PPs acting as the subject/object of the clause can be topicalized. This is shown in (4) for the examples in (1): (1a) illustrates the case in which the subject PP occupies the regular subject position of the clause, which is right adjacent to the finite verb, and (4a) provides the counterpart of this example with topicalization of the subject-PP onder het bed; example (4b) is the topicalization counterpart of (1b).

The examples in (5) are the topicalization counterparts of the examples in (3). Examples (5a&b) show that PP-complements of verbs and predicatively used adjectives can readily be topicalized. Topicalization of the PP-complement of the definite noun phrase in (3c), on the other hand, seems impossible; we refer the reader to Subsection V for a discussion of the topicalization behavior of PP-complements of indefinite noun phrases.

Example (6) shows that PPs that act as the object of a vinden-construction can undergo scrambling, and are thus able to either precede or follow the adverbs. As with nominal objects, the two forms differ with respect to the information structure of the clause: if the PP precedes the clausal adverb, it is construed as belonging to the presupposition of the clause, while it is construed as part of the focus (“new” information) if it follows the clausal adverb.

The examples in (7a&b) show that prepositional complements of verbs and adjectives can also undergo scrambling. In these examples the difference does not involve the distinction between presupposition and focus but, rather, the distinction between emphatic and contrastive focus; if it is scrambled, the PP is emphasized. Example (7c) shows that, like topicalization in (5c), scrambling of the PP-complement of a noun gives rise to a degraded result.

The primed examples in (8) show that PP-over-V of the subject/object PPs in the examples in (1) is excluded; they behave like nominal subjects/objects in this respect. The number sign # indicates that (8b') is acceptable if vinden acts as a transitive verb meaning “to find”, in which case the PP functions as a locational adverbial phrase, which is clear from the fact that it is optional; this interpretation of the PP is, of course, also available in (4b) and (8b).

The examples in (9a&b) show that PP-over-V of PP complements of verbs and adjectives is possible. PP-over-V seems be blocked, however, with PP complements of definite noun phrases; we refer the reader to Subsection V for a discussion of the extraposition behavior of PP-complements of indefinite noun phrases.

The argument PPs discussed in the previous subsections all allow R-pronominalization. The examples differ, however, with respect to the question as to whether the R-word er must be adjacent to the preposition, or whether the two can be separated by some other element as a result of R-extraction. The examples in (10) show that pronominal PPs that act as the subject or the object of the clause cannot be split.

The examples in (11a&b) show that the split pattern is possible if the pronominal PP is the complement of a verb or an adjective. When the PP is a complement of a definite noun phrase, however, the split pattern seems to be excluded; we again refer the reader to Subsection V for a discussion of the behavior of PP-complements of indefinite noun phrases in this respect.

Table 2 summarizes the results from Subsections I to IV. The second column refers to PPs that are used in positions where we would normally have a nominative or an accusative noun phrase. The third column gives the cases in which a PP is used as a complement of V, A or N.

The data in Subsections I to IV suggest that PP-complements of verbs and adjectives differ from PP-complements of nouns in that only the former can undergo topicalization, scrambling, PP-over-V and R-extraction. It is not clear, however, whether it is really the case that PP-complements of nouns categorically resist these processes; when we are dealing with indefinite noun phrases, the results appear to be totally different. In (12a), for example, the PP over ruimtevaart'about space travel' is often claimed to be a complement of the noun boek'book', and the examples in (12b-e) show that topicalization, scrambling, PP-over-V, and R-extraction are all nevertheless possible if the noun phrase is indefinite.

The claim that we are dealing with a PP complement in (12) is not uncontroversial, however: it is sometimes claimed that, at least in (12b-e), the PP is not a complement of the noun but a restrictive adverbial phrase. We will not discuss this issue here, but refer the reader to Section N2.2.1 and subsequent sections for an extensive discussion of this and many other intricate questions concerning adpositional complements of nouns.