
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- Dutch
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Word stress
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
- Morphology
- Word formation
- Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
- Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
- Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
- Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
- Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
- Word formation
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Phonology
- Frisian
- General
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
- Morphology
- Inflection
- Word formation
- Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
- Derivation
- Syntax
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
- Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
- Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
- Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
- Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
- Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Afrikaans
- General
- Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
- Segment inventory
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
- Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
- Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
- Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
- Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
- Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
- Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
Separable complex verbs (SCVs), referred to as "scheidbaar samengestelde werkwoorden" or "samenkoppelingen" in grammars of Dutch, are combinations of a verb (sometimes also a noun or an adjective) and some other word. Examples are aanvallen to attack, opsommen to sum up and opfrissen to freshen up. These combinations have both word-like and phrasal properties. The following sentences illustrate the use of SCVs in embedded clauses (1a-5a)) and main clauses (1b-5b)):
a. | dat de leeuw het hert aan-val-t | ||||||||||||||
CONJ DEF.C.SG lion(C)SG DEF.SG.N deer(N)SG at-fall-3SG.PRS | |||||||||||||||
that the lion attacks the deer |
b. | De leeuw val-t het hert aan | ||||||||||||||
DEF.SG.C lion(C)SG fall-3SG.PRS DEF.SG.N deer(N)SG at | |||||||||||||||
the lion attacks the deer |
a. | dat Vader neer-stort-te | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Father down-fall-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that Father fell down |
b. | Vader stort-te neer | ||||||||||||||
Father fall-3SG.PST down | |||||||||||||||
Father fell down |
a. | dat Jan het huis schoon-maak-te | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Jan DEF.SG.N house(N)SG clean-make-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that Jan cleaned the house |
b. | Jan maak-te het huis schoon | ||||||||||||||
Jan make-3SG.PST DEF.SG.N house(N)SG clean | |||||||||||||||
Jan cleaned the house |
a. | dat Rebecca piano-speel-de | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Rebecca piano-play-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that Rebecca played the piano |
b. | Rebecca speel-de piano | ||||||||||||||
Rebecca play-3SG.PST piano | |||||||||||||||
Rebecca played the piano |
a. | dat Wim ons teleur-stel-de | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Wim 3SG.OBL sad-put-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that Wim disappointed us |
b. | Wim stel-de ons teleur | ||||||||||||||
Wim put-3SG.PST 3SG.OBL sad | |||||||||||||||
Wim disappointed us |
According to the rules of Dutch orthography, SCVs have to be written as one word when the two parts are adjacent, reflecting the status of these word combinations as lexical units.
The word in front of the verb in SCVs is called preverb. Preverbs can come from different lexical categories: adpositions (1), adverbs (2), adjectives (3), nouns (4) and bound roots (5).
Preverbally used adpositions are also referred to as particles, and the SCV is then referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive class of SCVs. SCVs with a noun as preverb are also treated under the heading of quasi noun incorporation.
The semantics of SCV is often not fully predictable.
The addition of a particle may change an intransitive verb into a transitive one. Compare: juichen to cheer (intransitive) - iemand toe-juichen to cheer somebody, lopen to walk - de straten af-lopen to tramp the streets.
In linguistic research, SCVs have been the subject of much debate, particular for their intermediate status between words and phrases. The following references are key publications for further reading: Blom (2004, 2005a, 2005b); Blom and Booij (2003), Booij (2002, 2010); (Los et al. 2012), Neeleman (1994); Neeleman and Weerman (1993).
