Section 2.1 has discussed nominal complementation of verbs, which has resulted in the identification of the basic verb types in Table 6. This section discusses the behavior of these verbs with respect to secondary predication. The basic patterns are given in the examples in (156) to (158). In (156), we find an intransitive and an impersonal verb, that is, verbs without an internal argument. The primed examples show that the addition of a complementive is possible in such cases, but requires the addition of an extra argument that functions as the subject of the complementive; wakker'awake' and nat'wet' are predicated of, respectively, the noun phrases zijn baas'his master' and Jan. The construction as a whole receives a resultative interpretation: it is claimed that the referent of the added noun phrase becomes part of the set denoted by the complementive as the result of the action/process denoted by the verb.

In (157), we find a transitive and a monadic unaccusative verb, that is, verbs with one internal argument. The primed examples show that it is possible to add a complementive, which, in the cases at hand at least, is predicated of the original theme argument. The construction as a whole receives a resultative interpretation: it is claimed that the referent of the theme argument becomes part of the set denoted by the complementive as the result of the action/process denoted by the verb.

In (158), we find a ditransitive, a nom-dat, and an undative verb, that is, verbs with two internal arguments. The primed examples are all unacceptable under the intended, resultative, reading. The examples marked with a number sign are at least marginally possible, but then the adjective kapot does not function as a complementive but as a supplementive, that is, a predicative phrase that provides additional information about the theme.

      When we return to the examples in (156) and (157), we see that the two sets differ in that the addition of a complementive in (156) goes hand in hand with the introduction of an additional argument which is not selected by the verb itself, as is clear from the fact that dropping the complementives in the primed examples in (156) results in ungrammaticality.

This strongly suggests that the noun phrase the complementive is predicated of is not selected by the verb but an external argument of the complementive. We will therefore refer to such noun phrases as the logical subject of the complementive. We will use small capitals for this notion in order to distinguish it from the traditional notion of subject (in lower case), which refers to the nominative argument of the clause.
      In the primed examples in (157) the subject of the complementive also seems to entertain a thematic relation with the verb; if the complementive is dropped, as in the primeless examples, the resulting structure is still grammatical. Many proposals have been given to account for this dual thematic relationship in the primed examples, which generally amounts to saying that the subject relation between the noun phrase and the complementive is primary compared to the semantic relationship between the noun phrase and the verb; we will return to this issue in Section 2.2.3, sub II.
      This section is organized as follows. Section 2.2.1 starts with a more general discussion on the use of complementives. Section 2.2.2 continues with a discussion of two non-resultative constructions involving a complementive: the copular construction and the so-called vinden-construction. Section 2.2.3 is concerned with resultative constructions of the type illustrated above. Section 2.2.4 concludes with a very brief discussion of two types of analyses of complementive constructions proposed within generative grammar.