Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.2.3.1.Agentive er-nominalizations

quickinfo

This section discusses complementation of agentive er-nouns. Subsection I will first show that the internal arguments of the input verb must be realized as a postnominal PP in the projection of the derived er-noun, and Subsection II will show by means of the four adjunct/complement tests discussed in Section 2.2.1 that these PPs must be seen as arguments of the noun.

I. Complementation
II. Application of the complement/adjunct tests

[+] I. Complementation

This subsection discusses complementation of the most productive forms of agentive er-nominalization given in (162). We restrict ourselves to agentive er-nouns, since we have seen in Section 1.3.1.5, sub III, that non-agentive er-nouns do not inherit the arguments of the input verb, and may therefore be considered lexicalized.

162

Intransitive verb: zwemmer

'swimmer'

Transitive verb: maker

'maker'

Ditransitive verb: verteller

'narrator'

Verb with a prepositional complement: klager

'complainer'

Verb with an optional complementive: schilder

'painter'

[+] A. Er-nominalization of intransitive verbs

The agent argument of the input verb is not realized as a complement of the deverbal noun, but represented by the suffix -er of the noun; the derived verb actually denotes the agent of the input verb. As a result of this, er-nouns derived from intransitive verbs like zwemmen'to swim', do not select any PP-complement.

[+] B. Er-nominalization of transitive verbs

If the er-noun is derived from a transitive verb, the theme argument should be present, either explicitly or implicitly. Thus in the examples in (163), the theme arguments, which are realized as van-PPs, can be left out only if their referents are contextually recoverable.

163

a.		Jan is de maker	van dit kunstwerk.
		Jan is the maker	of this work.of.art

b.		Peter is de organisator	van het toernooi.
		Peter is the organizer	of the tournament

c.		Die ontwikkelaar	van software	is een kennis van mij.
		that developer	of software	is an acquaintance of me

Theme arguments within the nominal domain typically appear postnominally in the form of a van-PP, but +human themes may sometimes also appear prenominally as a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase; see Section 5.2.2 for a detailed discussion of the restrictions on this option. Note in passing that the prenominal position is not available for inherited PP-complements with the thematic role of theme, as shown by the (b)-examples in (164).

164

a.		Hij	heeft	JanTheme	ontdekt.
		he	has	Jan	discovered

a'.		Jans/zijnTheme	ontdekker
		Janʼs/his	discoverer

b.		Wij	geloven	in onze leidersTheme.
		we	believe	in our leaders

b'.	*	hunTheme	gelovers
		their	believers

That the prenominal elements are indeed the theme arguments can also be shown by the fact that they cannot co-occur with a van-PP fulfilling the same function: examples such as (165) only allow a possessive interpretation for Jans and mijn'my'.

165

a.	*	JansTheme	ontdekker	van AmerikaTheme
		Janʼs	discoverer	of America

b.	*	mijnTheme	bewonderaars	van PicassoTheme
		my	admirers	of Picasso

Note that simple person nouns behave in precisely the same manner as er-nouns derived from a transitive verb, provided that the semantic relation between the head noun and its complement is similar to that holding between the verb and its complement. Often these nouns are (near-)synonyms of derived deverbal nouns as is shown for auteur'author' and schrijver'writer' in (166a), and architect'architect' and ontwerper'designer' in (166b).

166

a.		Ik	ken	de auteur/schrijver	van dit boek.
		I	know	the author/writer	of this book

b.		Hij	is de architect/ontwerper	van dat gebouw.
		he	is the architect/designer	of that building

Since the nouns auteur and architect in (166) are not derived, these similarities cannot be accounted for in terms of inheritance: we are simply dealing here with relational nouns. The inherent relation between the noun and its related argument therefore finds its origin in the meaning of the noun itself; cf. Section 2.2.2.

[+] C. Er-nominalization of ditransitive verbs

The examples in (167) show that constructions with ditransitive verbs can normally take two forms: one with the recipient appearing as a noun phrase, which normally precedes the theme, and one with the recipient taking the form of an aan-PP, which generally follows the theme.

