1 Introduction

Dutch (change-of-)location verbs display mixed transitivity properties.1 Consider the verb vallen ‘fall’. By itself, this verb is unaccusative: it disallows personal passivization and selects the auxiliary zijn ‘be’, not hebben ‘have’, in the perfect (Hoekstra & Mulder 1990; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995). Yet derivatives such as binnen+vallen ‘invade’, aan+vallen ‘attack’, and over+vallen ‘raid’ license direct objects and form personal passives; however, only overvallen obligatorily selects hebben in the perfect. Other (change-of-)location verbs that take particles and/or full PPs as complements show similar behavior.2

Our goal is to reconcile these contradictory properties by relying on the distinct functions of v and Voice, thereby revisiting core issues of argument structure.

Starting with our basic assumptions, we adopt Distributed Morphology’s principle that lexical items are underspecified roots interpreted by their syntactic context. Accordingly, verbs consist of acategorial roots embedded in syntactic structures which determine their behavior (e.g., Harley 2013; 2017). Various properties emerge from the functional heads dominating the root; we speak of unaccusativity, telicity, or dynamicity as ‘verbal’ characteristics simply for brevity.

We recognize the functional categories v and Voice (Pylkkänen 2008; Harley 2013, i.a.). The Dutch data challenges both a bundled approach to vP/VoiceP and a split approach whereby both vP and VoiceP are always simultaneously present. We build upon the proposal that some structures have both transitive vP and VoiceP, while others only have VoiceP (Burukina & Polinsky 2024; 2025). This approach captures the similarities and differences between ‘fully transitive’ verbs (containing both projections) and ‘partially transitive’ verbs (containing only VoiceP), including patterns of auxiliary selection and the (in)ability to form subject-oriented passive participles.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 presents the transitivity properties of the Dutch verbs in question. Section 3 outlines our proposal: not all (change-of-)location verbs are structured identically, the core difference being the presence or absence of vP. Section 4 demonstrates how this accounts for auxiliary selection and participial formation. Section 5 discusses agentivity, showing it does not obligatorily follow from syntactic structure.

2 Transitivity properties of Dutch verbs denoting (change-of-)location

The simplex Dutch motion verb vallen ‘fall’ is unaccusative. It selects zijn ‘be’ in the perfect, and its past participle can be used as a prenominal attributive modifier of its subject (Hoekstra 1984; Broekhuis et al. 2015).

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. de
    2. the
    1. bomen
    2. trees
    1. {zijn/
    2. are
    1. *hebben}
    2.   have
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. ‘The trees have fallen.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. de
    2. the
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. bomen
    2. trees
    1. ‘the fallen trees’

In the presence of certain prepositional elements, such as the particles binnen ‘inside’, aan ‘on’, or over ‘over’, vallen is used transitively. Similar to the causative vellen ‘fell’ (2d, 3b),3 it licenses a direct object (2a-c) and forms personal passives (3a).

    1. (2)
    1. a.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {zijn/
    2.   are
    1. %hebben}
    2.   have
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. binnengevallen
    2. invaded
    1. ‘They have invaded the country.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {%zijn/
    2.     are
    1. hebben}
    2. have
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. aangevallen
    2. attacked
    1. ‘They have attacked the country.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {*zijn/
    2.     are
    1. hebben}
    2. have
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. overvallen
    2. raided
    1. ‘They have raided the country.’
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {*zijn/
    2.     are
    1. hebben}
    2. have
    1. de
    2. the
    1. boom
    2. tree
    1. geveld
    2. felled
    1. ‘They have felled the tree.’
    1. (3)
    1. a.
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. werd
    2. was
    1. binnengevallen /
    2. invaded
    1. aangevallen /
    2. attacked
    1. overvallen
    2. raided
    1. (door
    2.   by
    1. het
    2. the
    1. leger)
    2. army
    1. ‘The country was invaded/attacked/raided (by the army).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. de
    2. the
    1. boom
    2. tree
    1. werd
    2. was
    1. geveld
    2. felled
    1. (door
    2.   by
    1. de
    2. the
    1. houthakker)
    2. lumberjack
    1. ‘The tree was felled (by the lumberjack).’

