Nouns and Noun Phrases - University of Macau Library

746 Syntax of Dutch: nouns and noun phrases
that enter inalienable possession constructions like those in (193) and (194) are
generally denominal and can be paraphrased by means of the light verb geven
followed by an indefinite noun phrase. Some examples are given in (195); see
Section 5.1.4.1, sub III, for a discussion of the semantic difference between the
denominal and the light verb construction.
(195) a. bijten ‘to bite’ ≈ een beet geven ‘to give a bite’
b. kloppen ‘to knock’ ≈ een klop(je) geven ‘to give a (gentle) blow’
c. kussen ‘to kiss’ ≈ een kus geven ‘to give a kiss’
d. slaan ‘to blow’ ≈ een slag geven ‘to give a blow’
e. steken ‘to sting’ ≈ een steek geven ‘to give a sting’
f. trappen ‘to kick’ ≈ een trap geven ‘to give a kick’
This implies that the examples in (193a) and (194a) are more or less equivalent to
those in (196), in which the inalienable possessor does function as indirect object.
Now if we assume that the semantically light verb geven has a phonetically empty
counterpart that triggers so-called incorporation of the direct object, by which the
denominal verbs in (195) are derived, we may maintain that the inalienable
possessors in (193a) and (194a) actually have the same °thematic role as the indirect
objects in (196).
(196) a. De hond gaf Peteri een beet in heti been.
the dog gave Peter a bite in the leg
b. Marie gaf Peteri een kus op heti voorhoofd.
Marie gave Peter a kiss on the forehead
The suggested analysis for the problematic examples in (193a) and (194a) makes it
possible to maintain the claim that inalienable possessors must be (underlying)
goals. Of course, we still have to solve the problem that regular pasivization is
possible, but semi-passivization is not. Broekhuis et al. (1996) claim that this is due
to the fact that these examples are actually ambiguous between a structure with a
dative and a structure with an accusative object; they substantiate this by referring
to the German examples in (197), in which the possessor may appear either as a
dative or an accusative DP.
(197) a. Der Hund hat mir/mich ins Bein gebissen.
the dog has medat./meacc in.the leg bitten
b. Peter hat ihr/sie auf den Mund geküβt.
Peter has herdat/heracc on the mouth kissed
This still does not solve the entire problem given that there does not seem to be any
discernable meaning difference between the two alternatives. There may be several
ways to solve this problem, but we will leave this to future research and refer the
reader to Broekhuis et al. (1996: fn.3) for a suggestion.
D. Located argument
The PPs in the locational constructions discussed above are predicative in the sense
that they take an argument and assign it a location with respect to their complement,
the possessee. This located argument is generally the direct object, but we have seen