Transitive verbs can enter the resultative construction if they denote an activity, as in (234), but not if they denote an accomplishment, as in (235). This contrast is due to the fact that complementives introduce a unique point of termination of the event, namely the point at which the object reaches the state denoted by the complementive. Since activities and accomplishments differ by definition in whether they inherently express such a point of termination, the contrast between (234) and (235) can be explained by assuming that complementives can only be added if the verb itself does not inherently express a point of termination, i.e. if the verb denotes an activity.

The generalization that accomplishment verbs cannot occur in resultative constructions can be unified with our earlier generalization in Section 2.2.1, sub IV, that clauses cannot contain more than one complementive, by adopting the following natural assumption: clauses contain at most one point of termination of the event.

This subsection argues that the accusative object of the resultative construction is not an argument of the verb, but of the complementive. That this is not at all obvious is shown by the examples in (236) and (237). The examples in (236) first show that transitive verbs like malento grind, prakkento mash, and vegento sweep select a direct object that denotes the theme of the activity; if the direct object refers to, say, an instrument used in performing the activity, the examples become unacceptable.

The same selection restriction applies to the resultative constructions in (237). Note that the judgments apply only to the readings indicated by the subscripts; each of the noun phrases marked with an asterisk can also be interpreted as a theme, which leads to an odd result in (236a&b) for reasons related to our knowledge of the world, but is easily possible in (236c).

The correspondence between the examples in (236) and (237) thus seems to suggest that the verb also imposes semantic selection restrictions on the accusative noun phrase that functions as the subject of the complementive. However, this hypothesis is shown to be mistaken by the examples in (238), in which the accusative object corresponds to the instrument rather than to the theme of the verb; this will be clear from the fact that the acceptability judgments on these examples are reversed without the complementives; cf. (236).

The data in (238) strongly suggests that only the complementive imposes selection restrictions on the accusative object. Note that as a result, it is sometimes not easy to determine whether the resultative construction is based on a transitive verb. This is especially true for transitive verbs like etento eat or rokento smoke, which can also be used pseudo-intransitively. The primeless examples in (239) are acceptable both with and without the direct object, and as a result we can claim that the accusative noun phrase either replaces the internal argument of the transitive verb or is added to the pseudo-intransitive verb.

Since the referents of the instruments in (237) cannot normally be assigned the properties denoted by the complementives as a result of the activity denoted by the verb, these examples are semantically deviant. Since the properties denoted by the complementives in (238) are not applicable to the referents of the (original) theme arguments of the verb, the latter cannot be used for the same reason. But since the instruments can have these properties, and since it is plausible that they acquire these properties by being used as instruments for the activity denoted by the verb, their use leads to perfectly acceptable results. This shows that our judgments about the acceptability of the examples in (237) and (238) depend not only on argument selection, but also on our knowledge of the world; cf. Subsection IA, where we reached the same conclusion on the basis of the examples in (240), which also show that the activity denoted by the verb must be able to affect the object in such a way that it acquires the property denoted by the adjective.

That knowledge of the world can be involved is also clear from the fact that the logical subject of the complementive can have semantic functions other than theme or instrument. We illustrate this with the examples in (241) and (242). The examples in (241) provide cases in which the subjects of the complementives correspond to the themes of the verbs (i.e. the things being cleaned/swept).

However, the examples in (242) are cases in which the noun phrase corresponding to the theme of the verb (i.e. de handen/vloer) appears as part of a prepositional complementive; the logical subject of that complementive (i.e. de verf/het stof) refers to something located on the object being cleaned. The semantic relation between the direct object and the verb is indirect in that it is defined in terms of the noun phrase that is realized as part of the complement of the van-PP. Therefore, it is implausible that this relation with the direct object can be defined in terms of lexically determined selection restrictions imposed by the verb.

