The distinction between unergative and unaccusative verbs discussed in Section 2.1 is originally due to Perlmutter (1978) and Burzio (1986). For Dutch, this distinction has been elaborated upon by T.Hoekstra (1984a); the claim that some of the tests developed by Hoekstra (like selection of the perfect auxiliary zijn and attributive use of the past/passive participle) are sufficient but not necessary conditions for assuming unaccusative status of a verb is due to Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) and Mulder (1992). The properties of nom-dat verbs have been extensively discussed in Lenerz (1977), Koster (1978), and, especially, Den Besten (1985). The claim that a separate class of undative verbs should be distinguished was first made in Broekhuis (1992) and further developed by Broekhuis & Cornips (1994/2012); a similar idea phrased in generative-semantic terms can be found in Janssen (1976).
      The complementive constructions discussed in Section 2.2 have played an important role in the so-called Small Clause debate between Stowell (1983), who argues that secondary predicates form a constituent with their subject, and Williams (1980), who claims that the two just need to be in a c-command relation within a specific local domain. An influential Dutch advocate of Stowell's proposal is T.Hoekstra (1984a), and Williams' proposal has been defended by Neeleman (1994b). This grammar follows Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) in assuming that locational PPs may function as complementives and thus diverge from other descriptive grammars, which normally consider all locational PPs to be adverbial phrases. The hypothesis that particles also function as complementives has been defended in Den Dikken (1995)? This assumption is controversial given that it is also argued that particle verbs constitute complex verbal heads; cf. Neelemann & Weerman (1993/1999) and references cited there. The two positions are not necessarily incompatible given that it has been argued that particles may reanalyze with or syntactically incorporate into the verb; see, respectively, Den Dikken (1995) and Koopman (1995) for discussion and references.
      Much traditional research on PP-complements focused on the development of tests to distinguish these PPs from adverbially used ones; see, e.g., Van de Toorn (1971/1981), Zwaan (1972), Paardekooper (1986) and Klooster (2001). Due to the fact that this work did not result in tests that unambiguously determine whether or not we are dealing with a PP-complement, this has led to a certain pessimism, which in turn has resulted in the practice that many grammars simply enumerate the V + PP collocations that involve PP-complements; see, e.g., Paardekooper (1986) and Haeseryn et al. (1997). Some researchers have even concluded that the distinction between PP-complements and adverbial PPs should be given up entirely. For this we refer the reader especially to a series of publications by Schermer-Vermeer (1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 2006 and 2007), who nevertheless maintains that there is a subset of "prepositional complements" in a wider sense that are characterized by a tight semantic relationship with the main verb; this set differs from the more restricted set of PP-complements discussed in this section in that it also includes (in our terminology) periphrastic indirect objects, PPs that are used as complementives, as well as a subset of adverbial phrases. Although we did not discuss this, we want to note here that many PP-complements were realized as genitive objects in earlier stages of the language; cf. Duinhoven (1989). Our discussion in Section 2.3 elaborates on work by, e.g., Koster (1973/1974), Van Riemsdijk (1978), T.Hoekstra (1984a), Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) and Den Dikken (1995).
      There is virtually no literature on AP-complements, which also accounts for the fact that Section 2.4 is relatively short. The discussion of the causative psych-verbs in Section 2.5 is based on discussions found in Den Besten (1985), Belletti & Rizzi (1988), Everaert (1982/1986), Bennis (1986/2004), Grimshaw (1990), E. Hoekstra (1991), Broekhuis (1992), Mulder (1992), Pesetsky (1995), and Van der Putten (1986/1997). Comparison of these verbs and periphrastic causative constructions with maken'to make' can be found, for instance, in E. Hoekstra (1991), Mulder (1992) and Pesetsky (1995). Data on nom-dat verbs can be found in T.Hoekstra (1984a), Den Besten (1985) and Broekhuis (1992). Discussions on reflexive psychological verbs can be found in Bennis (1986), Everaert (1986), E.Hoekstra (1991), and Mulder (1992). Levin (1993) also discusses the properties of psych-verbs and provides many references about other languages.
      There has been an ardent debate on the classification of nom-acc verbs. Some authors claim that they belong to the unergative transitive verbs; see, e.g., E.Hoekstra (1991), Mulder (1992), Pesetsky (1995) and Van der Putten (1997). Others suggest that they are unaccusatives (cf. Belletti & Rizzi 1988), while it has also been proposed that these verbs are ergatives, but not unaccusatives (Broekhuis 1992), or unergatives with respect to case marking and unaccusative with respect to theta-selection (Bennis 2004). The hypothesis that the causative psych-verbs are complex verbs composed of a (zero) causative verb and an embedded psychological predicate is taken from Pesetsky (1995); see also E.Hoekstra (1991), Mulder (1992) and Broekhuis (1992). All studies seem to fall short by not distinguishing between causative constructions with a cause and a causer subject.
      There are not many studies specifically devoted to inherently reflexive constructions. Relevant discussion as well as references can be found in Burzio (1981/1986), Dobrovie-Sorin (2006), and, especially, Everaert (1986), which is also a rich source for the relevant Dutch data.