We claimed in Table 7 that transitive PO-verbs are triadic verbs selecting an external (usually agentive) argument. Generalization (349a) therefore predicts that transitive PO-verbs can be the input of er-nominalization, but the primed examples in (351) show that this is at best only marginally possible. Since er-nominalization is not a necessary condition for assuming transitive status (there are also many transitive verbs without a PP-argument that resist it), this need not worry us too much.

Like transitive verbs, transitive PO-verbs select the auxiliary hebben. According to generalization (349b), this is consistent with the claim that these verbs take an external argument.

As with regular transitive verbs, past/passive participles of transitive PO-verbs can only be used attributively if the noun they modify corresponds to the direct object of the verb. Attributive use of the participle with a noun corresponding to the subject is excluded; example (353a'') is acceptable only if the modified noun, rechterjudge, corresponds to the theme argument of the input verb. Note in passing that the PP-complements in the singly-primed examples behave like PP-complements of attributive adjectives in that they cannot follow the participles (cf. the Head-final filter on attributive adjectives) or the nouns.

The examples in (354) show that, as with regular transitive verbs, present participles of transitive PO-verbs can be used attributively if the modified noun corresponds to the subject (agent) of the input verb.

The examples in (355) show that transitive PO-verbs can be found in the regular passive. Since generalization (349d) states that the possibility of passivization is a sufficient condition for assuming that these verbs take an external argument, this supports our assumption that we are dealing with transitive PO-verbs in (355).

Finally, we will briefly consider the order of the two internal arguments of transitive PO-verbs. Definite direct objects usually precede PP-complements, as can be seen from the fact that the orders in the primed examples in (356) are at best marginally possible if the PP is assigned contrastive or emphatic focus; cf. Section 2.3.4, sub I, for a discussion of some cases that allow the reversed order in the primed examples.

Since adverbial phrases can precede the arguments of the verb, this provides us with an additional test: adverbial PPs, but not PP-complements, can precede objects. However, the examples in (357) show that it is not the case that PP-complements categorically resist scrambling; scrambling is possible if contrastive accent is assigned to the nominal complement of the PP. The test therefore crucially involves scrambling of the PP across the object of the verb.

If the word-order test is valid, example (358) shows that voor-PPs occurring with verbs of exchange cannot be considered complements, but must be considered adjuncts. This is an important conclusion, since this supports the hypothesis we have put forward in the introduction to Section 2.3, i.e. that verbs can never take more than two internal arguments; cf. the discussion of example (310).

The claim that PP-complements cannot normally precede nominal complements holds only for the middle field of the clause: like all complements, PP-complements can be moved into the initial position of the clause by wh-movement in topicalization constructions and questions. This is illustrated in (359).

Intransitive and unaccusative PO-verbs are dyadic verbs which take an internal argument realized as a PP-complement. The second argument of intransitive PO-verbs is an external (generally agentive) argument, whereas the second argument of unaccusative PO-verbs is an internal argument with the role of theme; generalization (349a) therefore predicts that the former, but not the latter, can have a corresponding agentive er-noun. The examples in (360) show that there are indeed intransitive PO-verbs that allow er-nominalization, although it should be noted immediately that er-nominalization of intransitive PO-verbs is certainly not as common as that of regular intransitive verbs.

As expected, unaccusative PO-verbs do not allow er-nominalization. Some examples are given in (361).

Intransitive PO-verbs always select the perfect auxiliary hebbento have; the unaccusative PO-verbs in (363), on the other hand, select the auxiliary zijn. Since generalization (349b) states that the selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient condition for assuming unaccusative status of a verb, this means that we have now established that there are indeed unaccusative PO-verbs.

The examples in (364) show that past/passive participles of intransitive PO-verbs cannot be used attributively with nouns corresponding to their subjects.

Past participles of unaccusative verbs selecting zijn, on the other hand, can be used attributively with nouns corresponding to their subject, as shown in the primeless examples in (365). The PP-complements of these verbs are like the PP-complements of attributive adjectives, in that they cannot follow the attributively used participle (cf. the Head-final filter on attributive adjectives) or the noun.

Since generalization (349c) states that the possibility of using the past/passive participle attributively is a sufficient condition for assuming unaccusative status of a verb, the primeless examples in (365) provide additional evidence for the claim that there are unaccusative PO-verbs.

As with regular intransitive verbs, present participles of intransitive PO-verbs can be used attributively with nouns corresponding to the subject of the clause. This is shown in (366), in which again the PP-complement must precede both the participle and the noun.

In the examples in (367), we see that the present participle of unaccusative PO-verbs can also be used attributively with nouns corresponding to the subject of the clause. As with regular unaccusative verbs, the difference between the examples in (365) and (367) is aspectual: in (365) the event is presented as completed (perfective aspect), whereas in (367) it is presented as ongoing (durative or imperfective aspect).

According to generalization (349d), the possibility of passivization is sufficient to assume the presence of an external argument; unaccusative verbs categorically resist passivization. The examples in (368) and (369) behave as expected, in that the intransitive PO-verbs in (368) can indeed occur in the impersonal passive, whereas the unaccusative ones in (369) cannot.

Note that there is a small set of aspectual-like verbs that allow impersonal passivization despite the fact that they take the perfect auxiliary zijn: aanvangen/beginnen (met)to begin with, ophouden (met)to stop with, overgaan (tot)to proceed to. These verbs pose a problem for the classical unaccusativity tests: the fact that they take zijn should be sufficient to conclude that they are unaccusative and we therefore wrongly predict that passivization should be impossible in the primed examples of (370). We will ignore these cases here, but return to them in Subsection IV.

