Section 2.1 has discussed the nominal complementation of verbs, which led to the identification of the seven basic verb types in Table 6. This section discusses the behavior of these verbs with respect to secondary predication. The basic patterns are shown in the examples in (173) to (175). The examples in (173) contain verbs without an internal argument, i.e. the intransitive verb blaffento bark and the impersonal weather verb regenento rain. The primed examples show that a complementive (here the adjectival predicates wakkerawake and natwet) can be found in such cases, but that this requires the presence of an additional nominal argument (here Jan) of which the complementive can be predicated. The construction as a whole acquires a resultative interpretation: it is claimed that the referent of the added noun phrase becomes part of the set denoted by the complementive as a result of the eventuality denoted by the verb. Recall from Section 2.1.1 that the pronoun hetit is not present in (173b') because it is not an argument of the weather verb and is no longer needed to satisfy the requirement that the verb has a (nominative) subject.

In (174) we find a transitive and a monadic unaccusative verb, i.e. verbs with one internal argument. The primed examples show that it is possible to use a complementive which, at least in the cases at hand, is predicated of (what seems to be) the original theme argument; we will return to this issue shortly. The construction as a whole receives a resultative interpretation: it is claimed that the referent of the presumed theme argument becomes part of the set denoted by the complementive (here dooddead) as a result of the activity/process denoted by the verb.

In (175) we find a ditransitive, a nom-dat and an undative verb, i.e. verbs with two internal arguments. The primed examples are all unacceptable under the intended, resultative, reading. The examples marked with a number sign are at least marginally possible, but then the adjective kapotbroken does not function as a complementive but as a supplementive, i.e. a predicative phrase that provides additional information about the subject or the object of the clause; cf. A28.3 for further discussion.

Returning to the examples in (173) and (174), we see that the two sets of examples differ in whether the complementive requires the presence of an additional nominal argument. This is the case in the examples in (173); the additional argument is clearly not selected by the verb itself, since the omission of the complementives in the primed examples in (173) results in ungrammaticality.

This shows that the noun phrase of which the complementive is predicated is not selected by the verb, but is licensed as an external argument of the complementive; we will therefore call such noun phrases the logical subject of the complementive. The use of small caps helps to distinguish this term from the traditional syntactic term subject (in lower case), which refers to the nominative argument of the clause.

In the primed examples in (174), the logical subject of the complementive also seems to be in a thematic relation with the verb; even if the complementive is not present, as in the primeless examples, the resulting structure is still grammatical. There are many proposals to account for the putative dual thematic relation in the primed examples. They generally amount to saying that the subject relation between the noun phrase and the complementive is primary, compared to the semantic relation between the noun phrase and the verb. We will return to this issue in Section 2.2.3, sub II, where it will be argued that the latter relation may be absent altogether.

This section is organized as follows. Section 2.2.1 begins with a general discussion of the use of complementives. Section 2.2.2 discusses two non-resultative constructions involving a complementive: the copular and the so-called vinden-construction. Section 2.2.3 deals with resultative constructions of the type illustrated in the examples above. Section 2.2.4 concludes with a very brief discussion of two types of analyses of complementive constructions proposed within generative grammar.