Krijgen-passivization typically occurs with ditransitive verbs with a recipient/goal argument, i.e. verbs denoting an event that involves or aims at the transmission of the referent of the theme argument to the referent of the indirect object. Two examples are given in (126).

We can include examples like in (127), which involve verbs of communication, by interpreting the term transmission in a broad sense, including the transfer of information. An example such as (127b') is less common than its regular passive counterpart with a subject clause Er werd ons meegedeeld dat ...It was communicated to us that ..., but it is certainly acceptable.

All in all, it seems that the majority of ditransitive verbs with a recipient/goal argument can undergo krijgen-passivization. Example (128) provides a small sample of such verbs; cf. Van Leeuwen (2006: Table 2) for a more extensive list of verbs based on corpus research.

Note, however, that the verbs in (128a) must denote an actual transmission of the theme argument in order to be able to undergo krijgen-passivization. This will be clear from the examples in (129): (129a) implies an actual transfer of the package to Marie, and krijgen-passivization is possible; example (129b), on the other hand, is idiomatic and does not imply a transfer of de rillingen, and krijgen-passivization is excluded.

Although the two lists in (128) show that krijgen-passivization is quite productive for ditransitive verbs with a recipient/goal argument, it is still true that a small subset of such verbs does not allow it. Example (130) provides a sample that includes the proto-typical ditransitive verb gevento give.

The first question that arises is: why is it precisely the prototypical ditransitive verb gevento give that resists krijgen-passivization? If we compare geven with the verbs in (128a), we see that geven is special in that it is neutral with respect to the mode of transmission: whereas all the verbs in (128a) make explicit to some extent how the transmission is brought about, geven does not. As a result, the krijgen-passive in (131b) may be blocked by the simpler construction in (131c), which is also neutral with respect to the mode of transmission.

In this context, it is interesting to note that adding meaning to the verb geven by combining it with a verbal particle improves the acceptability of examples such as (131b). Apparently, the particle adds enough information about the mode of transmission to license krijgen-passivization.

Although this may be less striking than in the case of geven, the other transmission verbs in (130a) also seem more or less neutral with respect to the mode of transmission. And, like geven, the verbs sturento send and zendento send do allow krijgen-passivization if a particle is added. This is shown for sturen in (133); cf. also Colleman (2006:264).

We conclude that krijgen-passivization is fully productive with verbs of transmission and communication, provided that they specify the mode of transmission.

The examples in (134) show that krijgen-passivization contrasts sharply with regular passivization if the indirect object is a source, i.e. the argument from which the transferred theme originates. While regular passivization is perfectly acceptable, krijgen-passivization leads to an unacceptable result (although it is possible in certain regional varieties of Dutch; cf. Broekhuis & Cornips 2012).

Colleman (2006:265) suggests that the impossibility of examples such as (134c) is due to the fact that the intended interpretation is incompatible with the meaning of the main verb krijgento receive. He suggests that this also explains why verbs expressing a denial of transmission such as onthoudento withhold, ontzeggento refuse and weigerento refuse also resist krijgen-passivization; cf. (135c). Note that regular passivization is again acceptable.

However, it is not clear whether Colleman’s claim can be fully maintained, since it is not difficult to find examples with weigeren/ontzeggento refuse on the internet that are accepted by our standard Dutch informants; some adapted/simplified examples are given in (136).

There is an extremely small number of verbs in standard Dutch that take a benefactive indirect object. The prototypical example is inschenkento pour in (137a). As can be seen in (137a'), this verb allows for krijgen-passivization. The benefactive is usually optional in Dutch, although the verb kwijtscheldento remit in (137b) seems to be an exception to this rule. Note that the (b)-examples do not involve a goal argument, since the referent of the pronoun is not the recipient of the direct object.

Krijgen-passivization is also allowed with inalienable possession constructions, i.e. constructions in which the indirect object acts as an inalienable possessor of the complement of a locational PP. The examples in (138) illustrate this; cf. Section 3.3.1.4 for a more detailed discussion.

The direction of the transfer of the theme also plays a role here: in (138a), the theme is transferred to the referent of the indirect object, thus also acting as a kind of recipient, and krijgen-passivization is possible; in (139a), on the other hand, the theme is removed from the referent of the indirect object, so also acting as a kind of source, and krijgen-passivization is excluded in standard Dutch (but possible in certain regional varieties).

The previous subsections have discussed the krijgen-passive of several types of ditransitive verbs. This subsection discusses a special case of krijgen-passivization, which is illustrated by the primed examples in (140); cf. Janssen (1976:12). These examples are remarkable because the corresponding active constructions in the primeless examples do not contain an indirect object.

If the primed examples in (140) were derived by promotion of an indirect object, we would expect the examples in (141) to be acceptable, but they are not.

To our knowledge, the unacceptability of examples such as (141) has not been discussed in the literature. We leave this to future research, but suggest that the ungrammaticality of the examples in (141) may be due to the fact illustrated by (142) that the simplex reflexive zich is usually subject-oriented and therefore cannot be construed with the indirect objects in (141); cf. Section N22.4.2 for an extensive discussion to the distribution of the simplex reflexive pronoun in constructions of this kind.

It is noteworthy that not all clauses with krijgen and a participle can be mechanically analyzed as krijgen-passives. For instance, example (143a) contains the main verb krijgen, discussed in Section 2.1.4, and the optional participle gewassen can function as a supplementive that modifies the direct object de glazenthe glasses. In fact, example (143a) is ambiguous and can also be interpreted as a resultative construction, with the participle functioning as a complementive predicated of the accusative DP de glazen. This reading is less prominent, but can be highlighted by using adverbial phrases like gemakkelijkeasily or met moeitewith difficulty; cf. Section A28.2.1, sub II, for a more detailed discussion of this construction. This implies that the participle gewassen in (143) must be analyzed as an adjective; this is supported by the fact that it can be replaced by the adjective schoonclean.

The previous subsections have shown that krijgen-passivization is a productive rule, although there are a number of systematic restrictions on its use in standard Dutch. Verbs of transmission (including those of communication) can usually be passivized with krijgen, provided that two conditions are met: (i) the verb indicates the mode of transmission, and (ii) the referent of the indirect object is the recipient/goal (and not the source) of transmission. Furthermore, we have seen that krijgen-passivization is possible with more than one type of indirect object: recipients/goals, beneficiaries and possessives can all be promoted to subject under krijgen-passivization; only sources are exempt from this process. This suggests that, contrary to what is usually assumed, krijgen-passivization is part of core grammar, just like the “regular” form of passivization.