Not only verbs, but also adjectives can form the basis of derived nouns. This form of nominalization is usually achieved by suffixation, with some suffixes being (more or less) productive and others unproductive. The most important suffixes are listed in Table 19. This table distinguishes between derived nouns that denote [-human] and derived nouns that denote [+human] entities. We will only be concerned with derived nouns of the first type, since they can (or must) typically select one or more complements. The list of affixes in Table 19 is not exhaustive; we refer to De Haas & Trommelen (1993), Haeseryn et al. (1997:676), and Booij (2020a) for a more complete overview.

Note that not all nouns ending in -igheid are derived with the suffix –igheid. For instance, the noun zoetigheidsweet(s) is probably derived from the adjective zoetig, which in turn is derived from the adjective zoetsweet by means of the productive -ig ending with the meaning “more or less A”: [N [A zoet [-ig]] -heid]. In cases such as zuinigheidthrift, the noun is derived with the suffix -heid from the monomorphemic stem zuinigthrifty (cf. *zuin): [N [A zuinig] -heid]. Thus, the category of derived nouns ending in -igheid contains only nouns derived from adjectives that do not have an adjectival counterpart ending in –ig: this category consists of nouns like flauwigheidpoor joke, slimmigheidtrick/clever move and stommigheidfolly. which can be assumed to derive directly from adjectives like slimsmart, naarnasty and stomstupid, which do not easily take a counterpart with -ig; cf. ?slimmig, *narig, ??stommig. Nouns ending in -igheid generally have a somewhat negative evaluative meaning, are largely lexicalized and are typical of the spoken language; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:676) and De Haas & Trommelen (1993: 248-9; 302).

The examples in (219) illustrate the more or less productive process according to which the inflected form of an attributive adjective preceded by the definite or indefinite article can be used as a full noun phrase. This process, which is sometimes called nominalization (cf. Haeseryn et al. 1997), can derive both [-human] and [+human] nouns: in the former case, the noun is preceded by the definite neuter article hetthe, as in the (a)-examples; in the latter case, the noun is preceded by the definite non-neuter article dethe, as shown in (219b).

However, it is not uncontroversial that we are dealing with nominalizations in (219). An alternative analysis, which will be developed later, is that these constructions contain a phonetically empty nominal head; cf. Kester (1996). This means that we are dealing with an attributively used adjective followed by an empty noun, and for this reason these constructions will be discussed in Section A28.4.

Deadjectival [-human] nouns are productively derived by the suffixes -heid, -iteit and -te/-de. Haeseryn et al. (1997:671) paraphrase the meaning of nouns ending in -heid as: het + adjective + zijnbeing + adjective. A noun phrase such as Maries nauwkeurigheid in (220) is thus supposed to refer to the state of Marie being accurate, and the sentence as a whole expresses that the act of saving Jan is predicated of this state. Since the function and meaning of the ending -iteit is similar to that of -heid (the difference between the two being that -iteit attaches to loanwords), the derived noun spontaniteitspontaneity would thus denote the state of being spontaneous. Finally, Haeseryn et al. (1997:680) claim that nouns formed by the ending -te/-de have a meaning comparable to those ending in -heid and –iteit, a word like schaarstescarcity denoting the state of being scarce.

A closer look at the data shows that such paraphrases are unsatisfactory. Since adjectives do not denote states, but rather properties that are typically associated with an entity, we can expect that deadjectival nouns also denote properties, but now with the intention of predicating something about them. On this view, the noun phrase Maries nauwkeurigheid in (220) does not refer to a state of Marie being accurate, but to the property denoted by nauwkeurigaccurate, which is said to be true of Marie; cf. Chomsky (1970:213) and Keizer (1992b). Accordingly, example (220) does not express that it is the state of Marie being accurate that saved Jan, but the fact that the property of being accurate applies to Marie. Similarly, in (221) it is not claimed that Jan’s laziness has no limits, but rather that the property of laziness, as assigned to Jan, has no limits.

In (220) and (221), the difference between the two approaches may seem subtle, but it becomes clearer when we look at adjectives denoting physical properties. Obviously, a derived noun like hoogteheight in (222) does not denote the state of being high; indeed, the tower may not be high at all, since the noun hoogte is derived from the neutral form of the measure adjective hooghigh, as in de toren is 10 meter hoogthe tower is 10 meters high; cf. Section A26.1.4. Instead, hoogte denotes a (measurable) property of a concrete entity; example (222) does not claim that the fact that the tower has a certain height is impressive but that its actual height is impressive.

