Non-derived nouns usually have no argument structure. This section discusses a class of nouns that is exceptional in this respect, the so-called relational nouns. The distinction between relational and non-relational nouns is generally assumed to be relevant for the subclass of concrete nouns. Relational nouns require, or at least imply, an argument; the entities they denote can only be identified on the basis of a relation to some other entity. Thus, one cannot normally refer to a father without including a reference to one or more children; nor can one refer to a body part without relating the object to its possessor. In the former case, the relationship is one of kinship, while in the latter case, it is a “part-of” relationship. In both cases, the relationship is in some sense inherent: the nouns vaderfather and hoofdhead denote inalienably possessed entities (Fillmore 1968).

Example (99a) is unusual because there is no mention of a related entity; the addition of the genitive noun phrase/van-PP in (99b) makes the sentence acceptable.

Similarly, the examples in (100) are odd when the possessive pronoun is replaced by an indefinite article: a noun denoting a body part like hoofdhead or neusnose is only possible if there is a “possessor”. Note that the use of the indefinite article in (100b) leads to an interpretation in which Jan broke an arbitrary (i.e. someone else’s) nose.

The examples in (99) and (100) show that relational nouns usually take an argument that refers to a related entity. However, if a restrictive modifier is present, the argument need not be present. Here, we illustrate this with the relational noun kaftcover, which has an inherent relation to the noun boekbook. Example (101a) shows that dropping the PP-complement van het boek leads to a marginal result. However, the addition of a restrictive relative clause or an attributive adjective, as in (101b&c), makes the construction perfectly acceptable again.

Occasionally, nouns are ambiguous between a relational and a non-relational reading. The clearest examples are the nouns man and vrouw: if no argument is present, the noun phrase allows only a non-relational reading, i.e. the noun phrase simply refers to some male/female person; if a genitive noun phrase or a van-PP is present, the nouns are interpreted as relational nouns meaning “husband” and “wife”, respectively.

The examples in (103) suggest that relational nouns differ syntactically from non-relational nouns in that extraction of the van-PP is possible for the former, whereas this is normally excluded for the latter (regardless of whether the PP in question is introduced by van or some other preposition).

For a more detailed discussion of PP-extraction, we refer the reader to Section 16.2.1, sub V (as well as De Haan 1979, Guéron 1980 and Kaan 1992). For further discussion of complementation of the relational nouns, see Section 16.2.2.

Closely related to the class of relational nouns are deverbal person nouns that require a complement. Person nouns like makermaker or schrijverwriter in (104a&b), for instance, also require the presence of another entity in the discourse situation, in this case the theme argument of the input verb. As shown by the primed examples, noun phrases headed by such nouns also allow PP extraction.

When such a deverbal relational noun is preceded by an indefinite article, there is a relation between the interpretation of the noun phrase as a whole and that of the complement of the van-PP. Example (105a) shows that the noun phrase as a whole can only be interpreted as non-specific indefinite if the complement of the van-PP is also non-specific indefinite. If the complement of the van-PP is definite, as in (105b), the noun phrase as a whole is interpreted as specific indefinite.

Note also that substituting a definite article for the indefinite article of the complete noun phrase triggers a contrastive reading in the (a) but not in the (b)-example. Thus, (106a) can only be used when there is a pre-established set of authors, one of whom writes children’s books; in other cases, the use of this example leads to an infelicitous result. Example (106b), on the other hand, is not restricted in this way.

The other deverbal nouns also seem to require a complement. For instance, the state-of-affairs noun vernietigingdestruction is unacceptable if the theme is not expressed (unless it is contextually determined); cf. de vernietiging *(van de stad)the destruction of the city. The noun cannot normally be used with an indefinite article: *een vernietiging van de stada destruction of the city. For a detailed discussion of such deverbal nouns, see Sections 15.3.1 and 16.2.3.