Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

10.2. Verbal (X+V) collocations and verb-first/second

quickinfo

Verb-first/second is normally obligatory in main clauses, but there are cases in which it seems only marginally possible. A typical example is (25), with the N+V collocation touwtje springen'to (rope) skip'.

a.	dat	Peter op straat	touwtje	springt.
	that	Peter in the.street	rope	skips
	'that Peter is skipping in the street.'

Peter springt op straat touwtje.

Peter touwtje springt op straat.

Collocations like touwtje springen denote conventionalized activities and have word-like status, as is clear from the fact illustrated in (26) that this collocation can be placed as a whole in the verbal position of a progressive aan het + Vinfinitive phrase. However, the fact that the nominal part touwtje can also be separated from the verbal part springen suggests that wecannot analyze this collocation as a regular compound. For this reason, we will diverge from the orthographic convention to write such N+V collocations as a single word in order not to bias the discussion below towards a compound analysis for such collocations.

dat	Peter	<touwtje>	aan het <touwtje>	springen	is.
that	Peter	rope	aan het	skip	is
'that Peter is skipping.'

Examples such as (25) can be approached in several ways. One possibility is to deny that collocations like touwtje springen have finite forms, as is claimed for a large set of such N+V collocations at taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/703, probably on the basis of information provided by the Van Dale Dictionary. For many of these verbs, this cannot be maintained given that their finite forms are easy to find on the internet. A Google search (11/11/2013) on [touwtje springt] resulted in more than 300 hits, and a cursory inspection of these results showed that most of them indeed involve embedded clauses such as (25a). Actually, it is not difficult either to find past-tense examples: our Google searches on the strings [touwtje sprong] and [touwtje sprongen]resulted in more than 200 hits, two of which are given in (27).

a.	de buurmeisjes	waarmee	ik	touwtje	sprong	of hinkelde
	the girls.next.door	with.whom	I	rope	skipped	or played.hopscotch
	'the girls next door with whom I skipped or played hopscotch'

b.	Er	waren [...]	een paar meisjes	die	touwtje	sprongen.
	there	were	a couple [of] girls	who	rope	skipped
	'There were a couple of girls who were skipping.'

A second possibility is to deny that the contrast between examples like (25a&b) is real and to assume that both types of examples are equally acceptable. This position can be supported by the fact that verb-second examples such as (25b) can indeed be found on the internet. The number of such examples is relatively small, however: our Google searches on [springt touwtje] and [springt * touwtje] resulted in, respectively, 136 and 56 hits, many of which were irrelevant or duplicates. Verb-second constructions with touwtje springen are especially popular in headlines, headers, captions of pictures and movies, etc. In regular texts, verb-second seems relatively frequent in sentences with a habitual reading and in sentences in which the collocation is used as part of a list (often in brief summaries of certain events); two typical examples are given in (28).

a.		Sylvia Goegebuur (sic) [...]	springt	touwtje	als	de beste ter wereld.
		Sylvia Goegebuur	skips	rope	like	the best in.the world

b.	Hij	kruipt	over de piano,	trekt	zijn hemd	uit	en	springt	touwtje	met de microfoon.
	he	crawls	over the piano	takes	his shirt	off	and	jumps	rope	with the microphone
	'He crawls all over the piano, takes off his shirt and skips with the mike.'

The past tense strings [sprong touwtje]and [sprong* touwtje]resulted in 95 hits in total, many of which were again irrelevant or duplicates: our estimate is that there were about 20 genuine cases of verb-second. Sentences in which the collocation is used as part of a list, as in Hij liep, hij rende en sprong touwtje'he walked, (he) ran and skipped', again seem to be relatively frequent.
The results of our Google searches suggest a third possibility: for most speakers, verb-second of the finite form of the verbal part of N+V collocations like touwtje springen is disfavored, and since non-finite forms do not occur in second position, this verb is normally used in clause-final position only. Since these collocations express conventionalized activities, verb-second can easily be avoided in many cases by employing the progressive aan het + Vinfinitive construction in (29a) instead of the verb-second construction in (29b).

a.	Peter is/was	<touwtje>	aan het <touwtje>	springen.
	Peter is/was	rope	aan het	skip
	'Peter is/was skipping.'

b.	??	Peter springt/sprong	touwtje.
		Peter skips/skipped	rope

A similar conclusion was drawn by Booij (2010:114) for the N+V collocation stijl dansen, despite the fact that some speakers seem to be able to treat this collocation as a true (inseparable) compound: examples such as (30b) can again normally be avoided by using the progressive construction Hij is/was met zijn nichtje aan het stijldansen'He is/was ballroom dancing with his niece'.

a.	dat	hij	met zijn nichtje	stijl	danst/danste.
	that	he	with his niece	ballroom	dances/danced
	'that he is/was ballroom dancing with his niece.'

