Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 240–262

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

A nanosyntactic approach to Dutch deadjectival verbs

 | KU Leuven
 | CNRS/LLF/Université Paris Cité
 | Masaryk University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with KU Leuven.

Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00072.wyn
Abstract
There are three ways of deriving verbs in Dutch: through zero marking, through suffixation, and through prefixation. We focus on prefixed deadjectival verbs, contrasting two views. According to the first view, prefixed verbs are left-headed: the prefix is responsible for the change in category, i.e. [V ver [A breed]]. The second view holds that prefixed verbs are right-headed, and involve a zero verbalizing suffix, i.e. [V ver [V [A breed] ∅]]. We argue in this paper for a mixed, nanosyntactic, approach. We adopt Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar decomposition of the verb and argue that the prefix spells out part of the verbal structure and the verbal root spells out another part.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: Derived verbs in Dutch
    • 2.1Deriving Dutch verbs
    • 2.2Prefixed verbs and Right-Hand Head Rule
    • 2.3Resultative semantics
    • 2.4The inchoative-causative ambiguity
  • 3.Ingredients for the analysis
    • 3.1Phrasal spellout and Nanosyntax
    • 3.2Decomposing the verb
  • 4.The account
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (18)
References
De Haas, Wim & Mieke Trommelen. 1993. Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. 's Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Directions from the GET-GO. On the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9(1): 23–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2020. “A head movement approach to Talmy’s typology.” Linguistic Inquiry 51(3): 425–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1972. “Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs.” CLS 81: 83–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten Cornelis van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Louise McNally. 1999. “Scale structure underlies teli-city in degree achievements.” Proceedings of SALT 91, ed. by Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch. 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. “Small clause results.” Lingua 741: 101–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, Moniek Lansu & Marion Westerduin. 1987. “Complexe verba.” Glot 101: 6177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lundquist, Björn, Martin Corley, Mai Tungseth, Antonella Sorace & Gillian Ramchand. 2016. “Anticausatives are semantically reflexive in Norwegian, but not in English.” Glossa 11: 47.1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Joleen Schipper. 1993. “Verbal prefixation in Dutch: thematic evidence for conversion.” Yearbook of Morphology 1992, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap Van Marle. 57–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 1995. “A neo-Davidson approach to resultatives, particles, and datives.” Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 251, ed. by Jill Beckman. 457–472. University of Pennsylvania: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. “Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language.” Nordlyd 361: 1–6.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes.” Exploring Nanosyntax, ed. by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander. 239–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms.” Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, ed. by Timothy Shopen. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 31, 57–149 (Language Typology and Syntactic Description), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2001. “Measuring events.” Language 771: 61–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. “Argument structure and morphology.” The Linguistic Review 11: 81114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Demonie, Anne-Li
2025. Complications of Complex Left Branches. In Nanosyntax and the Lexicalization Algorithm, ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo
Fábregas, Antonio
2025. Suppletion and affix selection in Nanosyntax. In Nanosyntax and the Lexicalization Algorithm, ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue