In this construction type, N2 is a proper noun referring to a person. If the construction as a whole refers to a person, N1 can be a rank in a hierarchical organization like the army or the church, a title, a form of address, or a kinship noun (especially tanteaunt and oomuncle). Some examples, mainly adapted from Haeseryn et al. (1997), are given in (152).

The resulting structures in (152) function as complex proper nouns, which is clear from the fact that they usually cannot be preceded by an article. The examples in (153) show that they differ crucially in this respect from constructions in which the N1s occur by themselves.

It is also clear, as shown in (154), that binominal constructions, like proper nouns, can be used both as vocatives and as a regular arguments.

Forms of address like meneer and mevrouw may be followed by a noun phrase denoting a high-status occupation or social function, as in (155a). When the second noun phrase denotes a less prestigious occupation or implies some subjective qualification, as in (155b), the complex noun phrase takes on an ironic connotation. In such cases, the projection of N2 necessarily contains the definite article. N1, on the other hand, is never preceded by a definite article, again suggesting that the construction as a whole functions as a proper noun.

Constructions such as (155), however, differ from those in (152) in that their use is more restricted. Their unmarked use is that of a vocative, and they can only be used in argument position when the person referred to is physically present. Thus, while (154b) can be uttered in the absence of the intended person, example (156b) seems to require that the intended person be physically present.

Example (157a) shows that some of the N1s in (152), like the title noun professor, can be pluralized (De Belder 2009). Since this requires a determiner to be present, it is not clear whether we are dealing here with a construction of the type in (152). As shown in (157b), such plural noun phrases cannot be used as vocatives, which suggests that we are dealing with a binominal construction of the type discussed in the next subsection.

Binominal constructions such as tante Jeanneaunt Jeanne should be distinguished from phrases such as mijn zuster Elsmy sister Els. This is immediately clear from the fact that the latter cannot be used as a vocative; cf. the contrast between the two (b)-examples in (158). The proper noun Els can function as an appositive, which is clear from the distinctive intonation pattern in (158c'), with an intonation break before and after it; (158a') does not exhibit this intonation pattern, but can perhaps be seen as the non-restrictive counterpart of (158c'). The unacceptability of (158c) shows that the proper noun Jeanne in tante Jeanne cannot be used as an appositive. For further discussion of appositions, see Section 3.1.3.

If the construction as a whole refers to a geographical entity, N1 can be a noun denoting the set of geographical entities of which the referent of the entire binominal construction is a member. Some representative examples are given in (159). In such examples, 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, state, or city, respectively. Whether both directions are actually activated may also depend on the extra-linguistic knowledge of the hearer: in (159b), it will be obvious to those speakers who are aware of the fact that the proper noun Utrecht is used for both the province of 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 when used in isolation.

The bidirectional relation also seems to hold for examples such as (160). This may not be so clear in (160a), where it is obviously the proper noun that modifies the noun familie and not vice versa, but it is in (160b), where it is simultaneously expressed that we are dealing with a writer named Jan Wolkers and that Jan Wolkers is a writer. Again, the use of a definite article seems obligatory.

However, the semantic relation between the two nouns can also be asymmetrical: example (161a) is non-restrictive because the nominal part beroemde schrijver provides additional information about Jan Wolkers by saying that he is famous as a writer, whereas example (161b) is restrictive by expressing that Jan Wolkers is very famous as a writer but not as a sculptor; cf. Van de Velde (2009:78).

Note that the linear order of the common and proper noun can sometimes be reversed, as in (162a). This example is clearly restrictive in that it refers to the person Jan Wolkers in his capacity as a writer (and not as a sculptor). However, it seems reasonable to consider this example not as a binominal construction, but as the restrictive counterpart of the appositive construction in (162b).

Examples such as (163) may seem close to the examples in (162), but may be crucially different, since the phrase following the proper noun may simply function as a surname. This is represented orthographically by writing N2 with a capital letter, and may also be reflected in N2 losing its descriptive content.

As a result of the addition of the proper noun, the binominal phrases discussed in (160) are uniquely identifying. The same effect can be achieved by the noun phrases containing a numeral in (164a), where the numeral identifies the referent of the full noun phrase. Something similar happens in (164b&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.

Sometimes it is not so clear whether we are dealing with true binominal constructions. Consider the examples in (165), from the days when we still had train tickets. Example (165a) differs from the above examples in that it is not a uniquely referring expression. Furthermore, it is possible to express the same meaning by a postnominal PP. This suggests that the binominal construction is simply a shortened version of the noun phrase with a PP-modifier. Something similar could be said for (165b), which can be seen as the shortened version of (165b').

In cases such as (166), the binominal construction as a whole acts as a proper noun, referring to a particular cabinet, committee, method, etc. The second noun is usually the family name of a person closely related to the referent of the noun phrase as a whole. In such cases, the binominal construction is more or less the same as a compound, which is often indicated by the fact that in writing the two nouns are usually joined by a hyphen (especially when the second noun is a proper name).

The examples in (167), where 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 a postnominal van-phrase instead of the genitive noun phrase.