Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.4.Deadjectival nouns

quickinfo

The input for a deadjectival noun is always a set-denoting adjective, that is, a predicate denoting some property that can be predicated of or attributed to some entity; cf. Section A1.3.2. For example, the deadjectival noun verlegenheid'shyness' in (428) takes the set-denoting adjective verlegen as its input. This adjective denotes the property of being shy, which can be predicated of the subject Jan in Jan is verlegen'Jan is shy' or be attributed to the referent of the complete noun phrase de verlegen jongen'the shy boy'. The deadjectival noun verlegenheid'shyness' also denotes a property, but differs from the adjective in that this property is not primarily assigned to some specific entity, but denotes an abstract entity. As a result, it can head a noun phrase that can function as an argument of some other predicate, which is clear from the fact that the noun phrase Jans verlegenheid'Janʼs shyness' functions as the subject of the clause in (428).

428

Jans	verlegenheid	bezorgt	hem	veel last.
Janʼs	shyness	gives	him	much trouble
'Janʼs shyness gives him a lot of trouble.'

Example (428) also shows that the argument of the adjective can be realized within the noun phrase, which suggests that the deadjectival noun inherits the argument structure of the adjective. This will be the main topic of this section: Subsection I will consider issues concerning the expression of the arguments of different types of input adjectives and Subsection II will apply the adjunct/complement tests from Section 2.2.1 to the inherited arguments of the adjective in order to investigate whether these can be considered complements of the derived nouns.

I. Complementation
II. Application of the complement/adjunct tests

[+] I. Complementation

The arguments of the input adjective can also be expressed within the noun phrase headed by the deadjectival noun. Three cases can be distinguished: the derived adjective may be monadic, dyadic or triadic. In (429) examples are given of each case. In what follows, we will discuss the three types in turn.

429

a.		Jans	verlegenheid	monadic
		Janʼs	shyness

b.		Peters	gehoorzaamheid	aan het gezag	dyadic
		Peterʼs	obedience	to the authority

c.		zijn/?Jans	boosheid	op Marie	over die opmerking	triadic
		his/Janʼs	crossness	on Marie	about that remark

[+] A. Nouns derived from monadic adjectives

Monadic adjectives are adjectives that take a single argument, which we have assumed in Section 1.3.2, sub II, to be assigned the thematic role of referent. The adjective is predicated of this argument (from now on we will ignore the attributive use of adjectives, unless it has something to tell us), as is illustrated for the monadic adjectives verlegen'shy' and hoog'high' in (430a&b).

430

a.		JanRef	is verlegen.
		Jan	is shy

b.		De torenRef	is hoog.
		the tower	is high

The examples in (431) show that the Ref-argument can also be expressed within noun phrases headed by a deadjectival noun. It can either be expressed as a postnominal van-PP or as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. As always, the latter option is restricted to proper nouns and a restricted set of +human nouns.

431

a.		Zijn/Jans	verlegenheid	bezorgt	hem	veel last.
		his/Janʼs	shyness	gives	him	much trouble

a'.		De verlegenheid	van die jongen	bezorgt	hem	veel last.
		the shyness	of that boy	gives	him	much trouble

b.		De hoogte	van de toren	is indrukwekkend.
		the height	of the tower	is impressive

The marginal status of the primeless examples in (432) show that, as with deverbal nouns, the referent argument is normally obligatory, although there are two exceptions. First, leaving out the argument is possible in generic statements like (432a'). Second, the argument need not be expressed if it is recoverable from the (extra-)linguistic context; example (432b) would be fully acceptable in a conversation about a particular tower.

432

a.	*?	De verlegenheid	is ziekelijk.
		the shyness	is pathologic

a'.		Verlegenheid	is geen slechte eigenschap.
		shyness	is no bad quality

b.	??	De hoogte	is niet bekend.
		the height	is not known

b'.		De hoogte	is groter dan de breedte.
		the height	is bigger than the width

[+] B. Nouns derived from dyadic adjectives

Dyadic adjectives are adjectives that take two arguments, one of which is assigned the thematic role of referent. The second argument can be syntactically expressed in several ways, but we will restrict ourselves here to dyadic adjectives like gehecht'attached' and ingenomen'pleased' in (433) that take a theme argument in the form of a postadjectival PP since adjectives that take a genitive or dative NP-complement cannot be the input for nominalization; cf. Section 1.3.2, sub III.