Example (243) provides another case showing that knowledge of the world can be involved in our acceptability judgments. Example (243a) shows that the verb slaanto beat can take an animate noun phrase such as Jan as its direct object, whereas an inanimate noun phrase like de tanden gives rise to a pragmatically odd result. In the resultative construction in (243b), however, the noun phrase de tanden gives a perfectly acceptable result, whereas the noun phrase Jan cannot be used, since this would again lead to an implausible interpretation.

For completeness’ sake, note that it is possible to say Peter sloeg Jan de tanden uit de mond, but in this example Jan does not function as the subject of the predicatively used PP, but as the dative possessor of the nominal complement of that PP, leading to the interpretation “Peter knocked the teeth out of Jan’s mouth”.

Although Subsection 2 has shown that the accusative objects of resultative constructions do not function as internal arguments of the transitive verbs heading these constructions, but as logical subjects of the complementives, they are assigned accusative case by the verbs. This is clear from the fact that they become the subjects of the clause when the verbs are passivized.

As in the case of intransitive verbs, the simplex reflexive zich can occur as the subject of the complementive, and again the resulting construction can often be interpreted in such a way that the resultative has an amplifying effect. Consider first the examples in (245), which are most naturally understood in a literal way; the referent of the reflexive (and hence the subject of the clause) is understood as becoming part of the set denoted by the complementive as a result of the activity denoted by the verb. Interestingly, the theme argument of the transitive verb can often be optionally expressed by an additional PP, provided that the simplex reflexive is not understood as the theme itself. In (245a), the reflexive is not only the subject of the complementive, but is also understood as the theme of the activity, and thus an additional theme PP would lead to an unacceptable result; the number sign indicates that the PP can only be used as an adverbial phrase of place. In (245b), on the other hand, the simplex reflexive is not understood as the theme of the event, and the addition of the PP aan die taartjeson those cakes is perfectly acceptable.

The examples in (246) are most naturally interpreted as involving amplification, and it is interesting to note that in such examples the theme argument can always be expressed by an additional PP.

For completeness’ sake, consider the non-resultative reflexive nominal construction in (247); in such cases the theme argument of the verb can also be expressed by a PP.

We conclude this subsection by discussing three special cases of transitive resultative constructions. First, consider the examples in (248), which show that the accusative object is obligatory; omitting the objects in such examples usually leads to ungrammaticality. Of course, this is to be expected, because the complementive must be predicated of some noun phrase, and the external argument of the verb is not a suitable candidate.

However, there are some exceptional cases in which the accusative object can be omitted: example (249a) is a fixed expression in which the implied object is interpreted generically, as referring to people in general, and example (249b) is an advertising slogan for a washing powder in which the implied object is contextually determined and refers to the laundry. The fact that the object is semantically implied is apparently sufficient to license the presence of the complementive in these cases; cf. Petter (1994).

The second special case concerns verbs that seem to shift their meaning in the resultative construction. A typical example is the verb makento make in (250). In the transitive construction in (250a) it means “to repair”, or is interpreted as a verb of creation meaning “to make”. In the resultative construction in (250b), however, this meaning has bleached and what remains is only a causative interpretation; Jan is said to be involved in some unspecified activity that wrecks the chair.

An alternative to assuming a meaning shift would be to claim that the repair reading in (250a) results from a phonetically empty resultative, comparable to heelunbroken in (251a). Such a proposal would imply that maken is a semantically light verb (in the sense that it expresses only a causative meaning); this might find support in the fact, illustrated in (251b), that the emphatic construction with the simplex reflexive zich, common with regular activity verbs, does not give an acceptable result with this verb.

The same is suggested by examples such as (252), in which the semantic contribution of maken seems to be limited to simple causation: the actual activity that produces the indicated result must be expressed by other syntactic means, like the use of the instrumental PP met die opmerking in (252a), or is left implicit, as in (252b).

The third special case concerns verbs that can take a non-factive propositional clause as complement, such as wensento wish and verklarento declare in (253). As shown in (254), the same verbs can also be used with a complementive.

