The role preposition doorby has at least three functions. The first and most familiar one is to introduce an agent in a passive clause, as in (385a). Its second function is to introduce a cause in (active or passive) clauses, as in (385b). Finally, example (385c) shows that door-phrases can also express a means, provided that their complement is an infinitival clause.

Since agentive and causal door-PPs can both occur in a passive construction, they can easily be confused. This is illustrated by the primeless examples in (386). They differ, however, in that R-extraction is fully acceptable only from passive door-phrases; R-extraction from a door-PP introducing a cause gives rise to a marked result. This is illustrated in the primed examples with R-extraction in relative clauses. Note in passing that the acceptability contrast is particularly significant since (386a'), but not (386b'), has an alternative realization, namely with the PP door wieby whom in the initial position of the relative clause.

Agentive door-phrases do not only occur in passive constructions. In (387) we see that they can also occur in nominalizations, especially in case the noun is derived from a transitive verb. If the noun is derived from an intransitive verb (or if the direct object is not expressed) the preposition van is usually preferred; cf. Section for comprehensive discussion.

Example (388b) further shows that agentive door-phrases can also be used to express the agent of a transitive verb embedded under the causative verb latento make; cf. Section V5.2.3.4, sub V.

The role preposition aan introduces a goal. In the general case, the construction with aan alternates with the double object construction (though not all double object constructions alternate with constructions with an aan-PP; cf. Section V3.3.1.1).

The role preposition voor introduces a beneficiary. Unlike the goal-construction with aan, the construction with the voor-PP does not normally alternate with a double object construction in standard Dutch; the percentage sign in (390b) is used to indicate that the construction is common in many other varieties of Dutch.

The examples in (391) show that the alternation can be found in a number of more or less fixed expressions in standard Dutch; these two examples differ in that (391b) expresses that the drink is intended for Marie, whereas (391a) simply expresses that Jan is pouring out a drink on behalf of Marie, i.e. the drink may or may not be for her. We refer the reader to Section V3.3.1.5 for further discussion.

Voor-PPs can also be used to refer to the benefit of the action, as in (392a&b). An example such as (392c) is ambiguous between a beneficiary and a benefit reading: in beneficiary reading, the example means that Marie will do anything for someone with a pretty face; in the benefit reading, it means that she will do anything to get a pretty face (such as having plastic surgery).

Finally, voor-PPs with verbs like kopento buy, verkopento sell, and betalento pay may refer to media of exchange, as in (393a&b). An example such as (393c) is ambiguous between a beneficiary and a counter-transfer reading; in the first reading Jan gets 50 euros which he can spend on buying a CD-player, while in the second reading he receives 50 euros in exchange for his CD-player.

The role preposition met can serve at least three functions: it can introduce an instrument, a co-agent, or a located object. In (394), we give several examples with an instrumental met-PP.

The primeless examples in (395) contain comitative met-PPs, i.e. PPs in which met introduces a co-agent. A typical property of such examples is that they alternate with constructions in which the agent and the co-agent are coordinated in subject position; cf. the primed examples. The main semantic difference between the primeless and the primed examples seems to be one of prominence; in the primeless examples the referent of the subject is considered a more prominent participant than the referent in the met-PP, in that it acts as a discourse topic, whereas in the primed examples the two conjuncts of the subject are presented as equally important.

It is noteworthy that the presence of a comitative met-PP triggers plural agreement on the predicatively used noun phrase vriendjesfriends in (396c). But first consider the examples in (396a&b), which show that the singular noun phrase Jan triggers singular agreement on the predicative noun phrase een vriendje van Mariea friend of Marie, and that the plural noun phrase Jan en Peter triggers plural agreement: vriendjes van Mariefriends of Marie. The plural agreement on the predicative noun phrase in (396c) has led to the hypothesis that, underlyingly, the phrase headed by met is a coordinate structure (i.e. Jan met Peter). Since this plural coordinate structure functions as the logical subject of the predicatively used noun phrase, it triggers plural agreement on it; the surface structure is derived by splitting the coordinate structure, i.e. by moving the first conjunct, Jan, to the subject position of the clause, where it triggers singular agreement on the verb. For further discussion, see Kayne (1994).