167

a.		Peter schenkt	het museumRec	een Van GoghTheme.
		Peter donates	the museum	a Van Gogh

a'.		Peter schenkt	een Van GoghTheme	aan het museumRec.
		Peter donates	a Van Gogh	to the museum

b.	Els	vertelt	haar vriendenRec	sterke verhalenTheme.
	Els	tells	her friends	strong stories
	'Els is telling her friends tall stories.'

b'.		Els vertelt	sterke verhalenTheme	aan haar vriendenRec.
		Els tells	strong stories	to her friends

The theme argument of the corresponding er-noun cannot be expressed prenominally in the form of a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase, but appears as an obligatory postnominal van-PP. This may be related to the fact that the theme of a ditransitive verb is normally inanimate, but even if the theme is +human, as in (168), prenominal realization of the theme is excluded.

168

a.	Peter stelde	Jan aan Marie	voor
	Peter introduced	Jan to Marie	prt.
	'Peter introduces Jan to Marie.'

b.	*	Jans/zijn voorsteller	aan Marie
		Janʼs/his introducer	to Marie

The recipient argument of the er-noun is realized as an aan-PP, and can normally be left out, just like the recipient in the corresponding verbal construction; in fact, constructions with a realized theme feel somewhat heavy, and there is some preference to not realize the recipient.

169

a.		de schenker	van een Van GoghTheme	?(aan het museumRec)
		the contributor	of a Van Gogh	to the museum

b.		de vertelster	van sterke verhalenTheme	?(aan haar vriendenRec)
		the tellerfem	of strong stories	to her friends

Although recipient arguments are typically +human, they never appear as a prenominal genitive noun phrase/possessive pronoun. The following constructions, headed by er-nouns derived from ditransitive verbs, are therefore ungrammatical.

170

a.	*	zijnRec	schenker	(van geldTheme)
		his	contributor	of money

b.	*	zijnRec	vertelster	(van sterke verhalenTheme)
		his	tellerfem	of strong stories

c.	*	hunRec	betaler	van een goed loonTheme
		their	payer	of good wages

A potential problem for the claim that recipient arguments must be realized as aan-PPs is that the noun donateur seems to occur with a recipient expressed by a van-PP or a possessive pronoun: Jan is donateur van onze voetbalclub'Jan is contributor to our football club'; onze donateurs'our contributors'. This may, however, only be apparent given that the van-PP functions rather as an adjunct with the role of possessor. In fact, the relation is one of pseudo-possession: although it is possible to say De club heeft donateurs'The club has contributors', the verb hebben'to have' cannot be replaced by the lexically more specific verb bezitten'to own', which is possible in prototypical cases of possession: Jan heeft/bezit een fiets'Jans has/owns a bike'. This may also explain why the construction does not pass the second adjunct/complement test (*De donateur is van de voetbalvereniging) as occurrence of the van-PP in postcopular predicative position requires a true possessor relation.
For the sake of completeness it needs to be mentioned that, although at first sight the ditransitive verb betalen'to pay' seems to have the same argument structure as other ditransitive verbs, there is a difference with regard to complementation, which also affects the form of the complement of the derived er-noun betaler. First, the examples in (171) show that, as with all (di-)transitive verbs, passivization is possible with the theme being assigned nominative case, as in (171b), and that the theme can be premodified by the past participle, as in (171c).

171

a.		Het bedrijf	betaalt	dit loon	aan de werknemers.
		the company	pays	these wages	to the employees

b.		Dit loon	wordt	(aan) de werknemers	betaald.
		these wages	are	to the employees	paid

c.		het	(aan de werknemers)	betaalde	loon
		the	to the employees	paid	wages

However, the examples in (172) show that, in the absence of the theme dit loon'these wages', it is also possible to promote the recipient to subject in the passive construction and to have the recipient argument premodified by the participle. In other words, the recipient acts as a regular direct object in (172).

