Every psychological predicate has an obligatory argument, which can be called the experiencer, which experiences or inhabits the mental state denoted by the predicate. In the case of psych-adjectives like boosangry, the experiencer is the external argument of the adjective. Experiencers are typically human, or at least animate.

Mental states are often directed at an entity in the sense that they express a positive or negative emotion toward that entity. The entity toward which this emotion is directed is called the target of emotion. In the case of the psych-adjective boos, the target is expressed by a PP-complement headed by op, as shown in (436a). In addition to a target of emotion, a psych-adjective can also have a subject matter of emotion, which in the case of boos is expressed by a PP-complement headed by over, as shown in (436b). Although it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the target and the subject matter, the distinction is real, as can be seen from the fact that they can be expressed simultaneously, as in (436c).

Psychological predicates can differ in whether they allow a target or a subject matter of emotion to be present. For example, an adjective like bezorgdworried can take a subject matter but not a target of emotion, whereas an adjective like verliefdin love is only compatible with a target of emotion.

Because it is not always easy to decide whether a particular complement is the target or the subject matter of emotion, we will occasionally use the term object of emotion as an umbrella term for the two.

Emotions can not only be directed at or pertain to an entity, they can also be triggered by something. The trigger of the emotion is called the causer or cause of emotion. The two terms differ in that causer is used when the argument is actively involved in triggering the emotion (i.e. is agentive), whereas cause does not imply any activity. This difference is responsible for the fact that causers, like Peter in (438a), are usually [+animate] entities, whereas causes, like die opmerkingenthose remarks in (438b), can also be [-animate]. The roles of causer and cause can be expressed simultaneously, but then the cause must take the form of an adjunct-PP, typically headed by metwith or doorby.

Causers and causes can easily be confused with objects of emotion, but they are nonetheless distinct. Although (438a) above is compatible with a reading in which Jan’s anger is directed at Peter, this need not be the case. It could also be the case that Peter does something that makes Jan angry at something or with someone else; all that is required for the sentence to be true is that there is a causal connection between Peter and Jan’s anger. Similarly, the remarks in (438b) may be the subject matter of emotion, but it may also be the case that the remarks cause anger about some other matter. Clear cases in which the causer/cause should be distinguished from the object (target/subject matter) of emotion are given in (439).

There are several constraints on the syntactic realization of the thematic roles discussed in Subsection II. The examples in (436) and (438) in the previous subsections have shown that an experiencer can be either the subject or the object of the clause, depending on what other thematic roles are expressed. The target or subject matter of emotion is realized as a complement: in the case of an adjective this complement always has the form of a PP, but in the case of a verb the target of emotion can also have the form of a DP. This contrast is shown in (440).

The causer is always a subject, but the examples in (438) have shown that the cause can be realized either as the subject of the clause or (if a causer is present) as an adjunct PP headed by met or door. We summarize these results from the previous subsections in the descriptive generalizations in (441).

The notion of object in (441a-c) refers to the accusative argument in the clause. However, as we will see in example (446c) in Subsection II, psych-verbs such as behagento please take a dative experiencer. In such cases the subject of the clause is not a causer/cause, but an object of emotion (ObjE): Dat boekObjE bevalt hemExp goed that book pleases him. Since verbs such as bevallento please are nom-dat verbs, we are dealing with a (derived) theme-subject, so we can conclude that objects of emotion are always internal arguments of the psychological predicate. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to reformulate the generalizations in (441) in terms of internal and external arguments. Since we are not always sure whether the (often inanimate) cause of emotion can be regarded as an external argument, we have added a question mark in (442e).

A question that should be raised with respect to the thematic roles in (441)/(442) is whether they can be seen as separate thematic roles assigned by the predicate, comparable to the thematic roles of agent, goal, and theme, or whether they are specific instantiations of these latter roles; cf. Pesetsky (1995: §2) for a defense of the second position. We will not discuss this issue here, but simply describe the syntactic behavior of the arguments carrying these roles and note what facts may be relevant to the issue, leaving it to the reader to decide whether or not e.g. the role of causer should be seen as a special instantiation of the role of agent; cf. Marelj (2013) for a relevant discussion from a semantic perspective.

Subject-experiencer psych-verbs such as vrezento fear in (443) select a nominal or prepositional complement that refers to the target or subject matter of emotion, as in (443a) and (443b), respectively. This shows that subject-experiencer verbs differ from adjectival psych-predicates such as boosangry in that they allow the target of emotion to be realized as a noun phrase.

The examples in (444a&b) show that the subject-experiencer verbs need not be transitive, but can also be intransitive; in this case the target of emotion is realized as a PP-complement. The (c)-examples in (444) show that subject-experiencer verbs can also be monadic unaccusative, can be seen from the fact that the verb schrikkento be frightened takes the auxiliary verb zijnto be in the perfect tense.

The subject of transitive object-experiencer psych-verbs such as ergerento annoy refers either to an entity that is the causer of the mental state, such as Peter in (445a), or to an entity that functions as the cause, such as die opmerkingenthose remarks in (445b). The causer and the cause can be expressed simultaneously, but then the latter must be in the form of a met-PP, as shown by (445c).

Since the experiencers of object-experiencer verbs are realized as objects, such verbs must be at least dyadic. Object-experiencer verbs can be subdivided into three subtypes on the basis of properties of their subjects, which are illustrated in (446).

The verbs in examples like (446a&b) are often called causative psych-verbs, because the subject functions as a causer/cause. Although both constructions involve the verb ergerento annoy, we will show that the two constructions in (446a&b) behave quite differently in several respects. The construction with a causer subject in (446a) behaves like other kinds of transitive constructions, and we will therefore consider the verb ergeren in this construction as a regular transitive verb. The construction with a cause subject in (446b), on the other hand, shows behavior atypical for transitive constructions: the verb ergeren will therefore not be considered here as a regular transitive verb, but as an instantiation of a special class of so-called nom-acc psych-verbs. A third type of object-experiencer verb is given in (446c); in this case we are dealing with a dyadic unaccusative psych-verb which realizes the experiencer as a dative object. The subject of the nom-dat verb is not a causer/cause, but an object (subject matter/target) of emotion. This is not surprising, since the subject is not an external but an internal argument of the verb, just like the complements of the transitive verbs in (443); cf. the discussion of (442).