At first glance it seems that comitative met-PPs are construed not only with subjects, but also with direct objects, as in (397a). However, it is not so clear whether the met-PP in this example functions as an independent constituent. Since it is pied-piped with the direct object under topicalization, it seems more plausible that it acts as a modifier of the noun doperwtenpeas.

The third function of the role preposition met is to introduce a located object; cf. Mulder (1992). Consider the examples in (398). Example (398a) is a simple change-of-location construction, expressing that the located object het hooi is given a location on the reference object de wagen. The construction in (398b) expresses essentially the same situation (the difference being that in this case the cart must end up completely filled with hay, or, at least, that the hay must be evenly distributed on the cart). However, the located object no longer acts as the direct object of the construction (the reference object does that), but is expressed as the complement of a met-PP.

This use of the met-PP is very common with verbs prefixed for be- or ver- and with compound verbs with a preposition/particle such as om as their first member; cf. (399). Note that, synchronically, these verbs are not derivationally related to the verbs dekkencover, trekkento draw or singelento gird; this explains why they do not alternate with constructions in which the located object appears as the direct object and the reference object is expressed by a PP. This is particularly clear in the case of omsingelen, because the verb singelen is not part of to the current vocabulary.

This use of the met-PP is quite rare with simplex verbs and verbs without particles: an example is the verb vullento fill in (400a). Example (400b) is a case in which the located object acts as a direct object and the reference object is expressed by a PP.

For completeness’ sake, it should be noted that met can also be used in phrases referring to accidental or concomitant circumstances, as in (401a). In this function, met may not be a role preposition, but is related to the preposition met in the absolute met-construction, discussed in Section 33.5.1. This suggestion can be supported by the fact that such met-PPs differ from those ones discussed above in that they do not allow R-extraction, as will be clear by comparing example (401a') with those in (401b'-d').

The preposition bij in (402a) is used to express inalienable possession; Marie is interpreted as the inalienable possessor of the body part nekneck; cf. Corver (1992). That the bij-PP depends on the possessed entity is clear from the fact that it cannot be used if the PP in de nek is not present. Note that the possessive bij-phrase alternates with the prenominal genitival possessor in (402b) and the possessive dative in (402c).

The inalienable possessive construction in (402a), which in standard Dutch can only occur when the possessed entity is the complement of a predicative locational PP, is discussed in more detail in Section V3.3.1.4.

The role preposition van is typically used in noun phrases, where it can introduce a possessor, an agent or a theme; cf. examples (403a-c). The contrast between (403b) and (403d) brings out that agentive van-PPs are mainly used in nominalizations of monadic verbs; if the noun is derived from a dyadic verb, an agentive door-phrase is used instead. See Section for more detailed discussion.

The examples in (404) show that van-PPs can sometimes also be used to express causes; cf. Vandeweghe (2020), Hoeksema (2022) and references cited there. In the prototypical case, the cause refers to an internal (i.e. physical or psychological) sensation of the subject and the verb (phrase) denotes an involuntary bodily reaction in the subject. Obviously, the subject is not an agent but a kind of experiencer.

Often, we are dealing with more or less fixed collocations, which suggests that we are dealing with lexicalized (but versatile) constructions; some examples, taken from Vandeweghe (2020), with verbs denoting bodily reactions visible from the outside are given in (405), sometimes with quite literal translations. That we are dealing with more or less lexicalized constructions is also clear from the fact that it is rather unpredictable whether the causer takes a definite article or not, and that there are quite a few cases that can be characterized as hyperbolic. Related to this is the fact that the constructions as a whole often have a high intensity reading: gillen van de pijnto scream in pain expresses/implies that the pain exceeds normal pain.

The examples in Vandeweghe (2020), Hoeksema (2022) show that causative van-PPs occur not only with verbs but also with adjectives and complex phrases.

The subjects of the above predicates are usually animate, although they can sometimes refer to body parts, as in the (a)-examples in (407), where an animate subject would also be acceptable. This alternation is not a general property of the construction: cf. Jans hart klopt van verlangenJans heart beats with desire’ versus $Jan klopt van verlangen. The (b)-examples give cases with inanimate subjects, unrelated to animate entities.