As (2a–c) show, derivatives of vallen do not form a homogeneous group regarding auxiliary selection in the perfect. Overvallen patterns with other transitives (including vellen) in combining with hebben.4 Aanvallen strongly favors hebben though zijn is possible for some speakers. Binnenvallen is similar to its base unaccusative vallen in allowing and, for many speakers, preferring zijn.

Consider other examples combining (change-of-)location verbs with a preposition-like particle and/or a full PP:5

    1. (4)
    1. a.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {zijn/
    2.   are
    1. %hebben}
    2.   have
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. in
    2. in
    1. de
    2. the
    1. rede
    2. speech
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. ‘They interrupted him/his speech.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {zijn/
    2.   are
    1. hebben}
    2. have
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. achter
    2. after
    1. de
    2. the
    1. kont
    2. arse
    1. aan
    2. on
    1. gelopen
    2. walked
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {*zijn/
    2.     are
    1. hebben}
    2. have
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. achter
    2. after
    1. de
    2. the
    1. broek
    2. trousers
    1. (aan)
    2. (on)
    1. gezeten
    2. sat
    1. b&c: ‘They ran after him, persecuted him.’
    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1. hij
    2. he
    1. werd
    2. was
    1. in
    2. in
    1. de
    2. the
    1. rede
    2. speech
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. (door
    2.   by
    1. de
    2. the
    1. voorzitter)
    2. chairperson
    1. ‘He was interrupted.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. hij
    2. he
    1. werd
    2. was
    1. achter
    2. after
    1. de
    2. the
    1. kont
    2. arse
    1. aan
    2. on
    1. gelopen
    2. walked
    1. (door
    2. by
    1. de
    2. the
    1. inspecteur)
    2. inspector
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. hij
    2. he
    1. werd
    2. was
    1. achter
    2. after
    1. de
    2. the
    1. broek
    2. trousers
    1. (aan)
    2. (on)
    1. gezeten
    2. sat
    1. (door
    2. by
    1. de
    2. the
    1. politie)
    2. police
    1. b&c: ‘He got run after, persecuted.’

Examples (2a) and (4a) feature transitive versions of unaccusative verbs that preserve certain properties of their intransitive counterpart—specifically, their auxiliary selection patterns. By contrast, (2c) and (4c) contain ‘fully transitive’ verbs. The verbs in (2b) and (4b) fall between these extremes, showing more flexible properties.

These patterns are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Transitivity properties of Dutch verbs.

vallen
‘fall’ 		binnenvallen
‘invade’ 		aanvallen
‘attack’ 		overvallen
‘raid’ 		vellen
‘fell’
Direct object * ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Personal passivization * ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Auxiliary in the perfect ‘be’ ‘be’/%‘have’ ‘have’/%‘be’ ‘have’ ‘have’
Agentive modifiers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Subject-oriented past-participial adnominal modifiers ✓ ✓ % * *

The Dutch data presents a challenge: how can the grammar transform simplex unaccusatives into transitive, passivizable verbs while preserving some key properties of unaccusativity? We offer an explanation in the next section.

3 The proposal: Voice with and without v*

3.1 Deriving unaccusatives

(Change-of-)location unaccusatives have the structure shown in (6): a PP in the complement position of the verb is predicated of a Theme merged in the specifier position of the VP (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993).

    1. (6)
    1. [VP Theme=they [V’ V=fall [PP P=on [DP Loc=floor]]]]

In this configuration, the basic positional or change-of-location verb (e.g., stand, sit, go, fall) is essentially a copular verb (Hoekstra & Mulder 1990). Its primary role is to relate the locative PP and the subject (Theme), breaking the symmetry between the two. The Theme gets its role from the PP predicate inside the VP.

As mentioned in section 1, roots are acategorial, combining with a categorizing functional head in syntax. Categorization is not tied one-to-one to a specific functional head (e.g., v) but is performed by whichever functional head bearing a categorial feature is closest to the root.6 This approach both explains the verbal properties of structures lacking vP (section 3.3) and eliminates the need for an otherwise unmotivated special unaccusative v.

