There are three constructions in which complementives can be found. The first is the copular construction, illustrated in (177a), in which the complementive is predicated of the subject of the clause. The second is the vinden-construction, illustrated in (177b), in which the complementive is predicated of the accusative argument of the clause: this construction is characterized by the fact that it conveys a subjective evaluation of the object by the subject of the clause. The third construction is the resultative construction: if this construction contains an accusative object, as in (177c), the complementive is (prototypically) predicated of this object; if the construction does not contain an accusative noun phrase, as in (177c'), the complementive is predicated of the subject of the clause.

The examples in (177) all involve a complementive AP, but the complementive can also be a PP or a noun phrase. This is illustrated in (178) for the copular construction. Note that traditional grammar strongly resists the idea that the PP in (178b) is a complementive and analyzes it as an adverbial phrase; this analysis is not adopted here because we will see in Subsection III that PPs of this type have all the distributional properties of a complementive.

Example (179a) shows that so-called modal infinitives can also be used as complementives: such infinitives, which behave in all relevant respects like adjectival complementives, are discussed in more detail in Section A31. The (b)-examples in (179) show that occasionally we also find om + te-infinitives; such infinitival clauses often receive an idiomatic interpretation.

The examples in (180) and (181) show that the types of complementives that we find in copular constructions can also be found in vinden-constructions.

However, vinden-constructions with a complementive PP are rare and often more or less idiomatic. Examples such as (182a) are possible, but not in the intended reading: instead, the verb vinden is construed to mean “to find”, and the PP functions as an adverbial phrase of place: the garden is the place where Marie found the gold coin. Examples with a directional PP are completely unacceptable.

The reason for the unacceptability of the vinden-constructions in (182) does not seem to be syntactic. We noted earlier that the vinden-construction expresses a subjective evaluation of the accusative noun phrase by the subject of the clause, and as a consequence the complementive must be evaluative in nature: if it denotes a property that can be objectively determined, the result is semantically anomalous. This restriction explains the unacceptability of an example such as (183a), as well as the fact that (183b) is only possible if it is construed with an added evaluative aspect of meaning. Since the PPs in the examples in (182) lack the required subjective content, the unacceptability of these examples in the intended reading is not surprising.

Finally, example (184) gives some examples of the resultative construction. Example (184c) shows that, for some as yet unclear reason, complementives cannot be nominal in this construction; cf. Section 2.2.3, sub IA.

This does not mean that the intended meaning cannot be expressed: the intended meaning of (184c) can be expressed by Marie slaat Jan invalide/kreupel, in which invalide is an adjective comparable to kreupelcripple. Other constructions in which a noun phrase might be expected are realized with an adpositional phrase introduced by tot; (185a) expresses that the spinach turns into mush as a result of the cutting event and (185b) expresses that Jan becomes a knight as a result of the king’s action; cf. Section P35.2.1.2, sub II, for further discussion.

It is often said that verbal particles are also complementives; cf. Den Dikken (1995). These particles are then analyzed as intransitive adpositions, i.e. as instances of PP-complementives, or as adjectives. Some examples with the particle wegaway are given in (186). As expected on the basis of the findings in (182), the particle weg cannot be used in the vinden-construction, due to the lack of subjective content. We will not discuss verbal particles in detail here; cf. Section P32.2.4 for more discussion.

Although Dutch has a relatively free word order, this subsection shows that the position of the complementive is relatively fixed; complementives usually occur left-adjacent to the clause-final verbs (if present), but can be moved further to the left.

Examples (194a&b) show that the verb zettento put can take either an adjectival or an adpositional complementive. However, example (194c) cannot be interpreted in such a way that both klaar and op straat act as complementives; only the adjective is interpreted as such. The syntactic difference between the two occurrences of the PP op straat in (194b&c) can be brought to the fore by applying the VP adverbial test: the fact that only (194c) can be paraphrased with an ... en pronoun doet dat clause in the primed examples shows that while the PP is a complementive in (194b), it functions as a place adverbial in (194c).

The examples in (194) indicate that a clause can have at most one complementive. If the proposal from Subsection II that verbal particles such as op in opbellento phone are complementives is correct, this restriction on the number of complementives immediately accounts for the fact that particle verbs are incompatible with complementives, as shown by the unacceptability of (195c) on the intended reading.

At first glance, examples like those in (196) seem a problem for the claim that a clause can contain at most one complementive. The examples in (196a&b) first show that the verb leggento put can take either a particle or an adpositional phrase as a complementive, while example (196c) shows that they can occur simultaneously. However, the PPs in (196a) and (196c) behave differently with respect to their placement in the clause. Recall from Subsection III that complementives never follow clause-final verbs: in this respect, the PP op de tafel in (196a) acts as a well-behaved complementive in (196a), but not in (196c), where it can comfortably follow the clause-final verb. Therefore, we must conclude that the PP does not function as a complementive if the verbal particle is present. This conclusion is further supported by (196d), which shows that the PP can scramble across the object if the particle is present, an option not available to complementives. This means that example (196c) can be set aside as irrelevant in the present context; cf. Broekhuis (1992: §7.3) and Den Dikken (1995: 148-9) for two competing analyses of this example.

Example (197) shows that we find a similar pattern as in (196) with verbs prefixed with be-. The resultative example in (197a) shows that complementive tot-phrases usually precede clause-final verbs. However, if the tot-phrase is selected by a verb prefixed with be-, it can either precede or follow the verb; cf. Luif (1997). This suggests that prefixes like be-, ver-, and ont- are similar to particles like neer in (196) in that they also function syntactically as complementives; cf. Section 3.3.2, sub IIIB.

Subsection I has shown that there are three types of complementive constructions: the copula, the vinden and the resultative constructions. Subsection II has further shown that complementives can be adjectival, prepositional or nominal in nature, although it should be noted that nominal complementives are not possible in resultative constructions; their place seems to be taken by APs or tot-phrases. Subsection III has shown that complementives are usually left-adjacent to clause-final verbs, although speakers of certain southern varieties of Dutch also allow them inside verb clusters (as long as they precede the main verb); placing a complementive behind the verb cluster is always impossible. Scrambling of complementives is usually not possible, but they can easily undergo wh-movement in questions and topicalization constructions. Finally, Subsection IV has shown that a clause can contain at most one complementive.