433

a.		Jan is gehecht	*(aan zijn hond).
		Jan is attached	to his dog

b.		Peter is ingenomen	*(met het voorstel).
		Peter is pleased	with the proposal

The examples in (434) show that the derived noun inherits both arguments; as in the case of the monadic nouns the referent argument can be expressed either by a postverbal van-PP, or as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. The second argument of the adjective is obligatorily in the nominal constructions in (434), and must follow the Ref-argument if the latter occurs as a postnominal van-PP. It is important to observe that the second argument takes the same form as in the corresponding adjectival construction.

434

a.		de gehechtheid	van JanRef	*(aan zijn hond)
		the attachment	of Jan	to his dog

a'.		JansRef	gehechtheid	*(aan zijn hond)
		Janʼs	attachment	to his dog

b.		de	ingenomenheid	van Peter	*(met het voorstel)
		the	satisfaction	of Peter	with the proposal

b'.		PetersRef	ingenomenheid	*(met het voorstel)
		Peterʼs	satisfaction	with the proposal

The examples in (435) show that with some adjectives the second argument is optional. It is therefore not surprising that the same thing holds for the nominalizations of these cases: it simply shows that the optionality or obligatoriness of the complement is among the features inherited by the deadjectival noun. Note that the Ref-argumentcannot normally be left out: this is only possible in generic contexts or if it is recoverable from the context, but this will go unillustrated here.

435

a.	JanRef	is verliefd	(op MarieTheme).
	Jan	is in love	on Marie
	'Jan is in love with Marie.'

b.		JansRef	verliefdheid	(op MarieTheme)
		Janʼs	infatuation	on Marie

b'.		de verliefdheid	van JanRef	(op MarieTheme)
		the infatuation	of Jan	on Marie

It seems that there is a difference in productivity of the nominalization process between the two cases. The examples in (436) show that it is easy to find examples of adjectives with an obligatory second argument that cannot be nominalized. This is, however, harder with adjectives with an optional second argument; the examples in (437) illustrate the high degree of productivity in this case.

436

a.	Marie is gebrand	*(op succes).
	Marie is eager	on success
	'Marie is eager for success.'

a'.	*	MariesRef	gebrandheid	(op succes)
		Marieʼs	eagerness	on success

b.	Zij	is bestand	*(tegen stress).
	she	is resistant	against stress
	'Sheʼs stress-resistant.'

b'.	*	haarRef	bestandheid	(tegen stress)
		her	resistance	against stress

437

a.	Marie is nieuwsgierig	(naar de uitslag).
	Marie is curious	to the results
	'Marie is curious to know the results.'

a'.		MariesRef	nieuwsgierigheid	(naar de uitslag)
		Marieʼs	curiosity	to the results

b.		Wij	zijn	afhankelijk	(van het weer).
		we	are	dependent	of the weather

b'.		onzeRef	afhankelijkheid	(van het weer)
		our	dependency	of the weather

c.		Zij	is gevoelig	(voor zulke dingen).
		she	is sensitive	for such things

c'.		haarRef	gevoeligheid	(voor zulke dingen)
		her	sensitivity	for such things

d.		PeterRef	is gehoorzaam	(aan het gezag).
		Peter	is obedient	to the authority

d'.		PetersRef	gehoorzaamheid	(aan het gezag)
		Peterʼs	obedience	to the authority

The primeless examples in (438) show that the complements of attributively used adjectives must appear in pre-adjectival position; see Section A5.3 for discussion. A comparable position is, however, not available with deadjectival nouns; as shown in the primed examples in (438), these PPs can only be placed in postnominal position.

438

a.	de	<op zijn vrouw>	verliefde <*op zijn vrouw>	man
	the	on his wife	in love	man
	'the man (who is) in love with his wife'

a'.		zijnRef	<*op zijn vrouw>	verliefdheid <op zijn vrouw>
		his	on his wife	infatuation

b.	de	<aan het gezag>	gehoorzame <*aan het gezag>	jongen
	the	to the authority	obedient	boy
	'the boy (who is) obedient to the authorities'

b'.		zijnRef	<*aan het gezag>	gehoorzaamheid <aan het gezag>
		his	to the authority	obedience

c.		de	<aan zijn hond>	gehechte <*aan zijn hond>	jongen
		the	to his dog	attached	boy

c'.		zijnRef	<*aan zijn hond>	gehechtheid <aan zijn hond>
		his	to his dog	attachment

Among the adjectives taking an optional prepositional complement, there are some cases in which the presence or absence of the complement leads to syntactic differences with regard to the pluralization of the logical subject of the adjective; see also Chapter A2. An example is given in (439): where the subject appears in the singular, as in (439a), the PP-complement must be present; if the subject appears in the plural, as in (439b), the PP is optionally present.