3.2 Locations and External Possessors

The structure for complex verbs builds directly on (6). In the transitive examples from section 2, the direct-object DP is the External Possessor (ExPoss) of a (possibly silent) location within the predicate PP. The subject remains the Theme, as in (6). The structure of the VP core for dyadic change-of-location predicates is outlined in (7) and will be revised in section 3.3 when we clarify the status of the FP.

    1. (7)
    1. [FP Theme=they … [VP ExPossi=country [V’ V=fall [PP P=in [DP eci Loc]]]]]

This structure is fully realized in the idiomatic examples in (4); we repeat (4b) in (8).7 The PP headed by achter in the verb’s complement is the predicate of the ExPoss hem. The complement of P (de kont in (8)) is an inalienably possessed expression denoting a part of a whole that contains a predicate variable (ec), representing its understood possessor. The PP is first predicated of the ExPoss, which partially saturates the predication structure by being linked to the predicate variable (Williams 1980).8 However, the locative PP predicate is not fully saturated thereby it still requires a Theme (in (8), that Theme is ze). The required Theme is introduced in the specifier of a higher projection (FP), fully saturating the predicate at a distance.9

    1. (8)
    1. a.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. {zijn/
    2. are
    1. hebben}
    2. have
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. achter
    2. after
    1. de
    2. the
    1. kont
    2. arse
    1. aan
    2. on
    1. gelopen
    2. walked
    1. ‘They persecuted him.’ (lit.: walked after the arse)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [FP Theme=they … [VP ExPossi=him [V’ V=walk [PP P=after [DP the eci arse]]]]]

Other transitive examples from section 2 also follow the structure in (7). For example, ze zijn het land binnengevallen ‘they have invaded the country’ literally means ‘they have fallen into the country’s inner space’: binnen is a complex element composed of the preposition bij ‘by, at, near’ and a noun denoting the inner self (cf. present-day Dutch je binnenste ‘your inner self’); see also Corver (2021) analyzing binnen as a composite structure. With binnenvallen, the complement of the locative P in (7) is spelled out as part of binnen. In other examples in (2), the PP is only partially realized, as the particle aan or over.

3.3 Deriving transitives

All complex verbs discussed in this paper take a direct object and allow passivization. This indicates that their syntax features a projection of VoiceTV, which licenses the accusative object and can alternate with VoicePASS. However, as shown in (2) and (4), the examples differ regarding auxiliary selection: hebben ‘have’ (typical of transitives) vs. zijn ‘be’ (typical of unaccusatives).

To capture this variation, we adopt a split approach to VoiceP–v*P (cf. Pylkkänen 2008; Harley 2013; 2017).10 We argue that v* and Voice have complementary but non-overlapping functions (Burukina & Polinsky 2024; 2025): only v* introduces thematic relations, while Voice is dedicated to syntactic licensing of arguments. This functional partition predicts that Voice should appear only when indispensable—when derivations would otherwise fail to converge or produce interpretable LF representations. Specifically, transitive v* introduces an Agent relation but cannot itself license a syntactic argument to saturate this relation (Burukina & Polinsky 2024; 2025). This is where Voice becomes necessary: VoiceTV licenses an Agent by requiring a DP in its specifier position, while VoicePASS licenses the Agent by existentially closing the external-argument variable. The selectional properties of v*, VoiceTV, and VoicePASS are:11

    1. (9)
    1. v*: requires a complement of category V
    2. VoiceTV: requires a complement of category V, a specifier of category N, and can assign accusative case to license a direct object
    3. VoicePass: requires a complement of category V and existentially closes an argument variable

To account for the inconsistent transitivity properties of the Dutch verbs, we distinguish between:

    1. (10)
    1. a.
    1. ‘partially transitive’ structures that only have VoiceP (e.g., binnenvallen)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ‘fully transitive’ structures that have both v*P and VoiceP (e.g., overvallen)

Apart from licensing a direct object (thanks to VoiceTV), ‘partially transitive’ complex verbs maintain properties associated with unaccusatives due to the lack of v*, as shown in (11).

