From a semantic point of view, van-PPs (whether restrictive or non-restrictive) can be said to denote a property of the head noun. Their function is simply to provide the listener with enough information to correctly identify the intended referent. This means that the complement of the van-PP in (562) can be replaced by any time-denoting expression that can perform this function. The examples in (563) show that the substitution possibilities of the adverbial phrase are more restricted in this respect.

In addition to this identifying function, postmodifying adverbs also seem to locate the entity referred to by the noun phrase at a particular place or time. As a result, the examples in (562) with the adverbial modifiers are more or less semantically equivalent to the examples in (564), where we are dealing with regular adverbial phrases; the main difference is that the adverbial phrases in (564) do not play a role in identifying the referent of the noun phrase for the hearer. For completeness’ sake, the examples in (564) also show that the van-PPs cannot be used adverbially in these cases.

When used postnominally, the adverbial phrase must agree in tense with the finite verb of the clause. In other words, in (565a) and (566a) the adverb gisterenyesterday has scope outside the noun phrase of which it is part, with the result that the finite verb of the main clause must be in the past tense, just as in the primed examples where we are dealing with a regular adverbial phrase. With the van-PPs, on the other hand, there is no such restriction, so that (565b) and (566b) are acceptable in both past and present tense.

That the adverb has scope outside the PP is also shown in example (567a), where the simultaneous expression of the postnominal modifier gisteren and the regular adverb vandaagtoday leads to a contradiction. Example (567b) shows that we do not find a similar contradiction in the case of a postnominal van-PP.

Another restriction concerns the syntactic function that noun phrases with an adverbial postmodifier or a van-PP can perform in the clause. The examples in (568a&b) show that these noun phrases can function as the subject of the clause, and the one in (568c) that the same is true when these noun phrases act as the complement of a preposition.

However, these constructions are only acceptable when the main verb denotes a state of affairs relating to properties of the newspaper itself, either its content or its appearance. In all other cases, only constructions with the van-PP are acceptable. This is shown in (569) for noun phrases acting as subjects.

For noun phrases acting as prepositional objects, this is shown in (570). Note that (570b) is acceptable, but only with the adverb gisteren functioning as a regular adverbial phrase, which is shown in (570b') by the fact that topicalization of the PP is only possible with van-PPs: since in Dutch only one constituent can be topicalized, the sequence de krant gisteren cannot occur in the sentence-initial position (the constituency test).

Noun phrases acting as direct objects never contain an adverbial modifier. Thus in (571a) the object can only contain a van-PP; without van the element gisteren can only be interpreted as a regular adverbial phrase. This means that the sequence de krant gisteren does not form a constituent, which explains why it cannot be topicalized. Noun phrases with a van-PP, on the other hand, can be topicalized.

Extraposition of the modifier out of the noun phrase is possible only in the case of van-PPs; an example is given in (572a). Adverbial modifiers in extraposed position can only be interpreted as regular adverbial phrases, as can be seen from the English translation in example (572b).

Antecedents of adverbial clauses are always abstract nouns, e.g. denoting a state of affairs. The head of the construction is often a deverbal noun. In such cases, the adverbial clause can be seen as inherited from the original verbal expression, where it would have a regular adverbial function. This is illustrated in example (583), where the primed examples give a verbal construction denoting the same state of affairs as the modified DP in the primeless examples.

However, the examples in (584) and (585) show that adverbial clauses can also be used to modify a non-derived antecedent denoting a state of affairs, as in (584). This is related to the fact that the corresponding clauses in the primed examples can be modified by the same adverbial clauses.

The same thing is shown in, respectively, (585a) and (585b) for nouns denoting an emotion or a property.

Not all conjunctions that can be used in a verbal environment can also be used in a postnominal adverbial phrase. In particular, the conjunctions tenzijunless and zodatso that cannot occur in adverbial clauses, nor can the phrasal conjunction voor zoverinsofar as. Constructions with alhoewel/ofschoonalthough are questionable at best.

It seems that adverbial phrases can only be used postnominally if they have a restrictive function within the clause. The primed examples in (585) above express a restriction on the state denoted by the clause: (585a') expresses that the speaker feels an enormous hatred when he sees a certain person, and (585b') that the person referred to is shy when he has to give a talk. It seems that the adverbial clauses headed by the conjunctions in (586) do not have a similar restrictive function in the clause.

However, this has no effect on the way the adverbial clause is used, i.e. as a restrictive or non-restrictive modifier. In general, all conjunctions that allow postmodification within the DP can be used in both restrictive and non-restrictive adverbial clauses. An exception seems to be zolangas long as, which can only be used restrictively in adverbial clauses. Thus, while example (587a) is acceptable, example (587b) is certainly marked. Moreover, the zolang-clause in the latter construction is most likely to be interpreted as a regular, parenthetic adverbial phrase (like the zolang-clause in (587b')), not as a modifier of the subject DP.