439

a.	De mens	is nauw verwant	*(aan de chimpansee).
	the human	is closely related	to the chimpanzee
	'Man is closely related to the chimpanzee.'

b.	De mens en de chimpansee	zijn	nauw verwant	(aan elkaar).
	the human and the chimpanzee	are	closely related	to each.other
	'Man and chimpanzee are closely related (to each other).'

The adjectives in both constructions can be the input for nominalizations; interestingly, however, the nominal counterpart of the construction in (439a) selects a different preposition (met'with' instead of aan'to'), while in the case of (439b) the plural subject now appears as PP-complement with the preposition tussen'between'. The relevant examples are given in (440).

440

a.		de verwantschap	van de mens	met de chimpansee
		the relationship	of the human	with the chimpanzee

a'.		onze verwantschap	met de chimpansee
		our relationship	with the chimpanzee

b.		de verwantschap	tussen de mens en de chimpansee
		the relationship	between the human and the chimpanzee

[+] C. Nouns derived from triadic adjectives

Occasionally, adjectives can occur with three arguments, that is, with a Ref-argument and two PP-complements. An example is given in (441a). The (b)-examples show that nouns derived from these adjectives can inherit all three arguments, albeit that the result may be somewhat marked. Again, the Ref-argument may appear prenominally as a genitive noun phrase/possessive pronoun or postnominally as a van-PP. The second and third argument must occur postnominally in the same form and in the same order as in the original adjectival construction. Furthermore, they must follow the Ref-argument if the latter occurs as a postnominal van-PP. This means that any reordering of the PPs in (441b&b') will have a degraded result.

441

a.	Jan is boos	op Marie	over die opmerking.
	Jan is angry	on Marie	about that remark
	'Jan is angry with Marie because of that remark.'

b.		Jans/ZijnRef	boosheid	op Marie	over die opmerking
		Janʼs/his	crossness	on Marie	about that remark

b'.		de boosheid	van JanRef	op Marie	over die opmerking
		the crossness	of Jan	on Marie	about that remark

Since the complements of triadic adjectives are not always obligatorily expressed, it does not come as a surprise that the same thing is true of the complements of the derived noun; one might say that the optionality of the complement belongs to the features inherited from the adjective. Thus, the constructions in (442) are fully acceptable with the possible exception of (442a'), which for unclear reasons seems to be slightly degraded. Recall that the Ref-argument normally cannot be left out.

442

a.		JansRef	boosheid	op Marie
		Janʼs	crossness	on Marie

a'.	?	de boosheid	van JanRef	op Marie
		the crossness	of Jan	on Marie

b.		JansRef	boosheid	over die opmerking
		Janʼs	crossness	about that remark

b'.		de boosheid	van JanRef	over die opmerking
		the crossness	of Jan	about that remark

c.		JansRef	boosheid/de boosheid	van Jan
		Janʼs	crossness/the crossness	of Jan

[+] D. Conclusion

The inherited Ref-argument of deadjectival nouns must be realized either as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun, or as a postnominal van-PP. The PP-complements of the base adjective are also inherited: they appear postnominally in the same form and order as the complements of the base adjective. Whether these PP-complements can be left implicit also depends on the properties of the base adjective.

443

Monadic	NPs/pronounRef + N	N + van-PPRef
Dyadic	NPs/pronounRef + N (+ PPTheme)	N + van-PPRef (+ PPTheme)
Triadic	NPs/pronounRef + N (+ PP) (+PP)	N + van-PPRef (+ PP) (+PP)

[+] II. Application of the complement/adjunct tests

In many cases, PP-complements and PP-adjuncts are not formally distinguished within the noun phrase. It is therefore not impossible that what we called complements above are actually adjuncts. This subsection applies the tests provided in Section 2.2.1 to distinguish between complement PPs and adjunct PPs to deadjectival nouns. The conclusion that we will draw from this exercise is that we are indeed correct in assuming that the PPs discussed in this subsection are complements of the noun.

[+] A. Obligatoriness of PP

Subsection I has already shown that the Ref-argument must normally be expressed: it can only be left implicit in generic contexts or if it is recoverable from the (extra-)linguistic context. We illustrate the obligatoriness of the Ref-argument again by means of a noun derived from the monadic adjective vruchtbaar.

444

a.		Deze aardeRef	is vruchtbaar.
		this soil	is fertile

b.		de	vruchtbaarheid	*(van de aardeRef)
		the	fertility	of the soil

The obligatoriness of the PP-complements to nouns derived from dyadic adjectives depends on whether they are obligatory in the corresponding adjectival construction. In other words, the optionality or obligatoriness of the complement of the adjective is inherited by the deadjectival noun. The primed examples illustrate again that the Ref-argument can only be left implicit if it is recoverable: in (445a') the use of the possessive pronoun zijn evokes the idea that the Ref-argument is the owner of the dog, and consequently leaving it implicit is allowed; in (445b') such a clue is lacking, and leaving out the Ref-argument gives rise to a degraded result.