The main property of SCVs is the separability of the preverb from the stem. This is what distinguishes them from prefixed verbs, which may look similar in some environments, as some particles correspond with prefixes. Consider the following uses of the particle verb voorkomen /ˈvorˌkomən/ to happen and the prefixed verb voorkomen /ˌvorˈkomən/ to prevent:
a. | Ongelukken komen 'voor. | ||||||||||||||
accident-PL come-3PL.PRS for | |||||||||||||||
Accidents may happen |
b. | Goede regels voor-'komen ongelukken | ||||||||||||||
good-PL rule-PL for-come.3PL.PRS accident-PL | |||||||||||||||
Good rules prevent accidents. |
In contrast to the particles, the prefixes cannot be separated from the stem. Moreover, prefixed verbs carry main stress on the verbal stem, while SCVs are stressed on the non-verbal constituent. Compare the following pairs:
SCV | Prefixed verb |
doorboren /ˈdoorˌboren/ to go on drilling | doorboren /ˌdoorˈboren/ to perforate |
omblazen /ˈomˌblazen/ to blow down | omblazen /ˌomˈblazen/ to blow around |
ondergaan /ˈonderˌgaan/ to go under | ondergaan /ˌonderˈgaan/ to undergo |
overkomen /ˈoverˌkomen/ to come over | overkomen /ˌoverˈkomen/ to happen to |
voorkomen /ˈvoorˌkomen/ to occur | voorkomen /ˌvoorˈkomen/ to prevent |
The main argument for a phrasal analysis is that SCVs are separable: in root clauses, the tensed verbal form appears in second position, whereas the other part of the SCV is stranded in its underlying position, as in Hans belt zijn moeder op Hans calls his mother. We also see the separability of SCVs in the phenomenon of Verb Raising. Sentence (7a) represents the underlying SOV word order. The main verb wilde wanted selects a sentential complement with a particle verb. When the verb of an embedded clause is raised to the matrix clause, the SCV can be split, as in (7b), but it can also be treated as a unit, as in (7c):
a. | dat Hans zijn moeder op-bell-en wil-de | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG up-call-INF want-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to call his mother |
b. | dat Hans zijn moeder op wil-de bell-en | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG up want-3SG.PST call-INF | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to call his mother |
c. | dat Hans zijn moeder wil-de op-bell-en | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG want-3SG.PST up-call-INF | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to call his mother |
Sentence (7c) shows that there is the possibility that the SCV forms a unit for Verb Raising. They can also behave as a unit in the Progressive construction aan het + infinitive at the V-INF V-ing (example (8a)), though aan het can also occur between the preverb and the verb, as in (8b).
a. | Hans is zijn moeder aan het op-bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG up-call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
b. | Hans is zijn moeder op aan het bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG up at DEF.N.SG call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
Whereas opbellen can appear after aan het (example (8a)), this is not the case for the VP zijn moeder bellen (example (9a)). The only possible construction is (9b), where the object precedes aan het. This shows that opbellen has a special syntactic status.
a. | *Hans is aan het zijn moeder bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS at DEF.N.SG POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
b. | Hans is zijn moeder aan het bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.M.SG mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
Moreover, the separability of Dutch SCVs can be observed in the location of the infinitival particle te that occurs between the two constituents of SCVs, as in op te bellen, and in the form of the past participle, with the prefix ge- in between the particle and the verbal stem: opgebeld op-ge-bel-d. Past participles are formed in Dutch by means of the simultaneous attachment of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t/-d/-en. Ablauting verbs choose the suffix -en, regular verbs select -t when the stem ends in a voiceless obstruent, and -d otherwise. In derivational morphology, SCVs behave similarly; for instance, the ge-nominalization of opbellen is opgebel op-ge-bel, with the nominalizing prefix ge- between the particle and the verbal stem.
The separability of the two constituents of SCVs has prompted some linguists to give a syntactic account of such complex predicates. This account usually takes the form of a so-called Small Clause-analysis: the particle is considered as the predicate of a Small Clause (SC), a subject-predicate combination without a copula, which is then raised to the matrix clause, and Chomsky-adjoined to the verb of the matrix clause (Hoekstra 1988). In such an analysis the following surface structure is assigned to the verb phrase het huiswerk afmaken to finish one’s homework (t is the trace of the moved PP af ‘finished’): [[het huiswerk](NP)[t(i)]](PP)](SC) [[af(i)](PP)[maken](V)](V). The SCV afmaken is a structural unit, which can thus take part in Verb Raising. The particle in this structure expresses the result of the action expressed by the verb. In such an analysis, particle verbs are instantiations of regular syntactic structures that express a resultative meaning (Hoekstra 1988).
The word-like properties, however, have led a number of linguists to take the opposite view that particle verbs are morphological constructions created by a pre-syntactic morphological component (Ackema 1999a, 1999b, Neeleman 1994, Neeleman & Weerman 1993). Such analyses necessitate a weakening of the principle of Lexical Integrity by allowing syntactic rules to move parts of complex words.
The debate on the proper analysis of SCVs as being either morphology or syntax reflects a view of the architecture of the grammar in which there is sharp divide between morphological operations and the lexion on the one hand and syntax on the other. This sharp boundary between lexicon and syntax has been challenged in the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar. In particular the notion 'constructional idiom' has been used to do justice to both the phrasal and the word-like properties of SCVs. The following analysis is proposed in Booij (2010):
Preverbs are words that have the status X0 (bare head), which means that they do not project a full phrase. SCVs consist of these non-projecting elements and a verb. They have the syntactic structure [X0 V0]V' where X0 = P, Adv, A or N. The V'-node, a level of projection directly above V, captures their phrasal nature and hence their syntactic separability.
The conventionalized aspect of the meaning of SCVs is expressed as a property of the whole construction. Subcases with specific meanings may form semantic chains, related by semantic extension mechanisms like metaphor and metonymy. For instance, the particle op, which is also a locative adposition, shows up with the following meanings in particle verbs (Blom 2004: 14):
a. | `to (cause to) move upward' | |||||||
optillen | to lift up | |||||||
opgooien | to toss up | |||||||
opgraven | to dig up |
b. | `to (cause to) surface' | |||||||
opborrelen | to bubble up | |||||||
opgraven | to dig up | |||||||
opduiken | to bring to the surface, to surface |
c. | `to (cause to) appear / become visible' | |||||||
opduiken | to turn up | |||||||
opdienen | to serve up | |||||||
opzoeken | to look up |
d. | `to (cause to) become perceptually / cognitively accessible' | |||||||
opvragen | to ask for | |||||||
opbellen | to phone up | |||||||
oppiepen | to beep up |
In many cases, the meaning of an SCV is not fully predictable. This can be illustrated by the different SCVs with the verb vallen to fall:
a. | aanvallen | to attack |
b. | afvallen | to lose weight |
c. | bijvallen | to agree with/ applaud |
d. | invallen | to invade/ to set in/ to replace temporarily |
e. | meevallen | to turn out better than expected |
f. | opvallen | to draw attention |
g. | tegenvallen | to disappoint |
This means that SCVs have to be stored in the lexicon. Lexical storage of SCVs is also necessary for another reason: the preverbs and the verbs themselves do not always occur as independent words. Consider: gadeslaan to watch but *gade, nabootsen to imitate but *bootsen, omkukelen to fall down but *kukelen, opkalefateren to restore but *kalefateren.
A different group of examples has complex preverbs that fail to occur on their own: teleurstellen to disappoint, tenietdoen nullify, tentoonstellen to exhibit. The bases teleur, teniet and tentoon derive from lexicalized PPs with the preposition te to.
The preverb, the left-hand part of an SCV, can stem from different lexical categories: adpositions, adverbs, adjectives, nouns and bound roots. Adpositional preverbs are also referred to as particles, and the SCV is referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive category of SCVs. For example, productive use can be observed for the particles af,door,aan,in,op, and uit:
Simplex verb | Particle verb |
rijden to drive | afrijden to take one's driving examination |
drinken to drink | doordrinken to drink on |
delen to share | opdelen to divide |
huren to rent | inhuren to hire |
leveren to deliver | aanleveren to deliver |
splitsen to split | opsplitsen to split |
schatten to estimate | inschatten to estimate |
sturen to steer | aansturen to steer |
testen to test | uittesten to test |
Recurrent bound meanings of particles can be accounted for by assuming constructional idioms for each of these particles. A constructional idiom is a (phrasal or morphological) pattern in which some positions are specified, and others are left open. For instance, we may assume a construction idiom for particle verbs with the particle door, which expresses continuation: [door-V](V’) to continue V-ing(Booij 2002).