    1. (11)
    1. a.
    1. ze
    2. theyTheme
    1. zijn
    2. are
    1. [het land]
    2. [the country]ExPoss
    1. binnengevallen
    2. inside.fallen
    1. ‘They have invaded the country.’
    1.  
    1. b.

The core of (11) is a VP with a PP predicated of an ExPoss. As discussed in 3.2, this predication relationship arises because the complement of P contains a predicate variable (ec)—a silent possessor inside an inalienably-possessed nominal phrase. The PP is not fully saturated and requires a Figure realized as Theme. VoiceTV is then added to introduce a DP that receives its thematic role (Theme) from the PP predicate; without VoiceTV, the structure would not be interpretable at LF.

In contrast, overvallen and other ‘fully transitive’ complex verbs contain both v*P and VoiceP:

    1. (12)
    1. a.
    1. ze
    2. theyAgent+Theme
    1. hebben
    2. have
    1. [het land]
    2. [the country]ExPoss
    1. overvallen
    2. over.fallen
    1. ‘They have raided the country.’
    1.  
    1. b.

The core of (12) is identical to (11), containing a PP predicate and an ExPoss combined with a light V. However, ‘fully transitive’ verbs contain an additional layer: v*P. Here, v* introduces a new thematic relation (Agent). VoiceTV is then merged and projects a DP in its specifier position. The merger of DP in spec,VoiceP saturates both the VP and v*P. As a result, the DP in spec,VoiceP simultaneously has Theme and Agent properties. Feature-based approaches to thematic roles support such combinations by decomposing roles into combinable features rather than treating them as atomic units. Empirically, this finds support in Tyler (2023), who analyzes cases where a single external argument saturates both Cause and Agent roles.

In both (11) and (12), the Theme—which serves as the subject of predication for the locative PP—becomes the structural subject, as is typical of unaccusatives. If correct, this provides further evidence that unaccusativity is not homogeneous (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995) and that unaccusative properties may have different structural origins. The ExPoss merged within the VP surfaces as a direct object, receiving accusative case from VoiceTV. In the passive, the ExPoss undergoes movement to the subject position, spec,TP/InflP, as in (3) and (5).

4 Correlated properties

We now consider two properties sensitive to v*’s presence: auxiliary selection and use of the past participle as a prenominal attributive modifier.

The most distinctive property of ‘partially transitive’ verbs, such as binnenvallen ‘invade’, is their selection of zijn ‘be’ in the perfect, which sets them apart from ‘fully transitive’ complex verbs.12 Our analysis captures this contrast effectively.

In Dutch, selection of zijn in the perfect is governed by three factors: (a) dynamicity of the base verb, (b) telicity of the VP, and, as formulated traditionally, (c) absence of an external argument/transitivity (Hoekstra & Mulder 1990; also, Zaenen 1993).

All events denoted by the positional and change-of-location verbs illustrated in section 2 qualify as dynamic. Vallen ‘fall’ is unaccusative and denotes a telic event, allowing it to combine with zijn. In contrast, overvallen ‘raid’ is transitive and atelic, combining only with hebben. Binnenvallen and aanvallen present a more complex picture. Unlike overvallen, the transitive binnenvallen for many speakers requires zijn-selection, suggesting that telicity plays a crucial role, with the subject reaching a terminal point. However, this would incorrectly predict that aanvallen, which denotes an atelic event, should require hebben, just like overvallen. While aanvallen does combine with hebben, some speakers also allow zijn for this verb. This means telicity alone cannot be decisive, as it fails to capture the subtle differences between these verbs. Similarly, analyzing binnenvallen, overvallen, and aanvallen as sharing the same transitive structure does not adequately distinguish them.

Our approach reformulates condition (c) above in terms of the absence/presence of v*. With vallen and binnenvallen, there is no v* (hence zijn-selection). With aanvallen, v* may be present (allowing hebben-selection), but this verb can also appear without v*, alternating between two structural configurations in (11b) and (12b), hence, either zijn- or hebben-selection. The idiomatic expressions in (4) follow the same patterns.

