In the copular construction and the vinden-construction, a nominal predicate denotes a non-singleton set and it is claimed that the subject of the predicate is part of this set. In the copular constructions in the (a)-examples in (86) the subject of the predicate is the subject of the clause, and in the vinden-constructions in the (b)-examples it is the accusative object of the clause. These examples also show that the nominal predicate and its subject agree in number. Example (86c) is added to show that, for some unknown reason, resultative constructions with a “truly” nominal predicate are not common; resultative verbs generally take a nominal predicate introduced by als or tot; cf. Subsection III below.

The examples in (86) above illustrate the use of indefinite noun phrases as predicates. Definite noun phrases can be used in the same way. The main difference is that whereas the use of an indefinite noun phrase expresses that its subject is part of the denotation of the NP, the use of a definite noun phrase implies that the subject exhausts it. For example, (87a) expresses that Peter is just part of the set of students that are supervised by Marie, whereas (87b) implies that Peter is the only student that is supervised by Marie. The (b)-examples in (87) therefore differ from those in the (a)-examples in not expressing a set/subset relation, but an identification relation.

That we are dealing with an identification relation does not mean, however, that both DPs are referring expressions. That this is not the case will become clear when we consider the referential behavior of the coordinated DPs in (88). The plural marking on the finite verb in (88a) shows that the coordinated subject de dokter en de burgemeester'the physician and the mayor' is also necessarily plural. This shows that there is a one-to-one relation between the number of articles and the number of referents: each conjunct refers to a separate person. This is, however, not the case in (88b), in which the coordinated DP functions as a predicate: there is simply one person who can be identified both as the physician and as the mayor of the village under discussion. Example (88b') shows that predicative definite noun phrases can also be coordinated by means of conjunctions other than en'and'. Note that the adverbs tevens'also' and ook'also' in (88b&b') emphasize the fact that the persons denoted by the coordinated predicative noun phrases are actually the same; see also the discussion of the examples in (97) below.

Examples like (88b&b') clearly show that definite nominal predicates do not refer to some entity in the domain of discourse; the function of the definite articles is to express that the sets denoted by the nominal predicates dokter van dit dorp and burgemeester van dit dorp have just one member. The construction as a whole expresses that the members of these two singleton sets are identical and can be identified with the referent of the subject of the clause, Jan. See Alexiadou et al. (2007: prt II, §2.3) for more discussion.
      The examples in (89) show that, in constructions expressing an identification relation, it is often possible to interchange the positions of the two noun phrases. At first sight it is not clear what this tells us. It may be the case that the two word orders differ in underlying syntactic structure, that is, differ with respect to which noun phrase performs which syntactic function (subject or complementive). However, it may also be the case that the two orders have the same underlying syntactic structure but that one of the two is derived by topicalization, an option that can be argued for independently on the basis of examples such as Aardig is hij niet'Nice, he is not'.

The option of having two different underlying structures seems to be refuted by the data in (90): if the proper noun(s) need not act as the subject but can also act as the predicate, the primed examples should be fully acceptable, which they are not. However, they are not as bad as one would expect: especially if the proper nouns are given emphatic accent, the result is reasonably acceptable, and it yields at least quite a contrast with examples such as *dat aardig Jan niet is, in which aardig is unequivocally a predicate.

Another prediction would be that in the vinden-constructions the two noun phrases are also interchangeable. As can be seen in (91), however, there is a strong preference for the proper noun(s) to precede the definite noun phrase: the primed examples in (91) require heavy stress on the proper nouns, and even then the result is marginal at best. From this, it seems that we can safely conclude that the proper noun acts as the subject and the definite noun phrase acts as the predicate in these examples.

Note in passing that the test in (91) is only available if the nominal predicate is evaluative; if it expresses an objective property, the vinden-construction always gives rise to an unacceptable result. This is illustrated in the (b)-examples of (92).

      That the definite noun phrase functions as the complementive can also be supported by the fact that if the clause contains a first or second person personal pronoun, the verb must agree with the pronoun: the copula verb in the examples in (93) must be the second person form ben(t)'are' and cannot be the third person form is'is'. Similar facts concerning number agreement can be found in (94).