Semantically, the (a)-examples in (253) seem more or less equivalent to the corresponding examples in (254), since both express unrealized wishes. The two (b)-examples, on the other hand, are slightly different: in (253) the doctor declares that the patient is dead (to the best of his knowledge), whereas in (254b) the doctor performs an act as a result of which the patient is considered dead for legal purposes.

Subsection II has shown that transitive verbs denoting an activity can enter the resultative construction, but that this is not possible for transitive verbs denoting an accomplishment. In (255) we repeat two examples to illustrate this. We claimed that this is due to the fact that the addition of a complementive turns the activity of bombing the city in (255a) into an accomplishment by adding a unique termination point of the event; the addition of a complementive to the accomplishment of destroying the city in (255b) adds an illegitimate second termination point.

We will show below that essentially the same holds for unaccusative verbs: the addition of a resultative is excluded if the verb is telic, i.e. if it already has an inherent termination point. The examples in (256) first show that the addition of a resultative is easily possible if an unaccusative verb is non-telic, i.e. denotes a process without an inherent termination point: (256a) expresses that the vase broke as a result of its fall; (256b) expresses that the tree crossed the fence as a result of the process of growing; finally, (256c) expresses that the vase came to pieces as a result of the process of cracking.

The examples in (257), on the other hand, show that when an unaccusative verb is telic, i.e. denotes a process with an inherent termination point, the addition of a complementive is impossible. For example, (257a) does not express that the vase became broken as a result of its arriving; the adjective instead acts as a supplementive expressing that the vase was in pieces on its arrival. Similarly, (257b) does not express that the state of being in his bed is the result of the old man’s dying, but that the bed is simply the place where the process of dying took place. Finally, example (257c) shows that a process that takes place instantaneously cannot easily be combined with a resultative either.

Although the nominative subject of the resultative construction is semantically licensed as the logical subject of the complementive, it often corresponds to the internal argument of the unaccusative verb, which is clear from the fact that the complementive is optional in (256); in De vaas vielThe vase fell the subject of the clause can only be semantically licensed by the verb vallento fall. However, there are also examples in which there is no selection relation between the unaccusative verb and the subject of the clause, as shown in (258). Example (258a) does not express that the path is growing, which is also clear from the fact that the resultative cannot be omitted, but rather that the border plants are overgrowing the path so that it becomes inaccessible. Similarly, example (258b) does not imply that the ditch is undergoing a process that could be described by slibben, since this verb does not occur without a complementive in colloquial speech.

Although the subjects in (256) are semantically compatible with both the verbs and the complementives, the fact that in (258) they are compatible only with the complementives leads to the conclusion that the semantic relation between the subjects and the complementives is more important than the relation between the subjects and the verbs. The simplest conclusion we can draw from this is that they are semantically licensed as arguments of the complementives, while the semantic restrictions that the verbs seem to impose on them in (256) are secondary in nature and based on our knowledge of the world.

The examples in (259) show that the emphatic resultative construction with zich is excluded with unaccusative verbs. The ungrammaticality of these examples is surprising from a semantic point of view, since in principle both arguments could be semantically licensed: the simplex reflexive zich could be semantically licensed as the subject of the complementive, and the subject of the clause as the internal argument of the unaccusative verb. Therefore it seems that the ungrammaticality of these examples is due to the fact that the unaccusative verbs stervento die and arriverento arrive cannot assign accusative case to the simplex reflexive.

This account of the examples in (259) also predicts the ungrammaticality of the examples in (260). The addition of a complementive is not sufficient to license an additional argument, because this argument cannot be case-marked. The difference between unaccusative and intransitive verbs, which can license an additional argument in the resultative construction (cf. the examples in (214), (219) and (220)), is thus reduced to the independently motivated difference in the case-assignment properties of these verbs: intransitive, but not unaccusative, verbs are able to assign accusative case and thus can case-license an additional argument.