An aspectual auxiliary, introduced above VoiceP, is thus sensitive to two factors: the presence/absence of v* and the predicate’s telicity. Both affect the combination of V with a particular aspectual head as V undergoes head raising to v*/Voice.13

The auxiliary selection patterns correlate with another important property—distribution of participles. Unlike unergatives, Dutch unaccusative verbs allow their past participles to modify their logical subject—a key diagnostic of unaccusativity, illustrated in (13):

    1. (13)
    1. a.
    1.   de
    2.   the
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. bomen
    2. trees
    1.   ‘the fallen trees’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *de
    2.   the
    1. gesprongen
    2. jumped
    1. man
    2. man

Past participles formed from all complex transitive verbs can modify the logical object. However, when it comes to modifying the logical subject, only ‘be’ selectors—such as binnenvallen, aanvallen, and the idiomatic (in de rede) vallen—permit prenominal attributive use:

    1. (14)
    1. het
    2. the
    1. (ons
    2.   our
    1. land)
    2. country
    1. binnengevallen /
    2. inside.fallen
    1. %aangevallen /
    2.   on.fallen
    1. *overvallen
    2.   over.fallen
    1. leger
    2. army
    1. ‘the army that invaded/attacked (our country)’
    2. Intended, impossible: ‘the army that raided our country’
    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1.   de
    2.   the
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. in
    2. in
    1. de
    2. the
    1. rede
    2. speech
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. persoon
    2. person
    1.   ‘the person who interrupted him’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *de
    2.   the
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. achter
    2. after
    1. de
    2. the
    1. broek
    2. trousers
    1. gezeten
    2. sat
    1. persoon
    2. person
    1.   Intended: ‘the person who persecuted him’

The details of Dutch past-participial grammar lie beyond this paper’s scope; for an overview, see Sleeman (2011). For our purposes, what matters is that the acceptability of some predicates in (14) and (15) cannot be reconciled with analyzing these verbs as ‘fully transitive’. Past participles of regular transitive verbs cannot function as attributive modifiers of their subjects. Consider causative vellen ‘fell’: while de gevelde bomen ‘the felled trees’ (with the participle modifying the object) is perfect, *de (bomen) gevelde houthakker is ungrammatical when intended to mean ‘the lumberjack that felled trees’ (with the participle modifying the logical subject).

Our approach to argument structure offers a straightforward way to accommodate the contrast in (14)–(15). As discussed in section 3, overvallen, but not binnenvallen or aanvallen, obligatorily contains v*P. It is v*’s presence that leads to the loss of logical-subject modification.14 A uniform approach whereby all transitives contain either both v*P and VoiceP or a bundled vP/VoiceP would struggle to account for the contrast presented here.

To summarize, auxiliary selection and participle distribution can be successfully explained by the presence/absence of v* in the structure.15 In contrast, alternative analyses whereby all transitive verbs have identical thematic domain size and structure cannot accommodate the relevant data in its entirety.

5 Implications for Agentivity

All transitive verbs in section 2 are compatible with agent-oriented modifiers, as illustrated in (16) with expres ‘purposely’:

    1. (16)
    1. a.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. zijn
    2. are
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. expres
    2. purposely
    1. binnengevallen
    2. invaded
    1. ‘They invaded the country on purpose.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. hebben
    2. have
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. expres
    2. purposely
    1. overvallen
    2. raided
    1. ‘They raided the country on purpose.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. hebben
    2. have
    1. de
    2. the
    1. bomen
    2. trees
    1. expres
    2. purposely
    1. geveld
    2. felled
    1. ‘They felled the trees on purpose.’

Agentive modifiers such as expres are permitted even with intransitive verbs exhibiting all the hallmarks of unaccusativity, such as vallen,16 hence such adverbs cannot diagnose the presence of an Agent in syntax:

    1. (17)
    1. de
    2. the
    1. man
    2. man
    1. {is/
    2.   is
    1. *heeft}
    2.   has
    1. expres /
    2. purposely
    1. opzettelijk/
    2. deliberately
    1. met
    2. with
    1. opzet
    2. purpose
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. ‘The man fell on purpose.’

Similarly, agentive verbs that are normally unergative typically exhibit unaccusative properties when combined with a directional PP marking the endpoint of an event. In (18), the presence of uit het raam ‘out the window’ causes springen ‘jump’ to shift from selecting hebben to selecting zijn, and its participle can now modify the logical subject. But even as an unaccusative, springen is still compatible with agentive modifiers, (18b).

    1. (18)
    1. a.
    1. de
    2. the
    1. man
    2. man
    1. {is/
    2.   is
    1. *heeft}
    2.   has
    1. opzettelijk
    2. deliberately
    1. uit
    2. out
    1. het
    2. the
    1. raam
    2. window
    1. gesprongen
    2. jumped
    1. ‘The man deliberately jumped out the window.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. de
    2. the
    1. opzettelijk
    2. deliberately
    1. uit
    2. out
    1. het
    2. the
    1. raam
    2. window
    1. gesprongen
    2. jumped
    1. man
    2. man
    1. ‘the man who jumped out the window on purpose’

These empirical facts argue against full isomorphism between syntax and semantics. The agentive interpretation associated with expres does not correlate one-to-one with the presence of v* (see also Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 2011 on the lack of correlation between agentive adverbials and syntactic projection of an Agent). When both v* and Voice are present in syntax, an Agent is structurally licensed. However, agentivity can also emerge without v*, as a pragmatic inference (see Williams 2015 for inferential thematic properties); such inference accounts for the acceptability of ‘purposely’/‘deliberately’ in (16a), (17), and (18), which lack v* to assign an Agent role.

In the absence of structural licensing, pragmatically inferred agentivity can easily be suppressed by adding a modifier such as onbewust ‘unknowingly’. Such modifiers are compatible with binnenvallen and aanvallen (19a,b) but marginal at best with overvallen (19c), where the logical subject receives a combined Agent+Theme role, the Agent part structurally licensed by v*.

    1. (19)
    1. a.
    1.     ze
    2.     they
    1. zijn
    2. are
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. onbewust
    2. unknowingly
    1. binnengevallen
    2. invaded
    1.     ‘They invaded the country unknowingly.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     ze
    2.     they
    1. hebben/
    2. have
    1. %zijn
    2.   are
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. onbewust
    2. unknowingly
    1. aangevallen
    2. attacked
    1.     ‘They attacked the country unknowingly.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. ??ze
    2.     they
    1. hebben
    2. have
    1. het
    2. the
    1. land
    2. country
    1. onbewust
    2. unknowingly
    1. overvallen
    2. raided

Likewise, in the absence of v*, pragmatically inferred agentive interpretation can be cancelled:

    1. (20)
    1. ze
    2. they
    1. zijn/
    2. are
    1. %hebben
    2.   have
    1. hem
    2. him
    1. in
    2. in
    1. de
    2. the
    1. rede
    2. speech
    1. gevallen
    2. fallen
    1. maar
    2. but
    1. dat
    2. that
    1. was
    2. was
    1. niet
    2. not
    1. hun
    2. their
    1. bedoeling
    2. intention
    1. ‘They interrupted him but that was not their intention.’

6 Concluding remarks

We have examined Dutch (change-of-)location verbs whose mixed transitive-unaccusative properties challenge existing approaches to argument structure syntax. Complex predicates such as aanvallen ‘attack’, binnenvallen ‘invade’, and overvallen ‘raid’—all built on the simplex unaccusative vallen ‘fall’—exhibit contradictory transitivity properties that neither bundled approaches (conflating vP and VoiceP) nor split approaches (assuming both projections are always present) can fully account for.

We propose that understanding these mixed properties requires recognizing structural variation within the verbal domain: some constructions contain both vP and VoiceP, while others contain only VoiceP. Correspondingly, certain complex verbs behave as ‘fully transitive’, while others show only ‘partial’ transitivity. The structural distinction between VoiceP + v*P and VoiceP alone explains the observed properties, including auxiliary selection patterns and the distribution of subject-oriented participles.

An alternative approach would argue that all complex verbs are structurally uniform, with both vP and VoiceP always present, and that variation arises from different prepositional combinations. However, this approach fails to explain why auxiliary selection differs even with identical P-elements, as shown by (4b) and (4c) above.

