Article published in:
Non-Nuclear Cases
Edited by Nicole Delbecque, Karen Lahousse and Willy Van Langendonck
[Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 6] 2014
► pp. 127–172

Adpositional constructions of location and motion in Dutch

In traditional grammar, constructions of location and motion are standardly considered as adverbial adjuncts, i.e. as constituents that do not belong to the nuclear or core elements of the clause. However, in Dutch, as in many other languages, there are different classes of verbal predicates which require the presence of a location or motion constituent in order to yield a grammatical clause. Since these obligatory constituents are manifestly part of the verbal valency frame, the authors call them location and motion objects. The combination of the criterion of (non-)optionality and that of substitutability with pronominal or adverbial elements leads to the tripartition between adjunct, object and predicate complement. This distinction is further shown to pattern with different word order restrictions.
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.6.05sme
References

References

ANS
(1997) Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn (eds.). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd completely revised edition. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters‑Plantijn.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans
2002 Adpositions and adpositional phrases. Modern Grammar of Dutch Occasional Papers 3, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
De Schutter, Georges, and Paul van Hauwermeiren
1983 De structuur van het Nederlands: Taalbeschouwelijke grammatica. Malle: De Sikkel.Google Scholar
De Schutter, Georges
1994 “Dutch.” In The Germanic Languages, ed. by E. König, and J. van der Auwera, 439-477. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2007 “Word order.” In Clause structure, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, ed. by T. Shopen, 61-131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1986 “Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora.” BLS 12: 95-107.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmantel, Marjon
2002 Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
1997 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles. The Structure of the Dutch PPs. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan
1975 “Dutch as an SOV language.” Linguistic Analysis 1: 111-136.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., and David Wilkins
(eds.) 2006 Grammars of Space. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leys, Odo
1979 “De bepaling van het voornaamwoordelijk bijwoord en de systematisering van ndl. er.” De Nieuwe Taalgids 72: 240-246.Google Scholar
Luif, Jan
1998 In verband met de zin. 3rd edition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
2000 “De betekenis van adposities in plaats‑ en richtingsbepalingen: Een verkenning.” In Samengevoegde Woorden: Voor Wim Klooster bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar, ed. by H. den Besten, E. Elffers, and J. Luif, 181-192. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F., and Michael P. Coffey
2004 “Janus and the order of adverbials in Dutch and English.” In Janus at the Millenium, ed. by J.P. Snapper, and T.F. Shannon, 145-195. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Bert Cornillie, Dagmar Divjak, and Karel Van den Eynde
2005 “Degrees of clause integration. From endotactic to exotactic subordination in Dutch.” Linguistics 43 (3): 471-529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Jesse
2004 “Directionality and the complementation of Dutch adpositions.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18: 167-194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Belle, William, Béatrice Lamiroy, Willy Van Langendonck, Karen Lahousse, Peter Lauwers, Ingrid Van Canegem-Ardijns, and K. Van Goethem
2011 Nederlandse grammatica voor Franstaligen. http://​wwwling​.arts​.kuleuven​.be​/NGF​_N​/NGF​_NL​.htm.Google Scholar
Van Canegem-Ardijns, Ingrid, and William Van Belle
2004 “Pronominal adverbs based on adpositions of direction in Dutch: formation and splitting.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18: 115‑143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens, and Lene Schoesler
2002 “Distributional syntactic analysis and valency. Basic notions, procedures and applications of the Pronominal Approach.” In The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st century Volume 2. Computability of language and computer applications, ed. by B. Nevin, 163-202. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy
2001 Grammatica van de Nederlandse zin. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.Google Scholar
Van der Horst, Joop
1992 “Splitsen of niet-splitsen van voornaamwoordelijke bijwoorden.” Forum der Letteren 33: 127-147.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy, Béatrice Lamiroy, and William Van Belle
2008 “Statische en dynamische spatiale adposities in het Nederlands en het Frans.” Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 118 (1): 33-47.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk
1990 “Functional prepositions.” In Unity in Diversity, ed. by H. Pinkster, and I. Gene, 229-241. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van Staden, Miriam, Melissa Bowerman, and Mariet Verhelst
2006 “Some properties of spatial description in Dutch.” In Grammars of Space, ed. by S.C. Levinson, and D. Wilkins, 475-511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and Randy J. LaPolla
1997 Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar