Separable complex verbs (SCVs), referred to as "scheidbaar samengestelde werkwoorden" or "samenkoppelingen" in grammars of Dutch, are combinations of a verb (sometimes also a noun or an adjective) and some other word. Examples are aanvallento attack, opsommento sum up and opfrissento freshen up. These combinations have both word-like and phrasal properties. The following sentences illustrate the use of SCVs in embedded clauses (1a-5a)) and main clauses (1b-5b)):
According to the rules of Dutch orthography, SCVs have to be written as one word when the two parts are adjacent, reflecting the status of these word combinations as lexical units.
The word in front of the verb in SCVs is called preverb. Preverbs can come from different lexical categories: adpositions (1), adverbs (2), adjectives (3), nouns (4) and bound roots (5).
Preverbally used adpositions are also referred to as particles, and the SCV is then referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive class of SCVs. SCVs with a noun as preverb are also treated under the heading of quasi noun incorporation.
The semantics of SCV is often not fully predictable.
The addition of a particle may change an intransitive verb into a transitive one. Compare: juichento cheer (intransitive) - iemand toe-juichento cheer somebody, lopento walk - de straten af-lopento tramp the streets.
In linguistic research, SCVs have been the subject of much debate, particular for their intermediate status between words and phrases. The following references are key publications for further reading: Blom (2004, 2005a, 2005b); Blom and Booij (2003), Booij (2002, 2010); (Los et al. 2012), Neeleman (1994); Neeleman and Weerman (1993).
The main property of SCVs is the separability of the preverb from the stem. This is what distinguishes them from prefixed verbs, which may look similar in some environments, as some particles correspond with prefixes. Consider the following uses of the particle verb voorkomen/ˈvorˌkomən/to happen and the prefixed verb voorkomen/ˌvorˈkomən/to prevent:
In contrast to the particles, the prefixes cannot be separated from the stem. Moreover, prefixed verbs carry main stress on the verbal stem, while SCVs are stressed on the non-verbal constituent. Compare the following pairs:
SCV | Prefixed verb |
doorboren/ˈdoorˌboren/to go on drilling | doorboren/ˌdoorˈboren/to perforate |
omblazen/ˈomˌblazen/to blow down | omblazen/ˌomˈblazen/to blow around |
ondergaan/ˈonderˌgaan/to go under | ondergaan/ˌonderˈgaan/to undergo |
overkomen/ˈoverˌkomen/to come over | overkomen/ˌoverˈkomen/to happen to |
voorkomen/ˈvoorˌkomen/to occur | voorkomen/ˌvoorˈkomen/to prevent |
The main argument for a phrasal analysis is that SCVs are separable: in root clauses, the tensed verbal form appears in second position, whereas the other part of the SCV is stranded in its underlying position, as in Hans belt zijn moeder opHans calls his mother. We also see the separability of SCVs in the phenomenon of Verb Raising. Sentence (7a) represents the underlying SOV word order. The main verb wildewanted selects a sentential complement with a particle verb. When the verb of an embedded clause is raised to the matrix clause, the SCV can be split, as in (7b), but it can also be treated as a unit, as in (7c):
Sentence (7c) shows that there is the possibility that the SCV forms a unit for Verb Raising. They can also behave as a unit in the Progressive construction aan het + infinitiveat the V-INFV-ing (example (8a)), though aan het can also occur between the preverb and the verb, as in (8b).
Whereas opbellen can appear after aan het (example (8a)), this is not the case for the VP zijn moeder bellen (example (9a)). The only possible construction is (9b), where the object precedes aan het. This shows that opbellen has a special syntactic status.
Moreover, the separability of Dutch SCVs can be observed in the location of the infinitival particle te that occurs between the two constituents of SCVs, as in op te bellen, and in the form of the past participle, with the prefix ge- in between the particle and the verbal stem: opgebeldop-ge-bel-d. Past participles are formed in Dutch by means of the simultaneous attachment of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t/-d/-en. Ablauting verbs choose the suffix -en, regular verbs select -t when the stem ends in a voiceless obstruent, and -d otherwise. In derivational morphology, SCVs behave similarly; for instance, the ge-nominalization of opbellen is opgebelop-ge-bel, with the nominalizing prefix ge- between the particle and the verbal stem.
The separability of the two constituents of SCVs has prompted some linguists to give a syntactic account of such complex predicates. This account usually takes the form of a so-called Small Clause-analysis: the particle is considered as the predicate of a Small Clause (SC), a subject-predicate combination without a copula, which is then raised to the matrix clause, and Chomsky-adjoined to the verb of the matrix clause (Hoekstra 1988). In such an analysis the following surface structure is assigned to the verb phrase het huiswerk afmaken to finish one’s homework (t is the trace of the moved PP af ‘finished’): [[het huiswerk](NP)[t(i)]](PP)](SC) [[af(i)](PP)[maken](V)](V). The SCV afmaken is a structural unit, which can thus take part in Verb Raising. The particle in this structure expresses the result of the action expressed by the verb. In such an analysis, particle verbs are instantiations of regular syntactic structures that express a resultative meaning (Hoekstra 1988).
The word-like properties, however, have led a number of linguists to take the opposite view that particle verbs are morphological constructions created by a pre-syntactic morphological component (Ackema 1999a, 1999b, Neeleman 1994, Neeleman & Weerman 1993). Such analyses necessitate a weakening of the principle of Lexical Integrity by allowing syntactic rules to move parts of complex words.
The debate on the proper analysis of SCVs as being either morphology or syntax reflects a view of the architecture of the grammar in which there is sharp divide between morphological operations and the lexion on the one hand and syntax on the other. This sharp boundary between lexicon and syntax has been challenged in the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar. In particular the notion 'constructional idiom' has been used to do justice to both the phrasal and the word-like properties of SCVs. The following analysis is proposed in Booij (2010):
Preverbs are words that have the status X0 (bare head), which means that they do not project a full phrase. SCVs consist of these non-projecting elements and a verb. They have the syntactic structure [X0 V0]V' where X0 = P, Adv, A or N. The V'-node, a level of projection directly above V, captures their phrasal nature and hence their syntactic separability.
The conventionalized aspect of the meaning of SCVs is expressed as a property of the whole construction. Subcases with specific meanings may form semantic chains, related by semantic extension mechanisms like metaphor and metonymy. For instance, the particle op, which is also a locative adposition, shows up with the following meanings in particle verbs (Blom 2004: 14):
In many cases, the meaning of an SCV is not fully predictable. This can be illustrated by the different SCVs with the verb vallento fall:
This means that SCVs have to be stored in the lexicon. Lexical storage of SCVs is also necessary for another reason: the preverbs and the verbs themselves do not always occur as independent words. Consider: gadeslaan to watch but *gade, nabootsento imitate but *bootsen, omkukelento fall down but *kukelen, opkalefaterento restore but *kalefateren.
A different group of examples has complex preverbs that fail to occur on their own: teleurstellento disappoint, tenietdoennullify, tentoonstellento exhibit. The bases teleur, teniet and tentoon derive from lexicalized PPs with the preposition te to.
The preverb, the left-hand part of an SCV, can stem from different lexical categories: adpositions, adverbs, adjectives, nouns and bound roots. Adpositional preverbs are also referred to as particles, and the SCV is referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive category of SCVs. For example, productive use can be observed for the particles af,door,aan,in,op, and uit:
Simplex verb | Particle verb |
rijdento drive | afrijdento take one's driving examination |
drinkento drink | doordrinkento drink on |
delento share | opdelento divide |
hurento rent | inhurento hire |
leverento deliver | aanleverento deliver |
splitsento split | opsplitsento split |
schattento estimate | inschattento estimate |
sturento steer | aansturento steer |
testento test | uittestento test |
Recurrent bound meanings of particles can be accounted for by assuming constructional idioms for each of these particles. A constructional idiom is a (phrasal or morphological) pattern in which some positions are specified, and others are left open. For instance, we may assume a construction idiom for particle verbs with the particle door, which expresses continuation: [door-V](V’) to continue V-ing(Booij 2002).
Like many SCVs, SCVs with an adjectival or adverbial preverb often have an idiosyncratic meaning:
That such constructions are SCVs rather than free syntactic constructions can be seen from two properties: their behaviour under Verb Raising and the fact that the adjective or adverb cannot be modified. With regard to raising, we see the two options that are typical for SCVs: separating preverb and verb (12a) and treating them as one unit (12b). Option b) is not available for ordinary syntactic constructions in which the adverb is a free element modifying the verb (13b).
Similarly, SCVs do not allow modification of the adverb (14a), a process that is unproblematic for adverbs outside SCVs (14b).
Syntactically speaking, this restriction on SCVs follows from the proposed structure since the left constituent is specified as a bare adjective, not as an AP. Hence, it is impossible to modify the adjective in that position.
There are quite a number of adverbs that can be used in Dutch SCVs, including complex locational and temporal adverbs such as omlaagdown and achtereencontinuously. (15a) contains a simple adverb, (15b) a complex one:
The following adverbs can serve as preverbs in SCVs:
The meaning of separable complex verbs with these adverbs is usually quite transparent, and the meaning of the verb is preserved. In this respect, they differ from particle verbs, which often have an idiosyncratic meaning.
Most of the SCVs with adjectives are cases of lexicalization; only a few patterns, such as the open-V combination, are productive.
Particle verbs can be formed not only from verbs, but also from adjectives and nouns. The following examples illustrate the category-determining power of the construction (the particle verbs are given in their stem form):
Adjectival base | Particle verb |
helderclear | ophelderclarify |
hooghigh | ophoograise |
knapclever, beautiful | opknaptidy up, do up |
leuknice | opleukmake nicer |
Nominal base | Particle verb |
hoopheap | ophoopheap up |
luisterlustre | opluisteradd lustre |
somsum | opsomsum up |
SCVs may form the bases for other derived verbs, nouns and adjectives. They also occur as left-hand members of compound nouns. Some examples:
SCV | Derived verb |
invoerento introduce, to enter | herinvoerento reintroduce |
uitgevento publish | heruitgevento republish |
uitzendento transmit, broadcast | heruitzendento retransmit |
SCV | Derived noun |
aanbiedento offer | aanbiederofferer |
aankomento arrive | aankomstarrival |
opbellento phone | opgebel(repeated) phoning |
SCV | Derived adjective |
aantonento demonstrate | aantoonbaardemonstrable |
aantrekkento attract | aantrekkelijkattractive |
SCV | Compound |
doorkiezento dial through | doorkiesnummerdirect number |
doorkijkento see through | doorkijkbloestransparent blouse |
opbergento store | opbergdoosstorage box |
Nouns that are formed from particle verbs by conversion always have common gender.
There is a systematic correlation between the gender of a converted noun and the form of the corresponding verb. If a verb is simplex, the converted noun has common gender and selects the definite article de in the singular; if the verb is prefixed, the corresponding noun has neuter gender and selects the definite article het: bouwento build > de bouwthe construction, vallento fall > de valthe fall, but besturento govern > het bestuurthe board/ administration/ management, gebruikento use > het gebruikthe use. Prefixed verbs correspond with het-nouns, but particle verbs with de-nouns. This is exactly what is expected, since conversion operates on the head of the particle verb which is simplex in nature: aanvallento attack > de aanval the attack, aftrappen to kick off > de aftrap the kick-off.
Such nominalizations of particle verbs may reflect the fact that such verbs are often multiply polysemous: nominalizations sometimes have different forms for different submeanings. The following examples illustrate this phenomenon:
uit-geven
to spend | uitgaveexpense |
to publish | uitgaveissue |
to issue | uitgiftedistribution, Belgian Dutch: uitgevingdistribution |
aan-nemen
to assume | aannameassumption |
to contract | aannemingcontract- as in aannemingsbedrijfcontract company |
op-nemen
to record | opnamerecording |
to hospitalize | opnamehospitalization |
ascend to heaven | opnemingascension |
uit-voeren
to export | uitvoerexport |
to perform | uitvoeringperformance |
Adjectives derived from SCVs exhibit a systematic difference in main stress location from adjectives derived from other types of complex verbs: the former move the main stress to the syllable right before the adjectival suffix, the latter retain the stress of the verbal base.
Adjectives derived from SCVs | Adjectives derived from other complex verbs |
ínzetemploy > inzétbaaremployable | beínvloedinfluence > beínvloedbaarimpressionable |
úitsteekexcel > uitstékendexcellent | verwáarloosneglect > verwáarloosbaarnegligible |
The participial prefix ge- cannot be added before the particle, because it requires a V as its base, not a V’. Yet, the semantic scope of the participial prefix-suffix combination is not only the verb, but the particle-verb combination as a whole.
A preverb can be raised with its verb to a higher clause (17c), and can appear after aan het in the [aan het+ inf] construction (18a):
For the progressive construction aan het + infinitiveat the V-INFV-ing (example (18a-d)), incorporation of the particle is the preferred variant, but both variants occur. This ambiguous behaviour of SCVs can be accounted for by incorporation: a bare element followed by a verb can be structurally interpreted as a syntactic compound. Hence,op-bellen may receive two structural interpretations: phrase [P0 V0](V') or syntactic compound [P0 V0](V0). Verb raising in standard Dutch raises V0, not V’, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (18c), where we see a simple verb, not a particle verb. Hence the variable behaviour of SCVs follows from the availability of two structural interpretations. Similarly, the progressive construction with simple verbs accepts only V0-infinitives.
SCVs with adjectives and adverbs exhibit the same behaviour. For instance, the adjective openopen functions as a preverb. The difference with an adjective that is not a preverb, such as groengreen, can be seen in the Verb Raising construction:
Since groen does not form a verbal constituent with verven, the modal verb wilde cannot be adjoined to the word sequence groen verven because it does not form a SCV. On the other hand, the grammaticality of the sequence wilde open maken shows that open maken is a verbal unit. Thus, we must assume a constructional idiom [[open](A0) [x](V0)](V'), and a corresponding syntactic compound.
- 2012Morphosyntactic change: a comparative study of particles and prefixesCambridge University Press
- 1999Issues in morpho-syntaxAmsterdam / PhiladelphiaBenjamins
- 1999The non-uniform structure of Dutch N-V compoundsBooij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.)Yearbook of Morphology 1998DordrechtKluwer127-158
- 2004On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and non-predicative preverbsJournal of Germanic Linguistics161-75
- 2004On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and non-predicative preverbsJournal of Germanic Linguistics161-75
- 2005Complex predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and diachronyAmsterdamFree University AmsterdamThesis
- 2005The demarcation of morphology and syntax: A diachronic perspective on particle verbsDressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rainer, Franz (eds.)Morphology and its demarcationsAmsterdam / PhiladelphiaBenjamins53-66
- 2003The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: a case study in grammaticalizationActa Linguistica Hungarica5061-91
- 2002Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formationDehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew & Urban, Silke (eds.)Verb-particle explorationsBerlinMouton de Gruyter21-42
- 2002Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formationDehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew & Urban, Silke (eds.)Verb-particle explorationsBerlinMouton de Gruyter21-42
- 2010Construction morphologyOxford/New YorkOxford University Press
- 1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
- 1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
- 1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
- 1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
- 1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
- 1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- Intonation
[88%] Dutch > Phonology > Accent & intonation
- Acoustic correlates of stress
[86%] Dutch > Phonology > Accent & intonation
- Stem allomorphy
[85%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonology-morphology interface > Allomorphy
- Phonotactics at the word level
[85%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonotactics
- Diminutive allomorphy
[85%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonology-morphology interface > Allomorphy
- Phonological evidence for cliticization
[90%] Frisian > Phonology > Clitics
- Orthography
[89%] Frisian > Phonology > Orthography of Frisian
- The phonological domain of Final Devoicing
[89%] Frisian > Phonology > Phonological Processes > Final devoicing
- Cliticization
[88%] Frisian > Phonology > Clitics
- /d/-insertion in the sequences /nər/, /lər/, and /rər/
[88%] Frisian > Phonology > Phonological Processes
- The phonotactics of Afrikaans
[85%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonotactics
- Nasalization
[84%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonological Processes > Vowel related processes
- Diminutive formation
[82%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonological Processes > Phonology-morphology interface
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
[82%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Word stress
- Homorganic glide insertion
[82%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonological Processes
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- Case - the partitive construction
[87%] Dutch > Morphology > Inflection > Nouns > Case
- -ing
[86%] Dutch > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Nouns > Nominal suffixes
- Particle verbs
[86%] Dutch > Morphology > Word formation > Compounding
- Conversion
[86%] Dutch > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation
- Adjectival inflection
[86%] Dutch > Morphology > Inflection
- Strong and other irregular verbs
[91%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
- Weak verbs
[90%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
- General categories
[90%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
- -DIM (diminutive)
[90%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Nominal suffixes > Noun as base
- -k
[89%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Verbal suffixes > Noun as base
- Prefixation
[85%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Affixation
[84%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
[83%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Inputs and input restrictions
[82%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Pseudo-participles
[81%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- 1.2.4. Intransitive adpositions
[91%] Dutch > Syntax > Adpositions and adpositional phrases > 1 Characteristics and classification > 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 2.2.3. Resultative constructions
[91%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure > 2.2. Complementives (secondary predicates)
- 2.2.3.1. Agentive er-nominalizations
[91%] Dutch > Syntax > Nouns and Noun Phrases > 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation > 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements > 2.2.3. Deverbal nouns
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
[91%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 1.3.1.4. Ge-nominalization
[90%] Dutch > Syntax > Nouns and Noun Phrases > 1 Characterization and classification > 1.3. Derivation of nouns > 1.3.1. Deverbal nouns
- Verbs and Verb Phrases in Frisian
[89%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Combining with to-infinitives
[87%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Predication and noun incorporation > Copulas
- The third construction
[87%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > To-infinitival clauses > Verbal to-infinitives
- The empty verb hinnegean 'go' selects an adjunct IPI
[86%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo > Adjunct IPI-constructions
- The adverb of manner & degree sa 'so' and negation
[86%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Negation
- Mood
[89%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Characterization and classification
- Finite declarative complement clauses: construction forms
[88%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Complement clauses > Finite declarative complement clauses
- Finite interrogative complement clauses: syntactic distribution
[87%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Complement clauses > Finite interrogative complement clauses
- Verb Phrase Introduction
[87%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Characterization and classification
- Equative
[87%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Adjective Phrases > Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