445

a.		JanRef	is gehecht	*(aan zijn hond).
		Jan	is attached	to his dog

a'.		JansRef/de	gehechtheid	*(aan zijn hond)
		Janʼs	attachment	to his dog

b.	JanRef	is verliefd	(op Marie).
	Jan	is in love	on Marie
	'Jan is in love with Marie.'

b'.	JansRef/*de	verliefdheid	(op Marie)
	Janʼs	infatuation	on Marie
	'Janʼs infatuation with Marie'

Finally, as illustrated in example (446), triadic deadjectival nouns do not require the presence of all three arguments, which is a property inherited from the input adjective. Again, the Ref-argument is normally required.

446

a.		Jans	boosheid	op Marie	over die opmerking
		Janʼs	crossness	on Marie	about that remark

Jans boosheid op Marie

Jans boosheid over die opmerking

Jans boosheid

[+] B. Occurrence of PP in postcopular predicative position

Example (447) shows that the Ref-argument of a deadjectival noun cannot occur in postcopular position. This is not surprising, as van-PPs in postcopular position are interpreted as possessive elements, and properties, the denotation of deadjectival nouns, cannot be possessed.

447

a.	*	De verlegenheid	is van Jan.
		the shyness	is of Jan

b.	*	De gehoorzaamheid	is van Peter.
		the obedience	is of Peter

c.		De boosheid	is van Jan.
		the crossness	is of Jan

For completeness’ sake, the examples in (448) show that it is equally impossible to place the second or third argument of dyadic and triadic constructions in postcopular position.

448

a.	*	Jans/De	ingenomenheid	is met het voorstel.
		Janʼs/the	satisfaction	is with the proposal

b.	*	Jans/De	boosheid	is over de opmerking.
		Janʼs/the	crossness	is about the remark

c.	*	Jans/De	boosheid	is op Marie
		Janʼs/the	crossness	is on Marie

[+] C. R-pronominalization

The examples in (449a-c) again show that Ref-arguments behave like complements: they allow R-pronominalization. Note that example (449d) shows that the result is much worse with adjectives that take a +human complement: de boosheid van Jan'Janʼs crossness', which is of course due to the fact that R-pronominalization is always marked if the PP contains a +human noun phrase.

449

a.	de hoogte	ervan
	the height	there-of
	'its height'

b.	de bekendheid	ervan
	the known-ness	there-of
	'its fame'

c.	de stabiliteit	ervan
	the stability	there-of
	'its stability'

d.	*	de boosheid	ervan
		the crossness	there-of
		'his crossness'

Example (450) shows that R-pronominalization is also possible with the second argument of the corresponding dyadic adjective.

450

a.	Jans	tevredenheid	erover
	Janʼs	satisfaction	there-about
	'Janʼs satisfaction with it'

b.	?	Maries	nieuwsgierigheid	ernaar
		Marieʼs	curiosity	there-to
		'Marieʼs curiosity to know it'

The examples in (451a&b) show that the same thing holds for the second and third argument of triadic constructions, although there are additional restrictions. Example (451a) shows that R-pronominalization of the over-PP leads to a perfect result provided that the op-PP is left implicit. Similarly, example (451b) shows that R-pronominalization of the op-PP is significantly better when the over-PP is not expressed. The fact that the result is still marked without the presence of a second complement is due to the fact that this argument is typically interpreted as +human, and as such does not readily allow R-pronominalization; if, however, the argument can be interpreted as referring to some institution (like the government), the example becomes more or less acceptable. Example (451c), finally, shows that pronominalization of both complements at the same time is entirely impossible.

451

a.	Jans	boosheid	daarover	(??op Marie)
	Janʼs	crossness	there-about	on Marie
	'Janʼs crossness about it'

b.	Jans	boosheid	daarop	??(*over die beslissing)
	Janʼs	crossness	there-on	about that decision
	'Jan crossness with it'

c.	*	Jans	boosheid	daarop	daarover
		Janʼs	crossness	there-on	there-about

The results in (451) are not surprising given that we find the same pattern in the corresponding adjectival construction in (452). We have used the strong form daar + P instead of the weak form er + P since this makes it easer to use the unsplit pattern in the adjectival construction; the judgments do not change if we use the weak form.

452

Jan is boos daarover (*?op Marie)

Jan is boos daarop ?(*over die beslissing)