Our analysis further captures the auxiliary selection facts and extends to other languages (cf. English overrun, overcome). It supports a flexible view where functional projections’ presence varies systematically, offering new insights into the architecture of the verbal domain.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the audiences at the 50th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, the 34th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, and the Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, where parts of this project were presented. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, whose feedback substantially improved the focus of this paper, as well as the Editor for their help with the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Notes

  1. Judgments on the Dutch data presented in this paper are from the second author and were corroborated in informal consultations with native-speaker colleagues and by Google searches. [^]
  2. Broekhuis et al. (2015: 237) mention a similar yet not identical pattern: “verbs like bijspringen ‘to help out’, ontkomen ‘to escape’ … all take an object although they form their perfect tense with zijn. This is not really surprising given that these verbs all take a dative object in German”. Invoking dative case assignment to the object is not a viable analysis for the cases discussed here. [^]
  3. Lexical causativization of vallen via Ablaut is not generally available, and the use of the causative vellen is restricted to lumberjacks, wars, illnesses, or courts of law. The complex constructions discussed in this paper pattern with vallen rather than vellen: they too resist lexical causativization. [^]
  4. When used to mean ‘take by surprise’, overvallen exceptionally combines with zijn ‘be’, fitting the structure in (11). [^]
  5. Many other (change-of-)location and several change-of-state verbs exhibit similar behavior (i); all these verbs pattern with transitives in forming personal passives (ii).
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1. de
      2. the
      1. tomaten
      2. tomatoes
      1. {zijn/
      2.   are
      1. *hebben}
      2.   have
      1. flink
      2. quite
      1. gegroeid
      2. grown
      1. ‘The tomatoes have grown considerably.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. het
      2. the
      1. bedrijf
      2. company
      1. {is/
      2.   is
      1. *heeft}
      2.   has
      1. zijn
      2. its
      1. panden
      2. premises
      1. ontgroeid
      2. outgrown
      1. ‘The company has outgrown its premises.’
      1.  
      1. c.
      1. de
      2. the
      1. klimop
      2. ivy
      1. {*is/
      2.     is
      1. heeft}
      2. has
      1. alle
      2. all
      1. muren
      2. walls
      1. begroeid
      2. be.grown
      1. ‘The ivy has covered all the walls.’
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. de
      2. the
      1. panden
      2. premises
      1. werden
      2. were
      1. al gauw
      2. soon
      1. ontgroeid
      2. outgrown
      1. ‘They quickly outgrew the premises.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. de
      2. the
      1. muren
      2. walls
      1. werden
      2. were
      1. begroeid
      2. be.grown
      1. door
      2. by
      1. klimop
      2. ivy
      1. ‘The walls were overgrown with ivy.’
    [^]
  6. In (6), the predicate is a PP, while V is responsible for categorization. In the case of a verbal predicate with a lexical root, either v or Voice can serve as a categorizer, whichever is merged closer to the root. [^]
  7. What makes the idiom in (8) even richer than the other cases mentioned is the fact that lopen ‘walk’, an unaccusative verb, combines both with a particle, aan, and an overt PP. We assume that the particle (which can freely be added to the example in (4c) as well) selects the achter-PP and adds an additional layer of syntactic structure immediately outside the PP. For the syntax of constructions with both particles and predicative PPs, see Den Dikken (1995). Since this does not affect our analysis, we do not discuss particles below. [^]
  8. ExPoss binds the predicate variable (ec in (7)). This variable can alternate with an overt possessive pronoun inside the externally possessed Locative:
      1. (i)
      1. ze
      2. they
      1. zijn/hebben
      2. are/have
      1. hem
      2. him
      1. achter
      2. after
      1. z’n
      2. his
      1. kont
      2. arse
      1. aan
      2. on
      1. gelopen
      2. walked
      1. ‘They persecuted him.’ (lit.: walked after his arse)
    [^]
  9. Myler (2016) calls such saturation-at-a-distance ‘delayed gratification’; cf. also Hale & Keyser (1993). In (6) and (7), V does not contribute lexical meaning. [^]
  10. v* stands for the transitive v (Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4 and subsequent work). [^]
  11. For a detailed discussion of this approach, see Burukina & Polinsky (2024; 2025). [^]
  12. Note that stative positional verbs, even when they exhibit unaccusative syntax, select hebben ‘have’ because of the stativity and atelicity of the event:
      1. (i)
      1. ze
      2. they
      1. {*zijn/
      2.     are
      1. hebben}
      2. have
      1. jarenlang
      2. years.long
      1. op
      2. on
      1. het
      2. the
      1. toneel
      2. stage
      1. gestaan
      2. stood
      1. ‘They have stood on stage for years.’
    [^]
  13. For this analysis, we assume a C-selectional relationship between Asp and v*. If instead this relationship turns out to be conditioned allomorphy, our analysis—if correct—would challenge prominent restrictions on allomorphy proposed in the literature. Under our structure, v* is neither linearly adjacent to Asp (contra Embick 2010) nor necessarily contained within the same complex head (contra Choi & Harley 2019). Though this raises interesting questions about locality, we set that theoretical issue aside here, as it is not central to our main argument. [^]
  14. An alternative explanation according to which subject-modifying participles are necessarily smaller than v*Ps is untenable: reduced to a VP, both ‘partially transitive’ and ‘fully transitive’ predicates still contain a Theme variable (the argument of a preposition in (6)/(7)), and no difference is expected between the two groups in this respect, contrary to fact. [^]
  15. The presence/absence of a v*P may be further linked to other morphosyntactic properties of the verbs under consideration. For instance, within the group of vallen-derivatives, the ‘fully transitive’ overvallen (which selects hebben) does not allow for the particle to separate from its stem, blocks ge-insertion in participles, and triggers stress shift. This is in contrast to the ‘partially transitive’ zijn-selector binnenvallen: *het leger valt het land over vs. het leger valt het land binnen; over(*ge)vallen vs. binnen*(ge)vallen; bínnenvallen vs. overvállen. The stress shift and particle incorporation (which prevents ge- insertion) may both signal the presence of v*P. Deverbal nominals support this analysis: they arguably lack v*P and correspondingly do not trigger stress shift, as shown by een óverval/*overvál ‘a raid’ which keeps stress on the particle. However, the correlation between inseparability/stress shift and the distribution of v* does not hold for all Dutch verbs and we leave its full examination for future work. [^]
  16. See also Folli & Harley (2007: 211) on object-experiencer verbs that require intentional arguments which are not external arguments/Agents. [^]