Hij stijldanst/stijldanste met zijn nichtje.

Hij danst/danste met zijn nichtje stijl.

Certain particle verbs have also been reported to disfavor verb-second. Such particle verbs are characterized by the fact that their particles are complex, like voor-aan in vooraanmelden'to preregister', or preceded by the prefix her-, as in herinvoeren'to reintroduce'; see Koopman (1995), Den Dikken (2003), and Vikner (2005), who discusses similar cases for German. In (31), we provide examples with the verb (her)invoeren. Bennis (1993) reports that some speakers consider examples like (31b'&c') marginally acceptable, and taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/377 reports that the split patterns occurs in Belgium.

a.	dat	hij	die regel	invoert.
	that	he	that rule	prt.-introduces
	'that he introduces that rule.'

a'.	dat	hij	die regel	herinvoert.
	that	he	that rule	reintroduces
	'that he reintroduces that rule.'

Hij voert die regel in.

b'.

Hij voert de regel herin.

Hij invoert die regel.

c'.

Hij herinvoert die regel.

The discussion above strongly suggests that there is a set of verbal (X+V) collocations that resist verb-second; following Vikner (2005), we will refer to such collocations as immobile verbs. The fact that it is not difficult to find cases such as (29b) and (30b) on the internet suggests, however, that collocations like touwtje springen and stijl dansen are sometimes also treated as separable or compound verb forms. This raises the question as to whether we are dealing with a syntactic/morphological restriction or whether some other restriction is involved. For example, it might be the case that verb-second is syntactically possible but restricted for some reason to cases in which the speaker cannot resort to the aan het + Vinfinitive construction, as might be the case in the examples in (28), or that verb-second is restricted to sports jargon, that is, used by individual speakers who are involved with the activity denoted by the collocation in question on a more regular basis.
In order to shed more light on this issue, the following subsections will investigate the properties of verbal collocations in more detail. Our point of departure will be that such collocations can be divided into the three main types in (32): inseparable collocations are compounds that undergo verb-second as a whole, separable collocations are phrase-like constructions that split under verb-second, and immobile collocations tend to resist verb-second.

Inseparable verbal collocations (compounds): bekN + vechten 'to squabble'

Separable verbal collocations: ademN + halen 'to breathe'

Immobile verbal collocations: touwtjeN + springen 'to (rope) skip'

Subsections I-V investigate the properties of inseparable and separable verbal collocations. We will show that the set of verbs that are traditionally assumed to be separable is in fact not a unitary class but falls apart in at least two subgroups, one of which is separable under verb-second and another which is not; the latter group will be shown to be immobile in the sense of Vikner (2005), subsection V concludes this part of the discussion with an attempt at an analysis. The results of the investigation in Subsection I-V will be applied to various types of immobile verbs: Subsections VI-VIII focus on three different subtypes of immobile N+V collocations while Subsection IX investigates inseparable complex particle verbs; Subsection X concludes with a brief discussion of a type of immobile verb that has received relatively little attention in the literature so far.

I. Separable and inseparable verbal collocations
II. Differences between separable and inseparable verbal collocations
III. Similarities between separable and inseparable N+V collocations
IV. Immobile verbal collocations (1): introduction
V. Immobile verbal collocations (2): a theoretical excursion
VI. Immobile verbal collocations (3): type touwtje springen'to skip'
VII. Immobile verbal collocations (4): type stijl dansen'to ballroom dance'
VIII. Immobile verbal collocations (5): type gedachtelezen'to mind-read'
IX. Immobile verbal collocations (6): particle verbs (vooraanmelden'to preregister')
X. Immobile verbal collocations (7): type voorverkopen'to sell in advance'
XI. Summary