Like many SCVs, SCVs with an adjectival or adverbial preverb often have an idiosyncratic meaning:
a. | bloot-staan | ||||||||||||||
naked-stand | |||||||||||||||
to be exposed |
b. | goed-keuren | ||||||||||||||
good-judge | |||||||||||||||
to approve |
c. | groot-brengen | ||||||||||||||
big-bring | |||||||||||||||
to raise (a child) |
d. | vreemd-gaan | ||||||||||||||
strange-go | |||||||||||||||
to sleep around |
That such constructions are SCVs rather than free syntactic constructions can be seen from two properties: their behaviour under Verb Raising and the fact that the adjective or adverb cannot be modified. With regard to raising, we see the two options that are typical for SCVs: separating preverb and verb (12a) and treating them as one unit (12b). Option b) is not available for ordinary syntactic constructions in which the adverb is a free element modifying the verb (13b).
a. | hij beloof-de dat hij niet meer vreemd zou gaan | ||||||||||||||
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more strange AUX go.INF | |||||||||||||||
he promised not to sleep around anymore |
b. | hij beloof-de dat hij niet meer zou vreemd-gaan | ||||||||||||||
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more AUX strange-go.INF | |||||||||||||||
he promised not to sleep around anymore |
a. | hij beloofde dat hij niet meer vreemd zou lopen | ||||||||||||||
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more strange AUX walk.INF | |||||||||||||||
he promised not to walk funnily anymore |
b. | *hij beloof-de dat hij niet meer zou vreemd-lopen | ||||||||||||||
3SG.M promise-3SG.PST CONJ 3SG.M not more AUX strange-walk.INF | |||||||||||||||
he promised not to walk funnily anymore |
Similarly, SCVs do not allow modification of the adverb (14a), a process that is unproblematic for adverbs outside SCVs (14b).
a. | *Hij ging heel vreemd | ||||||||||||||
3SG.M go-3SG.PST very strange | |||||||||||||||
He slept around a lot. |
b. | Hij liep heel vreemd | ||||||||||||||
3SG.M walk-3SG.PST very strange | |||||||||||||||
He walked very funnily. |
Syntactically speaking, this restriction on SCVs follows from the proposed structure since the left constituent is specified as a bare adjective, not as an AP. Hence, it is impossible to modify the adjective in that position.
There are quite a number of adverbs that can be used in Dutch SCVs, including complex locational and temporal adverbs such as omlaag down and achtereen continuously. (15a) contains a simple adverb, (15b) a complex one:
a. | thuis-brengen | ||||||||||||||
home-bring | |||||||||||||||
to bring home, to identify |
b. | om-laag-brengen | ||||||||||||||
down-low-bring | |||||||||||||||
to lower |
The following adverbs can serve as preverbs in SCVs:
a. | simplex adverbs | |||||||
heen | ||||||||
neer | ||||||||
samen | ||||||||
terecht | ||||||||
thuis | ||||||||
voort | ||||||||
weg |
b. | complex adverbs that denote a direction | |||||||
achteraan | ||||||||
achteraf | ||||||||
achterna | ||||||||
achterom | ||||||||
achterop | ||||||||
achteruit | ||||||||
omhoog | ||||||||
omlaag | ||||||||
vooraan | ||||||||
vooraf | ||||||||
voorin | ||||||||
voorop | ||||||||
vooruit |
c. | complex adverbs that denote a state | |||||||
aaneen | ||||||||
bijeen | ||||||||
dooreen | ||||||||
ineen | ||||||||
opeen | ||||||||
uiteen | ||||||||
achterover | ||||||||
voorover | ||||||||
omver | ||||||||
onderuit |
The meaning of separable complex verbs with these adverbs is usually quite transparent, and the meaning of the verb is preserved. In this respect, they differ from particle verbs, which often have an idiosyncratic meaning.
Most of the SCVs with adjectives are cases of lexicalization; only a few patterns, such as the open-V combination, are productive.
