As is shown in (77), circumpositional phrases with aan as their second member can be easily pronominalized.

Adpositional phrases headed by van ... affrom also allow pronominalization. However, it should be noted that the van + NP part of the construction can also be replaced by an R-word, as in the perhaps slightly marginal example (78c).

The examples in (79) show that R-pronominalization of circumpositional phrases with door as their second member give rise to perfectly acceptable results.

Circumpositional phrases with heen as their second member, on the other hand, show mixed behavior: usually R-pronominalization is fine, but in the case of langs ... heenalong, which is already somewhat marked, the result is degraded;. For completeness, recall that the circumposition om ... heenaround differs from the preposition omaround in that the latter cannot undergo R-pronominalization; cf. example (42).

Note in passing that this case is complicated by the fact that there is a somewhat obsolete preposition langsheen (still in use in other varieties of Dutch) with the same meaning as langsalong. Speakers who use this preposition may find examples such as Jan liep er langsheen impeccable, but this is of course irrelevant to the present discussion of the circumposition langs ... heen

The examples in (81) show that circumpositional phrases with in as their second member are again fully compatible with R-pronominalization.

The same seems to hold true for circumpositional phrases with langs as their second member, although the resulting structures in (82b') may feel somewhat uncomfortable; this may be due to the fact that the circumpositions boven/onder ... langs are not very common either.

Note that the primed examples become fully acceptable when er is omitted, which shows that achterlangs, voorlangs, onderlangs and bovenlangs do occur as complex (intransitive) prepositions.

Circumpositional phrases with om as a second member seem to be exceptional in that they do not easily allow R-pronominalization; the primed examples in (83) are at best marginally acceptable. Note that these examples also become fully acceptable when er is omitted, showing that achterom, voorom, and buitenom can be used as intransitive adpositions; perhaps the degraded status of the primed examples is related to this.

Circumpositional phrases with tegen ... opagainst are again fully compatible with R-pronominalization.

Circumpositional phrases with toe as the second member, as in (85), behave ambiguously. First, the (a)-examples show that R-pronominalization is perfectly acceptable with circumpositional phrases headed by naar ... toeto, which as such is remarkable in view of the fact, illustrated in (46), that directional PPs headed by the preposition naarto do not allow R-pronominalization. Second, the (b)-examples show that R-pronominalization of circumpositional phrases headed by tot ... toeup to is not possible. What lies behind this contrast is unclear: it is tempting to assume that the sequence of the two occurrences of toe is relevant, but the fact that we find the same in (86b') below suggests that there may be a deeper explanation.

For completeness’ sake, recall that Section 33.2.1, sub III, has argued that example (86a) does not involve a circumposition tot aan ... toe; instead, we are dealing with the preposition tot, which takes as its complement a circumpositional positional phrase headed by the circumposition aan... toe. Example (86b) shows that this circumpositional phrase allows R-pronominalization, although the strong form daar in (86b) cannot be replaced by the phonetically weak form er. Example (86b') shows that extraction of the R-word from the complete tot-PP, as a result of which tot should get the stranded form toe, leads to an unacceptable result.

R-pronominalization is productive for circumpositional phrases with uit as their second member. We provide some examples in (87); R-pronominalization of PPs headed by achter/tussen/voor ... uit (lit.: behind/between/in.front.of ... out) leads to equally acceptable results.

The (a) and (b)-examples in (88) show that circumpositional phrases with vandaan as their second member are usually compatible with R-pronominalization. The circumposition om ... vandaan is perhaps an exception, which may be due to the fact that this formation is restricted to the (somewhat marginal) phrase om de hoek vandaan.

Section 33.2.1, sub I, has argued that example (89a) does not involve a circumposition van achter … vandaan; instead, we are dealing with the preposition van, which takes as its complement a circumpositional positional phrase headed by the circumposition achter ... vandaan. The two (b)-examples show that this circumpositional phrase allows R-pronominalization, but that the R-word must remain within the PP headed by van.