rembrandt	gekocht.
	I	have	my first drawing	not	of Rembrandt	bought
	'I didnʼt buy my first drawing from Rembrandt.'

b'.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening niet van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme gekocht.

b''.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening] niet [PP van Rembrandt]Source gekocht.

c.	*	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	niet	van Rembrandt	beschadigd.
		I	have	my first drawing	not	of Rembrandt	damaged

c'.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening niet van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme beschadigd.

c''.

Ik heb [NP mijn eerste tekening] niet [PP van Rembrandt]Adv beschadigd.

[+] 3. Topicalization

Topicalization of the noun phrase can also be used to distinguish the two readings. Of course, since van-PP can be dependent on the noun with all verbs, it does not come as a surprise that it is always possible to topicalize the van-PP along with the noun phrase. Since in Dutch only a single constituent can be placed before the verb in sentence initial position (the constituency test), the prediction is that only the structures in the singly-primed examples are acceptable. This predication is again borne out: the sentences in the primeless examples can only mean that in 1982 it was the first time I made/bought/damaged a painting of Rembrandt; the reading corresponding to the doubly-primed examples that this picture was the first I ever made/bought/damaged is not available.

528

a.	Mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	heb	ik	gemaakt	in 1982.
	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	have	I	made	in 1982
	'My first drawing of Rembrandt I made in 1982.'

a'.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Theme]i heb ik ti gemaakt in 1982.

a''.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i [PP van Rembrandt]Adv-j heb ik titj gemaakt in 1982.

b.	Mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	heb	ik	gekocht	in 1982.
	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	have	I	bought	in 1982
	'My first drawing by/of Rembrandt I bought in 1982.'

b'.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme]i heb ik ti gekocht in 1982.

b''.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i [PP van Rembrandt]Source-j heb ik titj gekocht in 1982.

c.	Mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	heb	ik	beschadigd	in 1982.
	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	have	I	damaged	in 1982
	'My first drawing by/of Rembrandt I damaged in 1982.'

c'.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening [PP van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme]i heb ik ti beschadigd in 1982.

c''.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i [PP van Rembrandt]Adv-j heb ik titj beschadigd in 1982.

Next, let us consider the possibilities for topicalizing the picture noun only, leaving the PP in the original position. Here we would expect only the doubly-primed structures to yield acceptable results. The examples in (529) show that this prediction is also borne out: the examples in (529a&b) can only express that the drawing in question is the very first one I made or bought, which means that these sentences must be assigned the structures in (529a''&b''). The fact that (529c) does not allow this type of topicalization again shows that the PP cannot be used independently with the verb beschadigen'to damage'.

529

a.	Mijn eerste tekening	heb	ik	van Rembrandt	gemaakt.
	my first drawing	have	I	of Rembrandt	made
	'My first drawing I made of Rembrandt.'

a'.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i heb ik [NPti [PP van Rembrandt]Theme] gemaakt.

a''.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i heb ik ti [PP van Rembrandt]Adv gemaakt.

b.	Mijn eerste tekening	heb	ik	van Rembrandt	gekocht.
	my first drawing	have	I	of Rembrandt	bought
	'My first drawing I bought from Rembrandt.'

b'.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i heb ik [NPti [PP van Rembrandt]] gekocht.

b''.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening]i heb ik ti [PP van Rembrandt]Source gekocht.

c.	*	Mijn eerste tekening	heb	ik	van Rembrandt	beschadigd.
		my first drawing	have	I	of Rembrandt	damaged

c'.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening] heb ik [NPti [PP van Rembrandt]] beschadigd.

c''.

[NP Mijn eerste tekening] heb ik ti [PP van Rembrandt]Adv beschadigd.

Finally, let us look at the possibilities for topicalizing the van-PP. Not surprisingly, it appears that only independent van-PPs can be topicalized. The relevant examples can be found in (530). The examples in (530a&b) indeed seem to have the interpretation associated with the independent use of the PP: example (530a) expresses that the very first drawing I ever made was one of Rembrandt, and example (530b) expresses that the drawing was bought from Rembrandt (source) and that it was indeed the first I ever bought. As expected by now, example (530c) is degraded: the reading associated with (530c') is at best marginally acceptable in the (unlikely) context where I am planning to damage several of my drawings of/by Rembrandt.

530

a.	Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	mijn eerste tekening	gemaakt.
	of Rembrandt	have	I	my first drawing	made
	'Of Rembrandt I (have) made my first drawing.'

a'.

[PP Van Rembrandt]Theme-i heb ik [NP mijn eerste tekening ti] gemaakt.

a''.