Particle verbs can be formed not only from verbs, but also from adjectives and nouns. The following examples illustrate the category-determining power of the construction (the particle verbs are given in their stem form):
Adjectival base | Particle verb |
helder clear | ophelder clarify |
hoog high | ophoog raise |
knap clever, beautiful | opknap tidy up, do up |
leuk nice | opleuk make nicer |
Nominal base | Particle verb |
hoop heap | ophoop heap up |
luister lustre | opluister add lustre |
som sum | opsom sum up |
SCVs may form the bases for other derived verbs, nouns and adjectives. They also occur as left-hand members of compound nouns. Some examples:
SCV | Derived verb |
invoeren to introduce, to enter | herinvoeren to reintroduce |
uitgeven to publish | heruitgeven to republish |
uitzenden to transmit, broadcast | heruitzenden to retransmit |
SCV | Derived noun |
aanbieden to offer | aanbieder offerer |
aankomen to arrive | aankomst arrival |
opbellen to phone | opgebel (repeated) phoning |
SCV | Derived adjective |
aantonen to demonstrate | aantoonbaar demonstrable |
aantrekken to attract | aantrekkelijk attractive |
SCV | Compound |
doorkiezen to dial through | doorkiesnummer direct number |
doorkijken to see through | doorkijkbloes transparent blouse |
opbergen to store | opbergdoos storage box |
Nouns that are formed from particle verbs by conversion always have common gender.
There is a systematic correlation between the gender of a converted noun and the form of the corresponding verb. If a verb is simplex, the converted noun has common gender and selects the definite article de in the singular; if the verb is prefixed, the corresponding noun has neuter gender and selects the definite article het: bouwen to build > de bouw the construction, vallen to fall > de val the fall, but besturen to govern > het bestuur the board/ administration/ management, gebruiken to use > het gebruik the use. Prefixed verbs correspond with het-nouns, but particle verbs with de-nouns. This is exactly what is expected, since conversion operates on the head of the particle verb which is simplex in nature: aanvallen to attack > de aanval the attack, aftrappen to kick off > de aftrap the kick-off.
Such nominalizations of particle verbs may reflect the fact that such verbs are often multiply polysemous: nominalizations sometimes have different forms for different submeanings. The following examples illustrate this phenomenon:
uit-geven
to spend | uitgave expense |
to publish | uitgave issue |
to issue | uitgifte distribution, Belgian Dutch: uitgeving distribution |
aan-nemen
to assume | aanname assumption |
to contract | aanneming contract- as in aannemingsbedrijf contract company |
op-nemen
to record | opname recording |
to hospitalize | opname hospitalization |
ascend to heaven | opneming ascension |
uit-voeren
to export | uitvoer export |
to perform | uitvoering performance |
Adjectives derived from SCVs exhibit a systematic difference in main stress location from adjectives derived from other types of complex verbs: the former move the main stress to the syllable right before the adjectival suffix, the latter retain the stress of the verbal base.
Adjectives derived from SCVs | Adjectives derived from other complex verbs |
ínzet employ > inzétbaar employable | beínvloed influence > beínvloedbaar impressionable |
úitsteek excel > uitstékend excellent | verwáarloos neglect > verwáarloosbaar negligible |
a. | op-ge-bel-d | ||||||||||||||
on-PTCP-phone-PTCP | |||||||||||||||
phoned |
b. | neer-ge-daal-d | ||||||||||||||
down-PTCP-descend-PTCP | |||||||||||||||
descended |
c. | schoon-ge-maak-t | ||||||||||||||
clean-PTCP-make-PTCP | |||||||||||||||
cleaned |
The participial prefix ge- cannot be added before the particle, because it requires a V as its base, not a V’. Yet, the semantic scope of the participial prefix-suffix combination is not only the verb, but the particle-verb combination as a whole.
