In this construction type, N2 is a proper noun referring to a person. When the construction as a whole refers to a person, N1 can be a rank in a hierarchically ordered organization like the army or the church, a title, a form of address or a kinship noun (especially tante'aunt' and oom'uncle'). Some examples, mainly adapted from Haeseryn et al. (1997), are given in (180).

The resulting structures in (180) function as a complex proper nouns, which is clear from the fact that they normally cannot be preceded by an article. The examples in (181) show that in this respect they crucially differ from constructions in which the N1s occur on their own.

It is also clear from the fact illustrated in (182) that, like proper nouns, binominal constructions can be used both as vocative, and in regular argument position.

      Forms of address like meneer and mevrouw can be followed by a noun phrase denoting a highly ranked profession or social function, as in (183a). When the second noun phrase denotes a “lower” profession or implies some subjective qualification, as in (183b), the complex noun phrase gets an ironic connotation. In cases like these, the projection of N2 necessarily contains the definite article. N1, on the other hand, is never preceded by a definite article, which again suggests that the construction as a whole functions as a proper noun.

Constructions such as (183) differ from the ones in (180), however, in that their use is more restricted. Their normal use is that of vocative, and they can only be used in argument position if the person referred to is physically present. So, whereas (182b) can be uttered in the absence of the intended person, example (184b) seems to require that the intended person be physically present.

Example (185a) illustrates by means of the title noun professor that some of the N1s in (180) can be pluralized (De Belder 2009). Since this requires that a determiner be present, it is not clear whether we are dealing with a construction of the type in (180) here. The fact illustrated in (185b) that such plural noun phrases cannot be used as vocative suggests that we are dealing with a binominal construction of the type discussed in the next subsection.

      Binominal constructions such as tante Jeanne'aunt Jeanne' should be distinguished from phrases like mijn zuster Els. This is immediately clear from the fact that the latter cannot be used as a vocative; see the contrast between the (c)-examples in (186). The proper noun Els functions instead as an appositive, which is clear from the distinctive intonation pattern in (186b'), with an intonation break preceding and following it; (186a') does not exhibit this intonation pattern, but can probably be seen as the non-restrictive counterpart of (186b'). For a more extensive discussion of appositions, see Section 3.1.3.

If the construction as a whole refers to a geographical entity, N1 can be a noun that denotes the set of geographical entities that the referent of the entire binominal construction is a member of. Some typical examples are given in (187). In examples like these the modification relation is typically bidirectional: while it is clear that the proper noun enables the hearer to identify the intended river, state or city, it is at the same time expressed that the proper noun refers to a river, a state and a city, respectively. Whether both directions are indeed activated may also be related to the extra-linguistic knowledge of the hearer: in (187b), it will be prominent for those speakers who are aware of the fact that the proper noun Utrecht is used both for the province Utrecht and its capital city. Note that in these cases N1 is typically preceded by a definite article, and that the proper noun may also be preceded by an article, provided that it also has one if used in isolation.

The bidirectional relation also seems to hold for examples such as (188). This is perhaps not so clear in (188a), where it is clearly the proper noun that modifies the noun familie and not vice versa, but it is in (188b), where it is simultaneously expressed that we are dealing with a poetess called Vasalis, and that Vasalis is a poetess. Again, the use of a definite article seems obligatory.

Note that the order of the common and the proper noun can sometimes be reversed, as is shown in (189a). By using this example we are referring to the person Jan Wolkers in his capacity as a writer (as opposed to his quality as, e.g., a sculptor). It seems reasonable, however, to not consider this example as a binominal construction but as the restrictive counterpart of the construction in (189b), in which we are clearly dealing with an appositive noun phrase.

Examples such as (190) seem close to the examples in (189) but may be crucially different as the phrase following the proper noun may simply function as a surname, which is orthographically represented by writing N2 with a capital and may be reflected in that N2 has lost its descriptive content; the person referred to by Jan de Bakker in (190b), who was the first martyr of the Protestant faith in the Netherlands, was not a baker but a priest.

      As a result of the addition of the proper noun, the binominal phrases discussed so far (188) are uniquely identifying. The same effect can be attained by the noun phrases that contain a numeral in (191a), in which the numeral identifies the referent of the full noun phrase. Something similar happens in (191b&c), where the nouns boek and Jan are not used in their normal denoting function but as meta-linguistic expressions referring to the word themselves.

Occasionally, it is not so clear whether we are dealing with true binominal constructions. Take (192a) as an example. This example differs from the examples above in that it is not a uniquely referring expression. Furthermore, it is possible to express the same meaning by means of a postnominal PP. This suggests that the binominal construction is simply an abbreviated version of the noun phrase with a PP-modifier. Something similar could be claimed for (192b), which can be seen as the abbreviated version of (192b').

      In cases such as (193), the binominal construction as a whole acts as a proper noun, referring to a certain cabinet, committee, method, etc. The second noun is normally the family name of some person who is intimately related to the referent of the noun phrase as a whole. In cases like these, the binominal construction comes pretty close to a compound, which is also clear from the fact that, in writing, the two nouns are generally linked by means of a hyphen.

      The examples in (194), in which the second noun phrase has the form of a genitive noun phrase, are clearly relics from the older stages of the language. In present-day Dutch such noun phrases would normally be realized by means of a postnominal van-phrase instead of the genitive noun phrase.