[PP Van Rembrandt]Adv-i heb ik [NP mijn eerste tekening] ti gemaakt.

b.	Van RembrandtAgent/Theme/Source	heb	ik	mijn eerste tekening	gekocht.
	of Rembrandt	have	I	my first drawing	bought
	'From Rembrandt I bought my first drawing.'

b'.

[PP Van Rembrandt]i heb ik [NP mijn eerste tekening ti] gekocht.

b''.

[PP Van Rembrandt]Source-i heb ik [NP mijn eerste tekening] ti gekocht.

c.	??	Van RembrandtTheme/Agent	heb	ik	mijn eerste tekening	beschadigd.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	my first drawing	damaged
		'Iʼve damaged my first drawing of Rembrandt.'

c'.

[PP Van Rembrandt]Theme/Agent-i heb ik [NP mijn eerste tekening ti] beschadigd.

c''.

[PP Van Rembrandt]Adv-i heb ik [NP mijn eerste tekening] ti beschadigd.

It should be noted, however, that it is possible to force the reading associated with (530a'), according to which the drawing in question is not my very first, but the first I made of Rembrandt, by adding an adverb like nu'now' or inmiddelsook'by now also'. Clearly, this cannot be accounted for by assuming that only PPs functioning as independent constituents can be topicalized; we therefore assume the same thing to be possible with complements of picture nouns.

531

a.	Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	nu	mijn eerste tekening	gemaakt.
	of Rembrandt	have	I	now	my first drawing	made
	'Of Rembrandt I (have) made my first drawing now.'

[PP Van Rembrandt]Theme-i heb ik nu [NP mijn eerste tekening ti] gemaakt.

b'.

[PP Van Rembrandt]Adv-i heb ik nu [NP mijn eerste tekening] ti gemaakt.

[+] B. Picture nouns with zien'to see' and vervalsen'to forge'

This subsection discusses constructions with the non-affective verbs zien'to see' and vervalsen'to forge' to see whether there are reasons for assuming that these, too, can be combined with an independent van-PP. The answer will be negative; we will show that the structure in (532b') is excluded.

532

a.	Ik	heb	een tekening	van Rembrandt	gezien/vervalst.
	I	have	a drawing	of Rembrandt	seen/forged
	'Iʼve seen/forged a drawing by/of Rembrandt.'

Ik heb [een tekening [van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme] gezien/vervalst.

b'.

Ik heb [een tekening] [van Rembrandt] gezien/vervalst.

The first reason for this conclusion is that adding the ordinal numeral eerste does not create ambiguity. The most plausible interpretation of the examples in (533a), which are perhaps more easily interpretable with vervalsen than with zien, is that the drawing is the first drawing of/by Rembrandt I ever saw/forged. An alternative interpretation is that I saw or forged a certain drawing of/by Rembrandt for the first time. The difference between these two readings relates to a difference in the specificity of the referent of the phrase mijn eerste tekening van Rembrandt; in either case the drawing in question is my first drawing of Rembrandt, so that we are dealing with dependent PPs in both cases. This suggests that structure (533b') is not available.

533

a.	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	gezien/vervalst.
	I	have	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	seen/forged
	'Iʼve seen/forged my first drawing of Rembrandt.'

Ik heb [mijn eerste tekening [van Rembrandt]Agent/Theme] gezien/vervalst.

b'.

Ik heb [mijn eerste tekening] [van Rembrandt] gezien/vervalst.

On the basis of these facts, we expect placement of the negator niet in between the picture noun and the van-PP to yield an unacceptable result. The examples in (534) show that this is indeed borne out: both sentences are semantically ill-formed, regardless of the semantic role of the constituent Rembrandt (agent, theme, possessor).

534

a.	*	Ik	heb	een tekening	niet van Rembrandt	gezien	(maar van Frans Hals).
		I	have	a drawing	not of Rembrandt	seen	but of Frans Hals

b.	*	Ik	heb	mijn eerste tekening	niet van Rembrandt	gezien/vervalst	(maar van Frans Hals).
		I	have	my first drawing	not of Rembrandt	seen/forged	but of Frans Hals

Topicalization, however, provides equivocal evidence. The fact illustrated by (535a) that topicalization of the entire noun phrase is possible again confirms that the structure in (533b) is available, but evidence in favor of the ungrammaticality of the structure in (533b') is less firm: the claim is supported by the fact illustrated by (535b) that topicalization of the noun phrase in isolation is impossible, but contradicted by the fact illustrated by (535c) that topicalization of the van-PP in isolation is allowed.