For completeness, note that the examples in (261) are not problematic for this analysis. Since the subjects of these clauses are logical subjects of the complementives, we are dealing with unaccusative constructions, which means that the objects are not accusative but dative objects, acting as inalienable possessors of the nominal complement het hoofdthe head of the preposition boven.

A potentially more serious problem for the assumption of a general prohibition of unaccusatives in reflexive resultative constructions is the acceptability of the unaccusative verb schrikkento be frightened in example (262a'), in which the subject of the clause seems to function not as a theme but as an experiencer. One possible solution may be that the emphatic nature of the construction leads to an analysis similar to that of the inherently reflexive psych-verb zich ergerento be annoyed in the (b)-examples, discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.1.3, sub IV. We leave this as a topic for future research.

Subsection 1 has discussed unaccusative verbs taking the auxiliary zijn in the perfect tense. This subsection discusses unaccusative verbs that usually take the auxiliary hebben. Example (263) shows that these verbs can enter the resultative construction and then take the auxiliary zijn, which is due to the fact that the resultative adds a point of termination to these otherwise atelic, i.e. durative, verbs; cf. the discussion in Section 2.1.2, sub III.

The subject of the clause does not necessarily have to satisfy the selection restrictions of the unaccusative verb. This is illustrated in (264): while (264a) is normally unacceptable with the noun phrase de pan (unless a toto pro pars reading is intended, with de pan referring to the contents of the pan), example (264b) with the complementive droogdry is perfectly acceptable with this noun phrase.

The examples in (265) show that unaccusative verbs usually taking the auxiliary hebben are like unaccusative verbs with the auxiliary zijn, but unlike intransitive verbs in that the addition of a complementive does not license an additional second argument. This is a very strong confirmation of the claim that these verbs are unaccusative: if drijven and bloeden were intransitive, they should be able to assign accusative case to the subject of the complementive in (265), and this would incorrectly predict the examples in (265) to be grammatical; cf. the discussion in Subsection IA.

In fact, example (266) shows that intransitive verbs such as lachento laugh exhibit the opposite behavior: with a complementive present, a second argument is obligatory.

The lack of accusative case also explains the impossibility of emphatic resultative constructions with zich in (267). We have used [+animate] arguments to avoid the possible interference of an animacy restriction; cf. the contrast between Jan beweegt (zich)Jan is moving and Het gordijn beweegt (*zich)the curtain is moving.

A large class of verbs belonging to the unaccusative type under discussion are the non-agentive verbs of sound emission; examples are zoemento buzz and ruisento rustle in (268), which typically take an inanimate argument.

It is possible to add a complementive, but this often has the side effect that the verb is interpreted not only as a verb of sound emission but also as a verb of motion. The state denoted by the complementive is not the result of the emission of the sound, but of the movement that causes the sound. Note that the subjects in the primed examples are not the entities that make the sounds, which provides additional evidence for the claim that it is the complementive and not the verb that semantically licenses the subject.

Note also that the auxiliary in these examples is zijn, which is sufficient to conclude that we are dealing with unaccusative constructions. This correctly predicts that the complementive cannot license the additional argument Jan/Marie in (270).

The emphatic resultative construction with zich in (271) is also excluded, but since the subject of the clause is [-animate], this may be due to an animacy restriction; cf. the discussion above (267).

This subsection deals with motion verbs. This may be unexpected, given that the unaccusativity tests discussed in Section 2.1.2 show that these verbs normally function as intransitive verbs, as shown in (272) for the verb wandelento walk. The fact that wandelen takes the auxiliary hebbento have in the perfect-tense example in (272b) is of course not sufficient to assume that it is intransitive, and the same goes for the fact illustrated in (272d) that the past/passive participle cannot be used attributively. However, the fact that the verb is used as input for an agentive er-noun in (272c) and allows the impersonal passivization in (272e) unambiguously shows that we are dealing with an intransitive verb.