A preverb can be raised with its verb to a higher clause (17c), and can appear after aan het in the [aan het+ inf] construction (18a):
a. | dat Hans zijn moeder op-bellen wil-de | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans POSS.3SG.M mother.C up-phone.INF want-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to phone his mother |
b. | dat Hans zijn moeder op wil-de bellen | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans POSS.3SG.M mother.C up want-3SG.PST phone.INF | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to phone his mother |
c. | dat Hans zijn moeder wil-de op-bellen | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans POSS.3SG.M mother.C want-3SG.PST up-phone.INF | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to phone his mother |
d. | *dat Hans wil-de zijn moeder op-bellen | ||||||||||||||
CONJ Hans want-3SG.PST POSS.3SG.M mother.C up-phone.INF | |||||||||||||||
that Hans wanted to phone his mother |
a. | Hans is zijn moeder aan het op-bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG up-call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
b. | Hans is zijn moeder op aan het bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG up at DEF.N.SG call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
c. | *Hans is aan het zijn moeder bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS at DEF.N.SG POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
d. | Hans is zijn moeder aan het bell-en | ||||||||||||||
Hans be.3SG.PRS POSS.SG.M mother(C)SG at DEF.N.SG call-INF | |||||||||||||||
Hans is calling his mother |
For the progressive construction aan het + infinitive at the V-INF V-ing (example (18a-d)), incorporation of the particle is the preferred variant, but both variants occur. This ambiguous behaviour of SCVs can be accounted for by incorporation: a bare element followed by a verb can be structurally interpreted as a syntactic compound. Hence,op-bellen may receive two structural interpretations: phrase [P0 V0](V') or syntactic compound [P0 V0](V0). Verb raising in standard Dutch raises V0, not V’, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (18c), where we see a simple verb, not a particle verb. Hence the variable behaviour of SCVs follows from the availability of two structural interpretations. Similarly, the progressive construction with simple verbs accepts only V0-infinitives.
SCVs with adjectives and adverbs exhibit the same behaviour. For instance, the adjective open open functions as a preverb. The difference with an adjective that is not a preverb, such as groen green, can be seen in the Verb Raising construction:
a. | dat ik de deur wil-de open-maken | ||||||||||||||
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG want-3SG.PST open-make.INF | |||||||||||||||
that I wanted to open the door |
b. | dat ik de deur open wilde maken | ||||||||||||||
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG open-make.INF want-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that I wanted to open the door |
a. | *dat ik de deur wilde groen verven | ||||||||||||||
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG want-3SG.PST green paint.INF | |||||||||||||||
that I wanted to paint the door green |
b. | dat ik de deur groen wilde verven | ||||||||||||||
CONJ 1SG DEF.SG.C door(C)SG green paint.INF want-3SG.PST | |||||||||||||||
that I wanted to paint the door green |
Since groen does not form a verbal constituent with verven, the modal verb wilde cannot be adjoined to the word sequence groen verven because it does not form a SCV. On the other hand, the grammaticality of the sequence wilde open maken shows that open maken is a verbal unit. Thus, we must assume a constructional idiom [[open](A0) [x](V0)](V'), and a corresponding syntactic compound.
- Los, Bettelou, Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion & Kemenade, Ans van (eds.)2012Morphosyntactic change: a comparative study of particles and prefixesCambridge University Press
- Ackema, Peter1999Issues in morpho-syntaxAmsterdam / PhiladelphiaBenjamins
- Ackema, Peter1999The non-uniform structure of Dutch N-V compoundsBooij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.)Yearbook of Morphology 1998DordrechtKluwer127-158
- Blom, Corrien2004On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and non-predicative preverbsJournal of Germanic Linguistics161-75
- Blom, Corrien2004On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and non-predicative preverbsJournal of Germanic Linguistics161-75
- Blom, Corrien2005Complex predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and diachronyAmsterdamFree University AmsterdamThesis
- Blom, Corrien2005The demarcation of morphology and syntax: A diachronic perspective on particle verbsDressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rainer, Franz (eds.)Morphology and its demarcationsAmsterdam / PhiladelphiaBenjamins53-66
- Blom, Corrien & Booij, Geert2003The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: a case study in grammaticalizationActa Linguistica Hungarica5061-91
- Booij, Geert2002Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formationDehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew & Urban, Silke (eds.)Verb-particle explorationsBerlinMouton de Gruyter21-42
- Booij, Geert2002Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formationDehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew & Urban, Silke (eds.)Verb-particle explorationsBerlinMouton de Gruyter21-42
- Booij, Geert2010Construction morphologyOxford/New YorkOxford University Press
- Hoekstra, Teun1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
- Hoekstra, Teun1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
- Neeleman, Ad1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
- Neeleman, Ad1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
- Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
- Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