Note in passing that the agreement facts in Dutch crucially differ from the corresponding ones in English. For example, in English, inversion of the subject and the predicate will result in verb agreement with the preposed predicate, as will be clear from the rendering of example (94b). Furthermore, the subject pronoun will surface as an object form: cf. De beste kandidaat ben ik/*mij vs. The best candidate is me/*I. Since this is not the place to discuss these differences between English and Dutch, we refer the reader to Den Dikken (2006: Ch.4, fn.43), who argues that these differences are related to the fact that predicate inversion may result from topicalization in Dutch, but not in English.
      The discussion above has shown that even in predicative constructions expressing identity, there can be a fixed division of labor between the two noun phrases. This leads to the question what determines whether a certain noun phrase acts as the subject or the predicate. Just as in the case of regular predicative constructions, this seems to be related to inclusion relations. Whereas proper nouns normally refer to some specific entity in the domain of discourse, the referents of definite noun phrases are primarily presented as members of a larger set denoted by the NP. For example, the definite noun phrase de beste leerling van de klas'the best pupil(s) of the group' does not simply refer to a certain individual, but to an individual who is characterized as being a member of a larger subset denoted by the NP leerling van deze klas'pupil of this group'. The facts reviewed above suggest that it is always the noun phrase presented as part of a larger superset that is taken as the predicative part of the construction.
      In fact, it seems that this can be made even more precise. The examples in (95), which involve two definite noun phrases, suggest that it is the noun phrase presented as part of the largest superset that is taken as the complementive. In the most plausible extra-linguistic context to utter the primeless examples in (95), the set of tulips will be considerably smaller than the total set of flowers exhibited at the exhibition, and the primed examples unambiguously show that, as a result of this, it is the noun phrase de mooiste bloem van deze tentoonstelling that functions as the complementive, given that example (95b') is at best marginally acceptable with strong emphatic accent on the noun phrase deze blauwe tulp.

      Of course, there are still many cases where it is not so clear which of the two noun phrases must be considered the predicate of the construction. This is illustrated by the examples in (96). The embedded clauses show that the two definite noun phrases may both act as the predicate of the copular construction. The difference between (96a') and (96b') is that in the former the noun phrase de voorzitter van deze vergadering is taken to be a referential expression, the referent of which is known to both the speaker and the addressee, whereas in the latter it is taken to be a property assigned to the referent of the referential noun phrase de decaan van de universiteit. This shows that the assignment of referential or predicative status may be dependent on properties of the discourse; in (96a'), the referent of the noun phrase de voorzitter van deze vergadering is assumed to be known to the addressee, whereas the referent of de decaan van de universiteit is not: it is the purpose of the sentence to express that the two noun phrases have the same referent.

The primeless examples in (96) are semantically ambiguous, but the two interpretations are generally associated with two different intonation patterns. If the sentences are interpreted with the first noun phrase as a referential expression, it can be pronounced with a neutral, continuous intonation contour. On the alternative, inverse interpretation, some special intonational clue is needed, for example by inserting a brief intonation stop before the second noun phrase, and/or by placing emphatic or contrastive focus on it. The alternative, inverse interpretation can also be blocked by means of adverbs like ook'also' or tevens'also': in examples such as (97) the second noun phrase must be construed as the predicate.

In some cases, the nominal predicate must be introduced by als or tot, or, less commonly, voor. In some cases this seems to be an idiosyncratic property, given that verbs like beschouwen'to consider' and benoemen'to appoint' obligatorily take such a predicate: in (98a), the als-phrase cannot be dropped without shifting the meaning of the verb to something like “to observe”; in (98b), the tot/als-phrase can be dropped, but will then be implied.

There are also some more or less fixed collocations with the verb houden and the preposition voor. Some examples are given in (99); in the (a)-example voor is followed by a noun phrase and in the (b)-example by an adjective.

      Using a nominal predicate introduced by tot is the normal way of expressing a result. Whereas bare adjectival predicates like boos or dood can be used in all kinds of resultative constructions, the option of using a bare nominal predicate seems to be restricted to the verb maken.

We should add immediately that, in accordance with what we have already observed with respect to the examples in (98), many cases of the sort in (100b') seem to be lexically restricted. An example such as (101a) is unacceptable, despite the fact that it seems to make perfect sense semantically; cf. the acceptability of (101b) with the adjectival complementive fit.

      All of the examples discussed above involve a set/subset relation. The predicative als-phrase can, however, also be used to express an identity relation, in which case the noun phrase is typically definite.

      Finally, example (103) shows that noun phrases introduced by als can also be used as supplementives. Note that the noun phrase in this example does not contain an article, just like the noun phrase in (98b). This is a typical property of predicatively used nouns denoting a profession or social function; we will discuss this extensively in Section 8.2.2, where we will also discuss examples such as (103) in more detail.