Example (242a) shows the typical unmarked order of constituents in det-inf nominalizations derived from a transitive verb with a postnominal theme: the door-PP follows both the nominalized head and the theme argument realized as a van-PP. Placing the door-PP elsewhere in the noun phrase, as in (242b&c), usually yields a marked result.

However, the examples in (243) show that the marked orders can occur under certain conditions. First, (243a) shows that the agentive door-PP can precede the theme PP if the latter is sufficiently heavy. Second, (243b) shows that the prenominal placement of the door-PP is somewhat better in generic contexts; in formal generic contexts, such as (243b'), it is even perfectly acceptable.

Also in the case of a ditransitive example such as (244), the door-PP typically follows the complements of the inf-nominalization, with the alternative orders showing varying degrees of unacceptability: the orders in (244a&b) both seem acceptable; the orders in (244c&d) are marginal at best, although they may become slightly more acceptable in generic contexts or in the case of heavy-PP shift.

The fact that the door-phrase seems to prefer a peripheral position in the inf-nominalization may reflect the fact that agents of nominalized constructions are less closely associated with the head than themes or recipients.

As noted in Subsection C above, bare-inf nominalizations with the theme argument in postnominal position are acceptable only in a generic reading. Even so, word order variation is restricted: only the order in (245a), in which the door-phrase follows both the nominal head and the theme argument, is perfectly acceptable; placing the door-phrase between the noun and the theme, as in (245b), yields a bad result even with a heavy theme; placing the door-phrase before the noun, as in (245c), is completely impossible.

A similar pattern emerges for bare-inf nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs. In (246) we give examples with a normal theme and recipient: (246b&c) show that placing the door-phrase before the recipient or theme leads to a marginal result, and (246d) shows that placing the door-phrase before the noun is impossible.

The examples in (247) show that cases with a heavy theme or a heavy recipient argument do not give better results.

If the theme occurs as a prenominal noun phrase, the distribution of the door-phrase is severely restricted. The examples in (248) and (249) show that it can only occur postnominally, and even this leads to a marked result, since the (a)-examples are certainly more marked than the corresponding examples in which the theme is expressed by a postnominal van-PP.

More or less the same pattern can be observed in the ditransitive constructions in (250) and (251). First, the (a)-examples show that expressing the door-phrase with a prenominal theme is slightly marked compared to constructions in which the theme is expressed by a postnominal van-PP. Second, the (b)-examples show that constructions with both the theme and the door-PP in prenominal position are unacceptable. Finally, the (c)-examples show that constructions with all three arguments in prenominal position are degraded, although they may be marginally possible with det-inf nominalizations in which the indirect object takes the form of an aan-PP.

Placing agentive door-PPs in prenominal position is easier in det-inf nominalizations derived from the causative verb laten than in the other inf-nominalizations. This is true regardless of the position of the other arguments (prenominal or postnominal). Examples are given in (252).

When the verb embedded under the causative verb is ditransitive, the pattern is essentially the same as in the case of the transitive verbs in (252). Example (253a) gives an example where the theme is realized as a postnominal van-PP, and (253b&b') exemplify cases with a prenominal theme.

The crucial difference with the other cases is that the door-phrases in these examples do not correspond to an argument of the nominalized causative verb laten, but to the subject of the verbs behandelento treat and uitreikenpresent embedded under the causative verb. Note that the subject of the embedded verb can also be realized in the verbal causative construction, as shown in (254b): the phrases between angle brackets indicate the alternative realizations of the agent of the infinitival clause.

The (a)-examples of (255) and (256) show that in prenominal position the door-PPs must precede the other arguments, which are also arguments of the verb embedded under the causative verb. The (b)-examples show that in postnominal position the door-phrase obligatorily follows the theme and preferably precedes the recipient, just as in the verbal construction in (254b).

The examples in (257) show that the agent of the embedded verb does not have to be expressed by a door-PP but can also be realized in the form of a noun phrase. This possibility is related to the fact that the agent can be assigned accusative case in the verbal causative construction: the agentive noun phrases de dokter or de voorzitter in (254) can only be replaced by the object pronoun hemhim. In (257) the agent must precede the other arguments in prenominal position: placing the agent after the theme (or the recipient) leads to an unacceptable result.

Finally, example (258a) shows that door-PPs are excluded in causative det-inf nominalizations when the embedded verb is intransitive. This is related to the fact that the subject cannot be realized as a door-phrase in the verbal construction either; cf. Section V5.2.3.4, sub V, for discussion.