[+] I. Separable and inseparable verbal collocations

This subsection discusses verbal collocations with a noun, adjective or a verb as their first member. Generally speaking, we find two syntactically relevant types: inseparable and separable collocations. It seems that this distinction weakly correlates with the semantic/syntactic status of the left-hand member, as Ackema (1999) notes that in separable collocations the left-hand member is normally an argument of the verbal part. This is illustrated in (33). The verb vechten'to fight' in (33a) is intransitive and N-part bek'mouth' is interpreted as having the semantic role of instrument; cf. met de bek vechten'to fight with the mouth'. The verb halen'to get' in (33b) is transitive and the N-part adem'breath' is interpreted as a theme argument. The primed examples show that only in the latter case can the N+V collocation be split.

a.	dat	deze jongens	voortdurend	bek	vechten.	inseparable/compound
	that	these boys	continuously	mouth	fight
	'that these boys squabble continuously.'

a'.		Deze jongens	<bek>	vechten	voortdurend <*bek>.
		these boys	mouth	fight	continuously

b.	dat	de patiënt	moeilijk	adem	haalt.	separable
	that	the patient	with.difficulty	breath	takes
	'that the patient is breathing with difficulty.'

b'.		De patiënt	<*adem>	haalt	moeilijk <adem>.
		the patient	breath	takes	with.difficulty

In (34), we provide a sample of the two types of N+V collocation, based on De Haas & Trommelen (1993) and Booij (2010). We do not include inseparable verbs such as voetballen'to play soccer' that are (potentially) derived via conversion from complex nouns (here: voetbal'football') or formations like raadplegen'to consult' with a non-transparent or non-compositional meaning for present-day speakers because these are expected to be inseparable anyway. Recall that we diverge from the orthographic convention to write the N+V collocations in (34b) as a single word in order not to bias the discussion below towards a compound analysis for these collocations.

Inseparable: beeldhouwen'to sculpture', bekvechten'to squabble', rangschikken'to group', redetwisten'to argue', slaapwandelen'to walk in oneʼs sleep', zegevieren'to triumph'Inseparable: beeldhouwen'to sculpture', bekvechten'to squabble', rangschikken'to group', redetwisten'to argue', slaapwandelen'to walk in oneʼs sleep', zegevieren'to triumph'

Separable: adem halen'to breathe', auto rijden'to drive a car', brand stichten'to raise a fire', deel nemen'to participate', dienst weigeren'to refuse conscription', feest vieren'to celebrate', kaart lezen'to read maps', koffie zetten'to make coffee', les geven'to teach', piano spelen'to play the piano', recht spreken'to administer justice', ruzie maken'to quarrel', televisie kijken'to watch television'Separable: adem halen'to breathe', auto rijden'to drive a car', brand stichten'to raise a fire', deel nemen'to participate', dienst weigeren'to refuse conscription', feest vieren'to celebrate', kaart lezen'to read maps', koffie zetten'to make coffee', les geven'to teach', piano spelen'to play the piano', recht spreken'to administer justice', ruzie maken'to quarrel', televisie kijken'to watch television'

Note that we used the notion "weak correlation" in order to characterize Ackema's hypothesis. The reason is that it is not the case that N+V collocations are always separable if the N-part functions as a theme. This can be readily illustrated by means of the collocation stof zuigen'to vacuum', which can be used either as a separable or as an inseparable collocation by many speakers. There is reason, however, for assuming that the N-part has lost its argument status in the inseparable form; see Ackema (1999) and the discussion of the examples in (44) in Subsection II.

a.	dat	Jan	elke week	stof	zuigt.
	that	Jan	every week	dust	sucks
	'that Jan vacuums every week.'

b.		Jan	<stof>	zuigt	elke week <stof>.
		Jan	dust	sucks	every week

We should further raise a warning flag and note that there are a number of cases of separable N+V collocations for which it is less clear that the N-part functions as a (direct) argument of the V-part. This holds for, e.g., piano spelen'to play the piano' and televisie kijken'to watch television', given that spelen and kijken select a PP-complement in examples such as (36). In order to maintain the claim that the N-part is an argument of the V-part, we have to assume that the PP-complement is reduced in the separable N+V collocations piano spelen and televisie kijken; see Ackema (1999) and Booij (2010) for a discussion of these forms.

a.	Jan speelt	*(op) een Steinway.
	Jan plays	on a Steinway
	'Jan is playing on a Steinway.'

b.	Jan kijkt	*(naar) de televisie.
	Jan looks	at the television
	'Jan is looking at the television.'