References

Broekhuis, Hans & Corver, Norbert & Vos, Riet. 2015. The syntax of Dutch: Verbs and verb phrases Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9789048524822

Burukina, Irina & Polinsky, Maria. 2024. On the inventory of v and Voice. In Phadnis, Shaunak & Spellerberg, Carla & Wilkinson, Brynne (eds.), NELS 54: Proceedings of the fifty-fourth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 117–126. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Burukina, Irina & Polinsky, Maria. 2025. The antipassive and verbal projections. Journal of Linguistics 61. 689–722. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226725000064

Choi, Jiyoung & Harley, Heidi. 2019. Locality domains and morphological rules: Phases, heads, node-sprouting and suppletion in Korean honorification. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37. 1319–1365. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-09438-3

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Corver, Norbert. 2021. Adverbial -s as last resort. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40(4). 1023–1073. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09527-w

Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195091342.001.0001

Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001

Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2). 197–238. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197

Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125. 34–57. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010

Harley, Heidi. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In D’Alessandro, Roberta & Franco, Irene & Gallego, Angél J. (eds.), The verbal domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0001

Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in Government-Binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783112327241

Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1

Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.003.0004

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001

Rooryck, Johan & Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2011. Dissolving binding theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.001.0001

Sleeman, Petra. 2011. Verbal and adjectival participles: Position and internal structure. Lingua 121(10). 1569–1587. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.001

Tyler, Matthew. 2023. A uniform syntax for non-valency-increasing causatives. Ms.

Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139042864

Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178153

Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 129–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_9