If only one argument is expressed in a transitive inf-nominalization, this argument must be the theme. In bare-inf nominalizations, the theme argument is typically realized as a prenominal noun phrase; if it appears postnominally as a van-PP, this leads to a somewhat marked result (as in the case of bare-inf nominalizations derived from unaccusative verbs).

The theme argument of a bare-inf nominalization is preferably non-specific; using a specific argument in (268) will degrade the results; cf. Subsection IC. Note, however, that this is not a restriction on complementation as such, but rather due to the semantics of the whole construction. This can be illustrated by the fact that the bare-inf nominalizations in the primeless examples in (269) are only marked compared to those in (268a&b). Moreover, they are best in the present tense, which favors a generic interpretation of these sentences. Finally, the primed examples in (269) show that a contrastive reading can make such generic sentences fully acceptable.

In det-inf nominalizations, the preferred pattern is the opposite of that in bare-inf nominalizations: expressing the theme with a prenominal noun phrase is possible, but using a postnominal van-PP is the preferred way of expressing the theme.

Furthermore, the examples in (271) show that the prenominal theme allows only a generic interpretation; cf. Subsection IC. The judgments on these cases contrast sharply with those on the det-inf constructions with a postnominal theme in the primed examples in (270).

In generic contexts, the use of a prenominal theme leads to a less degraded result, but the use of a postnominal van-PP is still much preferred.

When not directly relevant, the effect of the manner of realization of the theme in inf-nominalizations will be ignored in the following discussion; we will simply concentrate on the effect of adding more arguments to the construction.

Example (273) makes clear that the agent argument of bare-inf nouns can be added in the form of a door-PP, which must normally follow the nominalized head and the theme argument realized as a van-PP; cf. Subsection ID.

However, if the theme argument is realized as a prenominal noun phrase, the addition of a door-PP leads to a degraded result regardless of the position of the door-phrase; the examples in (274) only illustrate the case where the door-phrase appears postnominally; the cases where a prenominal door-phrase precedes or follows the theme seem completely unacceptable.

Adding the agent argument in the form of a door-PP is also possible with det-inf nominalizations. Example (275a) shows that this door-PP must also follow the nominalized head and the theme argument realized as a van-PP; cf. Subsection ID.

As in the case of bare-inf nominalizations, the addition of a door-PP leads to a degraded result in cases such as (276), where the theme argument is realized as a prenominal noun phrase. Placing the door-phrase in prenominal position seems to degrade the examples even more.

The agent of det-inf nominalizations can take the form of a genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun, provided that the theme appears as a van-PP, as in the primeless examples in (277); if the theme is realized as a prenominal noun phrase, as in the primeless examples, the result is seriously degraded.

The examples in (278) show that det-inf nominalizations with transitive input verbs require the presence of a theme argument, regardless of whether an agent argument is present.

For some speakers, however, example (278a) improves when the agent is expressed by a van-PP, as in (279a'). This may be due to the fact that in such cases the verb is derived from the pseudo-intransitive (generic) verb in (279a). If the verb does not easily allow such a generic reading, as is the case with behandelento treat in (279b), the corresponding inf-nominalization is also unacceptable if the theme is not expressed. In the following we will ignore the pseudo-intransitive use of nominalizations for the sake of simplicity.

Bare-inf nominalizations differ from det-inf nominalizations in that the theme argument can often be left unexpressed in the presence of an agentive door-phrase. The examples in (280) show that this is possible even in the presence of a specific agent argument, although similar constructions with a non-specific agent are noticeably better. Note that in these sentences the implied theme argument is either generic or contextually determined. With regard to sentence (280b), it should also be mentioned that the implied theme argument is not so much the patient, but rather the ailment being treated.

The (a)-examples in (281) show that, as in the case of bare-inf nominalizations derived from transitive verbs, bare-inf nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs prefer to realize the theme as a prenominal noun phrase; realizing the theme as a postnominal van-PP is possible but marked. And again, bare-inf nominalizations are not acceptable with specific themes. This is shown by the (b)-examples in (281).

The examples in (282) show that the theme argument of det-inf nominalizations preferably takes the form of a van-PP following the head; realizing the theme in the form of a noun phrase preceding the head is also acceptable, provided we are dealing with a generic context; prenominal definite themes lead to severely degraded results.

In det-inf nominalizations, the agent can be expressed as a second argument in the form of a door-PP. Example (283a) shows that the agentive door-PP follows both the head noun and the postverbal theme argument. When the theme argument takes the form of a prenominal noun phrase, as in (283b), the agentive door-PP can occur in postnominal position.

