This section has discussed the dative alternation and has shown that there are at least five semantic subtypes that can be syntactically distinguished by the form of the periphrastic indirect object:

We have seen that there are reasons to assume that periphrastic indirect objects are not internal arguments (i.e. PP-complements) of the verbs: the aan, naar and van-PPs in (454a-c) clearly behave as complementives. Possessive bij-PPs have been shown not to be selected by the verb at all but to form a constituent with the locational phrase containing the possessum. Something similar may hold for benefactive voor-PPs (and their dative counterparts); they are optional and not semantically implied by the verb, suggesting that they are not arguments of the verb but adverbial modifiers.

Our investigation has further shown that there are reasons to assume that at least the double object constructions in (454a-c) are derived from an underlying structure very similar to that of the periphrastic construction: we can therefore conclude that the double objects in these constructions do not function as internal arguments of the verb either. Although we have not discussed it here, Broekhuis & Cornips (1997) has argued that the possessive dative and the possessive bij-PP also share a common underlying form: if so, this would imply that possessive datives do not function as internal arguments of the verb either.