The examples in (37) illustrate that the two main types can also be found in the case of A+V collocations: (37a) is an example with the inseparable (compound) verb liefkozen'to fondle' and (37b) with the separable collocation bekend maken'to make known'.

a.	dat Jan zijn hond vaak	liefkoost.	inseparable/compound
	that Jan his dog often	fondles
	'that Jan often fondles his dog.'

a'.		Jan	<lief>koost	zijn hond	vaak <*lief>.
		Jan	fondles	his dog	often

b.	dat	Jan zijn besluit	morgen	bekend	maakt.	separable
	that	Jan his decision	tomorrow	known	makes
	'that Jan will make his decision public tomorrow.'

b'.		Jan	<*bekend>	maakt	zijn beslissing	morgen <bekend>.
		Jan	known	makes	his decision	tomorrow

When we exclude examples such as blinddoeken'to blindfold', which is derived from the complex noun blinddoek'blindfold', and cases such as dwarsbomen'to thwart' with a non-transparent or non-compositional meaning for the present-day speaker, there are very few inseparable A+V collocations; the examples in (38a) are again taken from De Haas & Trommelen (1993). For the separable A+N collocations in (38b), Ackema's hypothesis that the left-hand member of the collocation is normally an argument of the verbal part of the collocation seems too strict, but we can easily repair this by loosening the statement slightly by requiring that the left-hand member must be a complement of the verbal part, as this will also include complementives. Again, we diverge from the orthographic convention to write separable A+V collocations as separate words in order not to bias the discussion below towards a compound analysis for these collocations.

Inseparable: fijnproeven'to test the taste of something', liefkozen'to fondle'

Separable: dood zwijgen'to hush up/smother', droog leggen'to reclaim/impolder', dwars liggen'to be contrary', fijn malen'to grind', goed keuren'to approve', groot brengen'to bring up', klaar komen'to complete oneʼs work/have an orgasm', los breken'to break loose', stuk lezen'read to pieces', vol gieten'to fill up', vreemd gaan'to be unfaithful', wit wassen'to launder (black money)', zwart maken'to blacken'Separable: dood zwijgen'to hush up/smother', droog leggen'to reclaim/impolder', dwars liggen'to be contrary', fijn malen'to grind', goed keuren'to approve', groot brengen'to bring up', klaar komen'to complete oneʼs work/have an orgasm', los breken'to break loose', stuk lezen'read to pieces', vol gieten'to fill up', vreemd gaan'to be unfaithful', wit wassen'to launder (black money)', zwart maken'to blacken'

The proposed revision of Ackema's hypothesis, which we will from now on refer to as Ackema's generalization, also accounts for the fact that particle verbs (P+V collocations) like opbellen'to call up' and overstromen'to run over' in (39) are normally separable because Section 2.2 has shown that verbal particles also function as complementives. Although there are a number of inseparable P+V collocations, we will not digress on this here, as this would simply repeat the discussion in Section P1.2.4, sub IV. We will in fact ignore P+V collocations altogether until we return to them in Subsection IX.

a.		Jan belde	me op.
		Jan called	me up

b.	De emmer	stroomde	over.
	the bucket	ran	over
	'The bucket overflowed.'

There are very few inseparable V+V collocations like hoesteproesten'to cough and splutter' in (40a); more transparent cases such as zweefvliegen'to glide (in a sailplane)' belong to the set of immobile collocations, which will be discussed in Subsection IV. Separable V+V collocations are also rare and may in fact not exist at all: a potential case is laten vallen'to drop' in (40b), but the fact that the dependent verb vallen'to fall' does not precede but follows the causative verb laten'to make/let' suggests that we are not dealing with a verbal collocation but with a regular causative laten-construction. We therefore will not discuss such cases here but in Section 5.2.3.4.

a.	dat	Jan voortdurend	hoesteproest.	inseparable/compound
	that	Jan continuously	splutters
	'that Jan is continuously coughing and spluttering.'

a'.		Jan hoesteproest	voortdurend.
		Jan splutters	continuously

b.	dat	Jan de theepot	liet	vallen.	causative laten-construction
	that	Jan the teapot	let	fall
	'that Jan dropped the teapot.'

b'.		Jan liet	de theepot	vallen.
		Jan let	the teapot	fall

This subsection has shown that separable verbal collocations require their first member to function as a complement of the verbal part: the N-part in N+V collocations has the function of a direct (and sometimes prepositional) object of the V-part, and the A-part in A+N collocations functions as a complementive, that is, a predicative complement of the V-part. Since there are no clear cases of separable V+V collocations and since particle verbs are discussed separately in Subsection IX, the following subsections will be concerned with N+V and A+V collocations.