However, the behavior of wandelen changes drastically when a predicatively used directional PP is added, as in (273). As a result of the addition of the complementive, the verb selects the auxiliary zijn and the past participle can be used attributively (provided that the adpositional phrase is also expressed), both of which are sufficient to conclude that we are dealing with an unaccusative verb. Moreover, the agentive er-noun is not easily combined with the adpositional phrase; the percentage sign indicates that speakers’ judgments vary from marginally acceptable to completely excluded. Finally, passivization also produces a degraded result when the adpositional phrase is present. From this we can conclude that the addition of a complementive changes the status of the verb: without it the verb behaves as an intransitive verb, but with it it has the characteristics of an unaccusative verb.

Note that this change is not just due to the mere addition of an adpositional phrase, but crucially involves its syntactic function. When the adpositional phrase functions as a locational adverbial phrase, as in (274), the motion verb continues to function as a well-behaved intransitive verb.

The examples in (275) are a bit special. Example (275a) shows that the subject of the clause does not have to satisfy the selection restrictions of the verb when a complementive is present. This is to be expected, since (275b&c) clearly show that vliegen functions as an unaccusative verb: it selects the auxiliary zijn and its past participle can be used attributively. However, the examples in (275) are not resultative in the sense that the state expressed by the complementive is the result of the process denoted by the verb; the verb is semantically bleached, and the construction as a whole is aspectual in that it simply expresses that the change of state occurs quickly or perhaps even instantaneously.

Semantic bleaching is more common in examples of this kind. As shown again in (276) and (277), the subject of the clause does not have to satisfy the selection restrictions of the verb if a complementive is present. The verbs in these constructions, which are again not resultative in nature, have radically changed their meaning; ten einde lopen in (276a) is an aspectual verb with a meaning comparable to English intransitive to terminate, and lopen in (277a) means something like English intransitive to extend. We have added the (b) and (c)-examples in order to show that lopen in (276) satisfies the sufficient conditions for assuming unaccusative status; lopen in (277) does not, but this is not surprising, since this construction is stative and therefore atelic in nature.

Since motion verbs can be used both intransitively and unaccusatively, it is not easy to determine whether the emphatic resultative construction with zich is possible in the unaccusative construction. Example (278a) is acceptable, but this is probably because the verb is intransitive. Example (278b) is unacceptable, but this may have to do not with the status of the verb, but with the presence of two complementives.

Finally, note that the two literal (i.e. non-emphatic) reflexive resultative constructions in (279) are both acceptable with a [+human] subject. In (279a) we are dealing with the intransitive verb vliegen, given that the subject of the clause is also interpreted as the agent of the activity denoted by the verb; Jan is navigating a crashing plane. In (279b) we are dealing with an unaccusative verb, which means that we are dealing with a process and that the subject of the clause need not be interpreted as the agent of the clause; Jan can just be a passenger in a crashing plane. There is more to say about unaccusative motion verbs, which will be done in Section P32.1.2.2.

Sometimes it is not clear what the basic type of a verb in a resultative construction is. This is especially true when the complementive is obligatory, as in the resultative constructions with the change-of-location verbs leggento put, zettento put, and hangento hang in (280). The primed examples illustrate the obligatoriness of the complementive, which here has the form of a locational PP, and thus show that we cannot decide whether we are dealing with a transitive or an intransitive verb.

To a lesser extent, the same is true for the (stative) location verbs zittento sit, liggento lie, staanto stand, and hangento hang. If the subject of the clause is inanimate, as in (281), the locational PP is usually obligatory (unless the verb has a contrastive accent).

The examples in (282) show that the locational PP normally need not be expressed when the subject of the clause is animate, but the examples with and without the locational phrase differ in meaning: if the locational phrase is present, the verb denotes the state of being in a particular location; if the PP is absent, the verb instead denotes the state of being in a particular posture.

