The complementives in (40) and (41) can be topicalized, provided that the PP is assigned contrastive accent, as in (42).

The examples in (43) show that A'-scrambling of the complementives in (40) and (41) is not possible. The primed examples do not improve when the moved PP is given contrastive stress.

PP-over-V of the complementives in (40) and (41) gives rise to a degraded result, just as in the case of the spatial complementives.

Non-spatial complementives generally do not allow R-extraction, which may be due to the idiomatic nature of these constructions, i.e. to the fact that the complements of the prepositions usually do not refer to entities in the domain of discourse. If this proposal is on the right track, example (45a) is unacceptable because the complement of the PP, sas, has no denotation at all, and example (45a') is only acceptable if the complement of the PP is interpreted literally, i.e. if knollentuin refers to some kind of vegetable garden. Something similar holds for example (45b), since the noun kracht has no denotation in the domain of discourse. The possessive construction in (45c) is acceptable because the noun jongen has a denotation.

As in the case of the spatial complementives, topicalization yields a perfectly acceptable result, provided that the complement of the PP is given emphatic accent.

Scrambling is categorically blocked, and again the non-spatial resultatives behave like the spatial ones in this respect.

The question as to whether non-spatial adpositional resultatives allow PP-over-V is complex. The (a)-examples in (50) suggest that PP-over-V is prohibited, but the (b) and (c)-examples show that PP-over-V is allowed in the majority of cases.

This difference in acceptability of PP-over-V seems to be related to the fact that the verb in the (a)-examples is simple, while it is prefixed or combined with a verbal particle in the (b) and (c)-examples. The examples in (51), given earlier as (27) and (28), show that also in the case of locational constructions, the addition of a verbal particle like neerdown lifts the prohibition of PP-over-V; (51b) is only acceptable if the particle neer is present. This suggests that the difference between (50a') and (50c') can also be explained by the fact that only the latter contains a verbal particle. The acceptability of (50b') shows that a prefixed verb such as benoemen behaves essentially like a particle verb in this respect; we refer the reader to Section V3.3.2 for a discussion of an analysis that treats the prefix be- as a kind of verbal particle. For the sake of completeness, (51c) shows that although the locational PP can undergo PP-over-V, it is similar to the PPs in the resultative construction under discussion in that it resists A'-scrambling; cf. (49).

Note that the prefixed verb benoemen in (50b) is not morphologically complex from a synchronic point of view, as it is not productively related to the verb noemento mention; the mere fact that be- is still recognizable as a prefix seems sufficient to license PP-over-V. Examples (52) and (53) contain two more resultative verbs that allow PP-over-V but are not (synchronically speaking) derived by prefixation. This is quite clear for veranderento change in (52), because the verb anderen is not part of present-day vocabulary: according to the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, it used to occur with the same meaning as the non-causative verb veranderen in syntactic frames like (52a). For completeness, the doubly-primed examples show that, like the other PPs discussed above, the PP in een schildpadinto a turtle in (52) cannot be scrambled.

A second case is the verb herleiden (tot)to reduce (to); as it is semantically only remotely related to leidento lead/direct, it is doubtful whether present-day speakers are able to relate the two verbs. Note that A'-scrambling of the PP is again impossible.

The examples in (54) show that R-pronominalization and R-extraction lead to a degraded or at least marked result. This may be due to the fact that the nouns denote properties and do not refer to specific entities in the domain of discourse.

That we are dealing with a semantic, not with a syntactic constraint on R-extraction, can be supported by the fact, illustrated in (55), that the syntactically similar locational resultative construction with a particle verb in (51) allows it.

Examples such as (53), in which the complement of the preposition is preceded by an article and is thus more likely to refer to an entity, also seem to give rise to a better result; the relative clause construction in (56b) even seems perfectly acceptable.

The examples in (59) show that when the adpositional phrase is assigned emphatic accent, topicalization usually yields quite acceptable results in the “vinden”-construction.

A'-Scrambling of the adpositional phrase leads to an unacceptable result in the “vinden”-construction.

Since we are dealing with prefixed verbs and particle verbs, our discussion in Subsection II of PP-over-V in resultative constructions would lead us to expect that PP-over-V is also perfectly acceptable in the “vinden”-construction. This seems to be only partially borne out; although the judgments vary somewhat across speakers, PP-over-V is considered marked when the complement of the preposition is adjectival in nature; the judgments given in (61) are our own. This contrast between nominal and adjectival complements of the preposition, if real, is puzzling to us.

The pronominalized counterparts of (61) in (62a-d) show that R-extraction yields quite degraded results in the “vinden”-construction. For als in (62a), this is not surprising, since it never allows stranding. In the case of voor, the degraded result of R-extraction in (62b) may be because its complement is not referential in nature but denotes a property. The examples in (62b&d) seem to improve somewhat when er is replaced by the interrogative R-word waar, as shown in their primed counterparts.

The number sign in (62c) is used to indicate that this example is acceptable as an idiomatic construction meaning approximately “They considered Peter capable of doing such a (bad) thing”. This construction also occurs in the interrogative form Waar zie je mij voor aan? meaning “What do you take me for?”. We can ignore such examples here.