[+] II. Differences between separable and inseparable verbal collocations

On the assumption that inseparable X+V collocations are true compounds, their syntactic behavior can be accounted for by appealing to the lexical integrity constraint, according to which syntactic operations cannot apply to subparts of words. An inseparable N+V collocation like bekvechten'to squabble' should then be analyzed as [Vº bekvechten], in which the label Vº stands for a word boundary. By the same logic, separable N+V collocations cannot be analyzed as compounds but should be phrasal in nature: a separable N+V collocation like adem halen should then be analyzed as [V' adem [Vº halen]], in which the label V' stands for some phrasal projection of the verb that contains a direct object.
There is morphological and syntactic evidence in favor of this distinction. First, we would expect inflectional material to attach at the Vº- and not at the V'-level, and thus we predict that the nominal part follows preverbal inflectional material in the case of (inseparable) compound verbs but precedes such material in the case of (separable) phrasal collocations. The examples in (41) shows that this prediction is correct: the preverbal part of the participial circumfixge-...-d/t and the infinitival prefix te must precede the nominal part in bekvechten but must follow it in adem halen for most speakers.

a.	De jongens	hebben	de hele dag	gebekvecht/*bekgevecht.
	the boys	have	the whole day	squabbled
	'The boys have squabbled all day.'

a'.	De jongens	liepen	de hele dag	te bekvechten/*bek te vechten.
	the boys	walked	the whole day	to squabble
	'The boys were squabbling all day.'

b.	Jan heeft	twee keer	diep	adem	gehaald/*geademhaald.
	Jan has	two time	deep	breath	taken
	'Jan has taken a deep breath twice.'

b'.	Jan	probeerde	diep	adem	te halen/*te ademhalen.
	Jan	tried	deep	breath	to take
	'Jan tried to take a deep breath.'

Note in passing that there seems to be some variation among speakers, especially with regard to the infinitival marker te. For example, a Google search (11/5/2013) showed that the form bek te vechten is occasionally used on the internet (perhaps in jest), whereas we did not get any hits for the strings [heb bekgevecht] and [heb * bekgevecht], in which the asterisk functions as a wild card. Similarly, the form te ademhalen is not difficult to find (albeit with a far lower frequency than adem te halen), whereas we found only a handful of genuine cases with the form geademhaald. The judgments in (41) reflect our own acceptability judgments and may thus be an idealization of the actual situation in Standard Dutch.
The form of the past participle gebekvecht in (41a) constitutes an additional argument in favor of a compound analysis, given that the participle of the simplex verb vechten has the irregular form gevochten. De Haas & Trommelen (1993:441) claim that a hallmark of compounds is that they have a regular declension; this is illustrated again in (42), in which glimlachen is an inseparable N+V compound and paard rijden is separable phrasal N+V collocation; only in the former case does the collocation have the regular declension ge-...-d/t.

a.		lachen —	gelach-en	inseparable
		laugh	laughed

a'.		glimlachen —	geglimlach-t
		smile	smiled

b.		rijden —	gered-en	separable
		ride	ridden

b'.		paard	rijden —	paard	gered-en
		horseback	ride	horseback	ridden

A rather spectacular illustration of De Haas & Trommelen's claim is stof zuigen. The examples in (35) have shown that this collocation exhibits mixed behavior for many speakers: the N+V collocation can be split under verb-second, but it can also be moved as a whole. The simplex verb zuigen'to suck' has an irregular declension: zuig-zoog-gezogen. The predictions made by De Haas & Trommelens hypothesis are clear. First, we predict that stof zuigen'to vacuum' is associated with two past participial forms, depending on the position of the nominal part. The primeless examples in (43) illustrate that this prediction is indeed correct. Second, we predict that the split under verb-second is possible only if the finite verb has the irregular declension; the primed examples show that this predication is also correct.

a.	Jan heeft	gisteren	stof	gezogen/*gezuigd.
	Jan has	yesterday	dust	sucked
	'Jan vacuumed yesterday.'

a'.		Jan zoog/*zuigde	gisteren	stof.
		Jan sucked	yesterday	dust

b.	Jan heeft	gisteren	gestofzuigd/*gestofzogen.
	Jan has	yesterday	dust.sucked
	'Jan vacuumed yesterday.'

