A noun phrase quantified by geen has a somewhat limited distribution when geen has its core meaning of negative quantifier. It can appear as the subject of an expletive construction, and it can also be used as a direct object, but not as an indirect object; the (c)-examples in (312) are rather awkward.

The unacceptability (312c') may also be due to the fact that using a noun phrase with geen as the complement of a preposition generally leads to an unacceptable result: the negation must be expressed by the negative adverb niet.

For the more special meanings of geen, the restrictions seem to be lifted. This is illustrated by the examples in (314) for noun phrases expressing the “not a single” reading. These examples show that such noun phrases need not occur in the expletive construction, can easily occur as indirect objects, and can even be used as the complement of a preposition.

Haeseryn et al. (1997:1657) notes that geen-phrases can also occur as the complement of a preposition in certain idiomatic constructions. These all involve a more or less emphatic negation. Some examples, taken from Klooster (2001b), are given in (315).

A geen phrase can be used as a nominal predicate if it is used with its core reading. This is illustrated in (316) with examples of copular and vinden constructions. We have not been able to find or construct examples of geen phrases with a “not a single” reading.

Geen phrases in non-negative questions, discussed in Section 18.1.5.1, sub IIIE, are restricted to the function of predicate. Some examples are given in (317).

The degree reading of geen in (285), in which geen is construed with a numeral following it and means something like “less than”, is particularly common in adverbial phrases. Example (285a) is repeated here as (318a). Example (318b) shows that geen phrases can also easily be used as nominal adjuncts in their “not a single” reading. In these constructions, the main accent falls on the element immediately following geen, i.e. the numeral in (318a) and the head noun in (318b). Geen phrases in which geen receives prosodic prominence are difficult to construe as adjuncts.

Geen does not easily occur independently in argument positions. However, example (319a) shows that there is a contrast between cases with singular and plural agreement, in that the former are better than the latter. In order to express the intended meaning, Dutch can resort to two strategies: one is to add the numeral éénone or enkelesingle to the right of geen, as in (319b); the other is to use a partitive construction, as in (319c). In both cases, the agreement between the subject and the finite verb is necessarily singular.

In present-day Dutch, geen cannot be used as a predicate (which was possible in earlier stages of the language): examples such as (320a) are unacceptable. Note that (320b) is not a counterexample; this example involves quantitative er, which is associated with the interpretive gap within a noun phrase containing geen. Since adjuncts are also predicates, the impossibility of example (320a) automatically precludes adjunct construal of geen.

Example (321a) shows that neither geen nor geen één/enkele can be used as a floating quantifier. However, the partitive noun phrase geen van alle/beide in (321b) can be used in this way. As usual, the floating quantifier must follow its associate, as in (321b), unless it is moved into the clause-initial position, as in (321b'). If the associate has a human reference, as in (322), Dutch orthography requires a plural ending -n on the quantifier.

Similarly, geen can be used as a floating quantifier in partitive constructions with numerals (Paardekooper 1986:472). The numerals in these constructions always take the ending -en in written language, regardless of the kind of entity being referred to. This is illustrated in (323).