535

a.	Mijn eerste tekening	van Rembrandt	heb	ik	gezien.
	my first drawing	of Rembrandt	have	I	seen
	'Iʼve seen my first drawing by/of Rembrandt.'

b.	*	Mijn eerste tekening	heb	ik	van Rembrandt	gezien	(niet van Frans Hals).
		my first drawing	have	I	of Rembrandt	seen	not of Frans Hals

c.		Van Rembrandt	heb	ik	mijn eerste tekening	gezien.
		of Rembrandt	have	I	my first drawing	seen

It must further be noted that examples behave slightly differently with respect to the negation test and topicalization if we use a determiner like zoʼn'such a' or een dergelijke'a similar'. Example (536a) shows that in that case negation can be placed between the noun phrases and the van-PP, and given that we can place all sort of adverbial material (like gisteren nog'only yesterday') between the noun phrase and the PP, it is very likely that we are dealing here with an independent van-PP. This suggestion is also supported by the fact illustrated in (536b) that topicalization of the picture noun may strand the PP. It seems that this difference is again related to the interpretation of the noun phrase: the noun phrase in (534a) refers to a specific token (hence the unacceptability: one and the same drawing cannot be of/by two separate persons), whereas the noun phrases in (536) refer to a type of drawing.

536

a.	Ik heb	zoʼn/een dergelijke	tekening	niet van RembrandtAgent/Theme	gezien.
	I have	such a/a similar	drawing	not of Rembrandt	seen
	'Such a/A similar drawing Iʼve seen not by/of Rembrandt.'

b.		Zoʼn/Een dergelijke tekening	heb	ik	(ook)	van RembrandtAgent/Theme	gezien.
		such a/a similar drawing	have	I	also	of Rembrandt	seen

[+] C. Conclusion

It seems that we may tentatively conclude on the basis of the preceding discussion that there is no reason for assuming that sentences with the verbs zien'to see' or vervalsen'to forge' are structurally different from those with the verb beschadigen'to damage'. Whereas there is clear syntactic and semantic evidence for assuming that verbs like maken and kopen clearly may occur in two different syntactic frames, such evidence is lacking in the case of verbs like zien and vervalsen. The fact that the latter verbs allow topicalization of the PP therefore suggests that topicalization is not restricted to independent van-PPs, but can also apply to complements of picture nouns. The test of PP-extraction may therefore still be a valid means of distinguishing between complements and adjuncts within the noun phrase.

[+] II. The postnominal van/over-PPs of story nouns

As in the case of picture nouns, observations on PP-extraction from noun phrases headed by story nouns are complicated by the fact that the acceptability of the resulting structures depends on the choice of the verb. Constructions with story nouns used in combination with verbs of communication like schrijven'to write' or lezen'to read' will be shown to be both structurally and interpretationally ambiguous; the over-PP in (537a), for example, can be interpreted as being the complement of the story noun or as functioning as an independent constituent of the clause.

537

a.	Jan	heeft	een boek	over WO II	geschreven.
	Jan	has	a book	about WW II	written
	'Jan has written a book about World War II.'

Jan heeft [NP een boek [PP over WO II]Theme] geschreven.

b'.

Jan heeft [NP een boek] [PP over WO II]Theme geschreven.

The same thing can be said of transfer verbs like kopen'to buy' in (524a), in which the van-PP can be interpreted either as the agent of the noun or as the source argument of the verb. The preferred reading of (538a) depends on the knowledge of the speaker: those who know that Jan Arends is a writer will probably opt for the reading in (538b) whereas those who do not will opt for the reading in (538b'). We will not discuss this any further here since this would simply repeat the discussion on picture nouns in Subsection I.

538

a.	Ik	heb	een boek	van Jan ArendsAgent/Source	gekocht.
	I	have	a book	of Jan Arends	bought
	'Iʼve bought a book by/from Jan Arends.'

Ik heb [NP een boek [PP van Jan Arends]Agent/Theme] gekocht.

b'.

Ik heb [NP een boek] [PP van Jan Arends]Source gekocht.

Affective verbs like verbranden'to burn' normally require construal of the van/over-PP as an argument of the story noun. This means that an example such as (539a) can only be interpreted with the structure in (539b); the structure in (539b') is unacceptable.

539

a.	Jan	heeft	een boek	over WO II	verbrand.
	Jan	has	a book	about WW II	burnt
	'Jan has burnt a book about World War II.'

Jan heeft [NP een boek [PP over WO II]Theme] verbrand.

b'.