b'.		Jan stofzuigde/*stofzoog	gisteren.
		Jan dust.sucked	yesterday

Note in passing that we have ignored the fact that the form stofzoog is occasionally found in second position on the internet, which is in fact to be expected given that speakers are quite uncertain about the "correct" form of the past tense, as is clear from the fact that it is a recurring topic of discussion on the internet. Note that there is also normative pressure to use the inseparable form, as is clear from the fact that taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/755 and the Van Dale Dictionary only give the regular declension.
The claim that stof zuigen allows two different analyses is also confirmed by the examples in (44), adapted from De Haas & Trommelen (1993:442). These examples show that this collocation can be used with the direct object de kamer'the room' when it has a regular declension, but not when it has an irregular declension.

a.	dat	Jan de kamer	stofzuigt/*stof zoog.
	that	Jan the room	dust.sucks/dust sucks
	'that Jan is vacuuming the room.'

b.	dat	Jan de kamer	heeft	gestofzuigd/*stof	gezogen.
	that	Jan the room	has	dust.sucked/dust	sucked
	'that Jan has vacuumed the room.'

This contrast follows immediately on the analysis proposed above: if stof zuigen is phrasal, the bare noun stof functions as a direct object, and thus blocks the addition of another direct object such as de kamer'the room': if it is a compound, however, it might simply be stored in the lexicon as a transitive verb, and, consequently, the use of a direct object such as de kamer is fully licit. Other cases of such transitive, inseparable N + V collocations mentioned by Ackema (1999) are: beeldhouwen'to sculpture' (lit: statue + chop) stand hersenspoelen'to brainwash'.
In (45) we provide similar examples for A+V collocations: liefkozen'to fondle' (lit.: sweet + caress) is a compound and the adjectival part lief must therefore follow the preverbal part of the participial circumfix ge-...-d/t and the infinitival prefix te; bekend maken'to make public', on the other hand, is phrasal and the adjectival part must therefore precede these elements.

a.	Jan heeft	zijn hond	de hele dag	geliefkoosd/*liefgekoosd.
	Jan has	his dog	the whole day	fondled
	'Jan has fondled his dog all day.'

a'.	Jan zit	zijn hond	de hele dag	te liefkozen/*lief te kozen.
	Jan sits	his dog	the whole day	to fondle
	'Jan has been fondling his dog all day.'

b.	Jan heeft	zijn beslissing	bekend	gemaakt/*gebekendmaakt.
	Jan has	his decision	known	made
	'Jan has made his decision public.'

b'.	Jan weigert	zijn	beslissing	bekend	te maken/*te bekend maken.
	Jan refuses	his	decision	known	to make
	'Jan refuses to make his decision public.'

This subsection has shown that there are reasons for assuming that inseparable verbal collocations are compounds whereas separable verbal collocations are phrasal in nature. The reasons for assuming this are mainly morphological in nature. The first involves the placement of the (preverbal part of) the inflectional affixes ge-...-d/t and te. The second is that the inseparable verbal collocations always have a regular declension, which has been claimed to be a hallmark of compounds; the declension of the verbal part of separable verbal collocations, on the other hand, is fully determined by the verbal part.

Table 1: Differences between inseparable and separable verbal collocations

	inseparable	separable
participial affix	ge-X+V-d/t	X ge-V-d/t
infinitival prefix	te X+V	X te V
declension	always regular	depends on verbal part

[+] III. Similarities between separable and inseparable N+V collocations

Although the discussion in Subsection II strongly suggests that separable N+V collocations are phrasal and that the N-part normally functions as a direct (or, perhaps, a prepositional) object of the V-part, the collocation has a number of properties normally not found with verb phrases consisting of a verb and an object. With regard to these peculiarities, separable N+V collocations rather behave like N+V compounds. We will illustrate this compound-like behavior of separable N+V collocations by comparing the separable collocations adem halen'to breathe' and piano spelen'to play the piano' with the regular verb phrase iets halen'to fetch something' and iets spelen'to play something (e.g., a sonata)'.
A first property is that the N-part of a separable N+V collocation is normally bare, that is, not accompanied by a determiner, whereas singular regular direct objects are normally not bare, that is, they require a determiner. Notice that this difference is not observable if the N-part is plural, as in aardappels schillen'to peel potatoes', given that indefinite plurals take a phonetically empty article.

a.	dat	Jan	(*een) adem	haalt.
	that	Jan	a breath	gets
	'that Jan is breathing.'

a'.

dat

Jan

*(een) boek

haalt.