The previous subsections have shown that the two subclasses of dyadic PO-verbs we have distinguished do indeed behave differently. The differences in the behavior of these two types of PO-verbs are similar to the differences in the behavior of the regular intransitive and unaccusative verbs. Therefore, given that the generalizations in (349) are valid, we can safely conclude that we have correctly characterized these two classes of PO-verbs as intransitive and unaccusative, respectively.

The subject of the PO-verbs in (372) is non-agentive, which is clear from the fact that these verbs usually take a [-animate] subject. The actual thematic role of the subject is often difficult to determine: the subject in (373a) could be a theme, but it could also be a location; the subject in (373a') could again be a theme, but it also feels like an experiencer; the subject in (373b) acts like some kind of source; in (373c), the subjects seem to be themes again.

Given the fact that the subject is non-agentive, it is not surprising that the PO-verbs in (372) cannot be used as input for er-nominalization. In this respect, these verbs behave like all the unaccusative verbs.

Like regular unaccusative verbs of the second type, the PO-verbs in (372) select the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense. Although many of these verbs cannot easily be used in the perfect-tense construction, the contrast between the examples with hebben and zijn is clear.

Unaccusative verbs of the second type show an auxiliary shift when a complementive is added: they then take the auxiliary zijn, as shown in (376). Of course, it would be decisive if the PO-verbs in (372) were to exhibit a similar shift, but this is not the case, because complementives never occur with PO-verbs.

Like regular unaccusative verbs of the second type, the past/passive participle of the PO-verbs in (372) cannot be used attributively.

The examples in (378) show that past/passive participles of unaccusative verbs of the second type can be used attributively, provided that a complementive is added. Again, this cannot be used as a test to show that the PO-verbs in (372) are also unaccusative, because the PP-complement blocks the addition of a complementive.

For completeness’ sake, note that present participles of the PO-verbs in (372) can be used attributively (like those of all verbs discussed so far).

Like unaccusative verbs (of all kinds), the PO-verbs in (372) cannot be passivized. This supports the assumption that they are indeed unaccusative verbs, especially since the ungrammaticality of the examples in (380) cannot be explained by appealing to the animacy restriction; all these verbs can take a [+human] subject.

The previous subsections discussed the possible PO-verbs in (372). We have seen that the behavior of these verbs is somewhat different from that of the regular unaccusative verbs of the second type, but this is due to an independent factor, viz. that PP-complements block the addition of a predicative complement. The fact that the verbs in (372) cannot be input for er-nominalization and cannot be passivized provides some support for the assumption that these verbs are unaccusative PO-verbs. However, these facts are not sufficient to conclude that these verbs are unaccusative. Further research is needed to establish that these verbs are indeed unaccusative.

Moreover, more research is needed because the analysis of the examples in (372) as PO-verbs is clearly not uncontroversial. For instance, it has been argued that at least some of the van-PPs in this list are adverbial phrases, because in non-idiomatic cases they can sometimes be omitted without changing the meaning of the verb: cf. the examples in (381a&b) versus (381c). Furthermore, they sometimes do not allow R-extraction: while it is easily possible in (381a'), it seems impossible in (381b'&c'). For further discussion of some arguments pro and contra this analysis with regard to examples of the type in (381), see Vandeweghe (2020).

We will leave further investigation of the possible PO-verbs in (372) to future research, while noting that the cases in (381a&b) are discussed elsewhere from a different perspective: cases such as barsten/gonzen/krioelen vanto swarm with are discussed in Section 3.3.3, sub II, and cases like barsten van de honger and schreeuwen van de pijn in Section 33.3.3, sub IIA5.

The PO-verbs in (382) do not allow er-nominalization in case the PP-complement is present, suggesting that the subject is non-agentive. Note, however, that the noun beginnerbeginner exists as a lexicalized form denoting an inexperienced person in a particular field of art, sport, science, etc. There is also a noun voorbijganger, but this noun is only used to denote a person who is literally passing by; it must also be considered a lexicalized form, which is clear from the fact that the morpheme ganger is used instead of the regular form gaander. The prepositions in small caps have no English equivalents.

The PO-verbs in (382) all select the auxiliary zijnto be. Since we have claimed that the selection of zijn is a sufficient condition for unaccusative status of the verb, we should conclude that we are dealing with unaccusative PO-verbs, but we will see that this contradicts the fact that these verbs also allow passivization.

The past/passive participles of these PO-verbs are not easily used attributively, although judgments may vary from case to case and from person to person. This may indicate that the verb in question is atelic unaccusative or intransitive. The impossibility of attributive use of the PO-verbs afgaan oprely on, doorgaan metto continue with, ingaan opto accept and voorbijgaan aanto pass by is probably due to the fact that they are contraction verbs; cf. unacceptability of *de gegane man based on the unaccusative verb gaanto go.

For the sake of completeness, the examples in (386) show that present participles can normally be used attributively. Exceptions are verbs derived from gaan, which is due to the fact that the present participles of contraction verbs generally cannot be used attributively; cf. A31.2.2, sub I-I.

The data discussed so far is consistent with the assumption that verbs the PO-verbs in (382) are unaccusative. We therefore expect that these verbs cannot be passivized either, but the examples in (387) show that this expectation is not borne out.

The aspectual class of PO-verbs in (382) is something of a problem for the generalizations in (349), according to which the selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient condition for assuming unaccusative status, and passivization is a sufficient condition for assuming that an external argument is present. Since the PO-verbs in (386) select zijn but also allow passivization, this leads to a contradiction. Needless to say, this problem deserves more attention in the future.