In conclusion, we can say that deadjectival nouns denote properties, just as deverbal nouns denote states of affairs; nominalization preserves the denotation type of the input.

Some deadjectival nouns are ambiguous between an abstract and a concrete reading. Examples are given in (223), where the primeless examples illustrate the abstract reading and the primed examples illustrate the concrete reading. The concrete nouns are fully lexicalized.

In some cases, the ambiguity is not between an abstract and a concrete interpretation, but between two abstract interpretations. Thus, deadjectival nouns like zekerheidcertainty can either be used to refer to the property zekercertain, as in Peters zekerheid is nogal irritantPeterʼs certainty/confidence is rather irritating. They can also refer to abstract entities that have the property certain, as in Er zijn weinig zekerheden in het levenLife does not have many certainties, where the noun in question has become lexicalized.

Finally, there are deadjectival nouns that only allow a lexicalized reading. The noun liefdelove, as used in Jans liefde (voor de taalkunde)Janʼs love (of linguistics) does not refer to the property liefsweet as assigned to Jan, but to the love Jan feels for someone/something else; as such, its argument structure differs from that of the adjective lief. Similarly, a noun like verworvenheidachievement can only be used in reference to the things achieved, not to a property of those things. It will be clear that in those cases where the derived noun is lexicalized, it no longer shares the argument structure with the original adjective, but has become avalent (like a simplex noun) or may even have its own argument (like a relational noun).

It is not always predictable which of the endings will be used, and in the case where two endings can be used, it seems impossible to account for the difference in affixation in a systematic way. Thus, deadjectival nouns ending in -te/-de are comparable in meaning to those ending in -heid: what is denoted by the derived nouns is the property denoted by their adjectival base. But this does not account for the fact, illustrated in (228), that sometimes both forms are possible. In some of these cases, one of the two forms has at least one lexicalized meaning; examples are gektecraze/hype, grootheidvariable/celebrity. Often, however, the two forms can be considered near-synonyms, even though they may be used in different contexts.

Similarly, the choice between the endings -heid and -iteit is not always obvious. For example, while -iteit is usually restricted to non-Germanic adjectives (naïviteitnaivety, subtiliteitsubtlety, uniformiteituniformity, genialiteitgenius, spontaniteitspontaneity), some Germanic adjectives can also take this ending, as shown by the existence of stommiteitstupidity/folly and flauwiteitsilly remark, which are derived from Dutch adjectives.

Table 20 shows that only the set-denoting adjectives can be comfortably used as input for nominalization; relational, evaluative and modal adjectives are usually more difficult to nominalize. Nouns like Italiaansheid are at least marginally possible; they occur frequently on the internet. This is due to the fact that relational adjectives like ItaliaansItalian can shift their meaning in the direction of the meaning of the set-denoting adjectives: they can occur as predicates in copular constructions when preceded by the modifier typischtypically: Dit gedrag is typisch ItaliaansThis behavior is typically Italian.

Another clear example is regelmatig, which in some cases can easily be used as the predicate of a copular construction; cf. Section A24.3.3 for further discussion.

The examples in (230) and (231) show that adjectives with genitive and dative complements are not easily nominalized.

For some of the adjectives in (230) and (231), it is actually rather surprising that they cannot be the input for nominalization, since they can also occur with a PP-complement instead of an NP-complement. This is illustrated for some of the above examples in (232).

In some cases, the derived noun is acceptable without the NP-complement. This is especially the case with deadjectival nouns derived from adjectives that optionally take a dative complement.

For more details on the (im)possibilities of the complementation of deadjectival nouns, see Section 16.2.4.

There are quite a few set-denoting adjectives that do not accept any of the endings -(ig)heid, -iteit and -te, but there seems to be no common feature that explains this. Some examples are given in (234). The impossibility of examples like (234d') or (234e') could perhaps be accounted for by appealing to blocking since the lexicon already contains a synonym (leeftijd/ouderdomage/old age and jeugd/jeugdigheidyouth/youthfulness, respectively), but in other cases there seems to be no such explanation.