However, the examples in (284) show that bare-inf nominalizations cannot realize the agent, no matter what the form of the theme or the word order.

Although less preferred, in det-inf nominalizations the agent can also be realized by a genitive phrase or a possessive pronoun when the theme is realized as a postnominal van-PP, as in (285a). However, this leads to a less felicitous result when the theme is realized as a prenominal noun phrase, as in (285b); this may be due to the tendency to construe the possessive pronoun as the possessor of the prenominal theme (i.e. cadeaus) instead of the inf-noun geven.

Example (286) shows that in clauses with ditransitive verbs, the recipient appears either as an aan-PP following the theme or as a dative noun phrase preceding the theme, as in (286b). The word order is usually as indicated, although placement of the aan-PP before the theme is possible if the recipient is assigned contrastive accent.

In inf-nominalizations, the recipient can also be realized either as a noun phrase or as an aan-PP: the former must precede the inf-noun, whereas the latter can either precede or follow it. First, consider the case of bare-inf nominalizations in (287). The primeless examples show that both the theme and the recipient can be realized as prenominal noun phrases, provided that they are both indefinite. Nevertheless, there seems to be some preference for realizing the recipient as an aan-PP following the theme, as in the primed examples. Placing the aan-PP before the theme is possible, provided that it is given contrastive accent.

If the theme argument is expressed as a postnominal van-PP, the recipient cannot be realized as a prenominal noun phrase; the primeless examples in (288) are unacceptable. The primed examples show that it is possible to express the recipient as an aan-PP, provided that it follows the van-PP. As usual, the primed examples in (288) are marked compared to the primed examples in (287) with a prenominal theme.

In det-inf nominalizations the form of the recipient is related to the form of the theme in the same way as in bare-inf nominalizations. The instances in (289) show that the recipient must be realized as a postnominal aan-PP if the theme is a postnominal van-PP. The word order is rigid in this case: the aan-PP must follow both the noun and the postnominal van-PP.

If the theme is realized as a prenominal noun phrase, the recipient can take the form of an aan-PP or a prenominal noun phrase. Again, there seems to be a slight preference for the former. The aan-PP in prenominal position is usually non-specific, as is the prenominal theme; this restriction does not hold for the postnominal aan-PP. Thus, replacing the non-specific recipient aan kinderen with the specific recipient aan de kinderen is easily possible in (290a''), but leads to a marked result in (290a').

Finally, placing the aan-PP before the prenominal theme is marginally possible, but then it should be given contrastive accent.

If all three arguments are expressed, only a few of the many conceivable combinations are expected to be acceptable, and even these will rarely be encountered (except perhaps in written/formal language). This is especially true for bare-inf nominalizations: we have seen in Subsection 2 that agentive door-PPs lead to severely degraded results in these constructions, and we therefore expect that expressing all three arguments is virtually impossible. The cases in (291) bear this out.

This leaves us with det-inf nominalizations. Subsection 2 showed that the door-PP must follow the postnominal van-PP expressing the theme, while Subsection 3 showed that this also holds for the aan-PP expressing the recipient. We therefore confidently predict that these ordering restrictions will hold for cases in which all three arguments are expressed. The examples in (292) further show that the preferred order is the one in which the recipient precedes the agent.

We have also seen in Subsection 3 that if the theme is realized as a prenominal noun phrase, the recipient can be realized either as a (pre or postnominal) aan-PP or as a prenominal noun phrase. Since the agentive door-PP must be postnominal, the three orders in (293) are predicted to be possible. All examples are slightly marked, as are the corresponding examples without the recipient given in Subsection C.

The cases in (292) and (293) exhaust the possibilities; all other orders lead to a severe decrease in acceptability. Realizing the agent as a genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun seems possible, though it leads to a marked result. The intended readings of (294b&c) seem to be hampered by the more prominent readings in which the possessive pronoun is construed as the possessor of the prenominal theme/recipient argument (i.e. cadeaus and kinderen).

Inf-nominalizations also inherit PP-themes from their input verb. Examples are verbs like zoeken naarto search for and jagen opto hunt for, which select their own specific preposition. The inherited PP-themes seem to have the same distribution within the inf-nominalizations as their nominal counterparts. First and foremost, the PP-theme can occur in prenominal position. Second, if it occurs postnominally, it must precede the (optional) agentive door-phrase.