The division of the noun phrase into a lexical domain (NP) and a functional domain (DP) with intermediate functional projections was first introduced in Abney (1987) and has since become widely accepted within generative grammar; see Alexiadou et al. (2007: Part II) for the historical background of the proposal and an overview of the empirical evidence that has been put forward in favor of this claim. Alexiadou et al. also contains an extensive discussion on nominal features.
      Most traditional Dutch grammars include sections on noun classification. See, for instance, Den Hertog (1973: 53ff.), Rijpma & Schuringa (1978: 95ff.), Van den Toorn (1981: 149ff.), Luif (1986: 110-111), Van Bart et al. (1998: 10-13), Haeseryn et al. (1997: 140ff.), and Klooster (2001: 64-65). Rijkhoff (2002) provides a more typologically-based classification of nouns.
      Exhaustive overviews of noun formation can be found in De Haas & Trommelen (1993), Haeseryn et al. (1997), and Booij (2002). A detailed and comprehensive theoretical study on Dutch morphology is Van der Putten (1997). For a discussion of the restrictions on input verbs (in particular unaccusative verbs) of deverbal constructions of various kinds, see Knopper (1984). For discussions of er-nominalizations, see Booij (1986a, 1986b), Hoekstra (1986), and De Caluwe (1992, 1995). Discussions of the behavior of inf- and ing-nominalizations can be found in Ten Cate (1977), Van Haaften et al. (1985), Dik (1985a), Hoekstra & Wehrmann (1985), Hoekstra (1986) and Van Haaften et al. (1985), while Van den Hoek (1972) and Mackenzie (1985a) deal exclusively with ge-nominalizations.
      A more extensive discussion of the inheritance of arguments can be found in Chapter 2. Publications on this subject include Hoekstra (1984a, 1986), Dik (1985a, 1985b), Mackenzie (1985a, 1986), Booij (1986a, 1988, 1992b, 2002), and Booij & Van Haaften (1987). We have treated deverbal nouns and their complements in terms of inheritance, since this seems fairly generally accepted in various linguistic frameworks, but we should note that the inheritance approach is not uncontroversial. Van der Putten (1997: 159-160), for example, has pointed out that the process of er-nominalization is not fully productive: not every verb can be input to the process and the denotation of the resulting noun is not entirely predictable. For this reason he argues in favor of a lexical approach, describing deverbal nouns like er-nouns in terms of prototypes and marginal members on the basis of such lexical/semantic features as animacy of the entity denoted and its original thematic role. In generative grammar various other competitive proposals have been advocated. The best-known example is the debate between the lexicalist and the transformational approaches (Chomsky 1970), which focuses on the question as to whether all nominalizations involve derivation (and, if not, which types do involve derivation and which types are simply included in the lexicon as alternative realizations of an abstract lexical item). Another example is the distinction between the categorial and the thematic view (Hoekstra 1986), which focuses on the question of exactly which material is inherited in the case of nominalization. For a more detailed discussion, the reader is referred to the review in Alexiadou et al. (2007: Part IV), which also treats a number of more recent contributions to the discussion.