By distinguishing between location and posture, we do not mean to imply that the posture reading is completely absent in case the complementive PP is present. In fact, it has been shown that this reading is available even in cases with inanimate subjects. This will become clear if we consider the two examples in (283), which refer to different situations; example (283a) with liggento lie expresses that the book is lying flat on the table, whereas (283b) expresses that the book is standing upright; cf. Van den Toorn (1975). Therefore, we only claim here that the location reading is the more salient one when the complementive PP is present.

Since location and change-of-location verbs do not occur without a locational PP, we cannot immediately decide what the status of such verbs is. It is important to note, however, that the change-of-location verbs in the primeless examples in (284) seem to act as causative alternants of the location verbs in the primed examples.

This suggests that location verbs are unaccusative, since this causative alternation is typical of unaccusative verbs such as brekento break, which can be used both unaccusatively (De vaas is gebroken the vase has broken) and transitively (Jan heeft de vaas gebrokenJan has broken the vase); cf. Section 3.2.3 for further discussion. Note that this implies that we are dealing with yet another class of unaccusative verbs, which neither take zijn in the perfect nor allow the attributive use of the past participle.

Further evidence for the claim that the location verbs are unaccusative comes from two kinds of data. First, the fact that the locational PP cannot be in extraposed position confirms the implicit assumption above that it acts as a complementive and not as an adverbial clause; cf. Section 2.2.1, sub III. Since complementives introduce a logical subject into the clause, the subject of the clause cannot be an argument of the verb itself, but must be a theme-subject, which means that the verb is unaccusative.

Second, possessive datives can arise when there is a predicatively used locational PP, as in (287a). The fact, illustrated in (287b), that the subject can follow the dative possessor again provides strong evidence for the claim that we are dealing with a theme-subject; cf. Section 2.1.3, sub IIF.

The complementive in the change-of-location construction need not be a locational PP, but can also be a particle, such as neerdown in (288a). Although a PP may be present in this particle-verb construction, it is clear that it does not function as a complementive: as shown in (288b), a complementive PP must be left-adjacent to the verb, whereas in the presence of the particle neer, as in (288c), the PP behaves like an adverbial phrase in that it can either precede or follow the verb. For further details, see Sections 2.2.1, sub IV, and P35.2.1.1.

The complementive can also be an adjective; the locational meaning of the verb is retained in cases like (289a&b), but in other cases like (289c&d) it seems to have disappeared altogether.

As expected from the examples in (284), the causative change-of-location verbs in (289) alternate with the non-causative location verbs in (290).

Finally, note that a location verb cannot be combined with a particle such as neer: cf. Het kleed ligt op de tafel (*neer)The cloth is lying (*down) on the table. This is probably due to the fact that such particles have an inherent directional meaning, which is incompatible with the stative locational meaning expressed by location verbs.

The examples in (291) show that the change-of-state verb stellento put can also enter the resultative construction. The difference between the two (a)-examples is that the primeless case contains only an accusative object, while the primed case can also have an additional dative object. The complementive can be an AP, as in the (a)-examples, a locational PP, as in (291b), or the element teleur in (291c), which forms a fixed collocation with stellen.

The examples in (292a&b) show that the complementive cannot be a particle or a past/present participle. Exceptions are the verbal particles opup and afoff in (292c&d), which are not predicated of the accusative objects een briefa letter and een tijdboma time bomb, respectively, but are more like aspectual markers; cf. Section P32.3.1.5, sub II.

The change-of-location verb brengento bring can occur in resultative constructions with a directional PP, as in (293a), or with a metaphorically used locational PP, as in (293b). The verb brengen also occurs in resultative expressions like het brengen tot, in which the PP denotes a change of state and the pronoun het is non-referential; the expression as a whole is interpreted as a kind of copular verb, meaning something like “to become”.