172

a.		Het bedrijf	betaalt	de werknemers.
		the company	pays	the employees

b.		De werknemers	worden	betaald.
		the employees	are	paid

c.		de betaalde werknemers
		the paid employees

The constructions in (172) are perfectly acceptable because the implied theme is fully recoverable: even without further context, the missing theme will be interpreted as the employees’ wages. The most likely analysis of the constructions in (171) and (172) is therefore one in which two separate forms of the verb betalen are distinguished. The most common form is that of a ditransitive verb, with a theme and a recipient complement, and with the general meaning of “to pay”, while alongside there is a less frequent monotransitive form, with only a theme complement, and with the more specific meaning of “paying wages”; see Section V3.2.1.3, sub IIC3 for more discussion of this type of verb.
A similar distinction can be discerned with the derived noun betaler'payer' in (173). Example (173a) corresponds in meaning to (171), where the verb is used ditransitively, and the theme and recipient argument are expressed by a van- and an aan-PP, respectively. Example (173b), on the other hand, corresponds in meaning to (172), where the (apparent) recipient acts as the direct object of the verb, and correspondingly the recipient argument must appear in the form of a van-PP; the aan-PP is not acceptable in this example.

173

a.		de betaler	van het loon	(aan de werknemers)
		the payer	of the wages	to the employees

b.		de betaler	van/*aan de werknemers
		the payer	of/to the employees

The verb voeren'to feed' behaves in a similar fashion as betalen. Accordingly, both the theme and the recipient of the verb can appear in the form of a van-PP in the corresponding er-nominalization, as shown in the primed examples in (174).

174

a.		Jan voert	brood	aan de eendjes.
		Jan feeds	bread	to the ducklings

a'.		de voerder	van het brood
		the feeder	of the ducklings

b.		Jan voert de eendjes.
		Jan feed the ducklings

b'.		de voerder	van/*aan de eendjes
		the feeder	of the ducklings

[+] D. Er-nominalization of verbs selecting a PP-theme

Example (175) provides some examples of er-nouns derived from verbs selecting a PP-theme. Whether or not the presence of the PP is required seems to be determined largely by the behavior of the base verb in this respect: as shown in the primed examples, the verb lijden'to suffer' seems to prefer the presence of a complement, whereas klagen'to complain' can be used very well without one.

175

a.	De lijder	*?(aan pleinvrees)	werd	door een psychiater	behandeld.
	the sufferer	from agoraphobia	was	by a psychiatrist	treated
	'The sufferer from agoraphobia was treated by a psychiatrist.'

a'.	Hij	leed	gisteren	nog	*?(aan pleinvrees).
	he	suffered	yesterday	prt	from agoraphobia
	'He was still suffering from agoraphobia only yesterday.'

b.	De klagers	(over het oponthoud)	werden	beleefd	te woord gestaan.
	the complainers	about the delay	were	politely	answered
	'The complainers about the long delay were answered politely.'

b'.	De reizigers	klagen	steeds	(over	het lange oponthoud).
	the travelers	complain	continuously	about	the long delay
	'The travelers are complaining continuously about the long delay.'

The assumption that the presence of the PP-complement is the result of inheritance and as such part of the argument structure of the derived noun is supported by the examples in (176) and (177), in which the PPs are adjuncts and not complements of the verb. Since the verb schilderen in (176a) is not subcategorized for an instrument-PP, this PP cannot be inherited; example (176b) can therefore only be interpreted as “a painter who does not have any brushes” (in which case the PP is a modifier of the noun), not as “a person who paints without brushes” (where the PP would be an inherited argument).

176

a.		Hij	schildert	zonder kwasten.
		he	paints	without brushes

b.	#	een schilder	zonder kwasten
		a painter	without brushes

Similarly, the PP met de trein'by train' in (177a) is an adjunct and not a PP-complement of the verb reizen'to travel'; as a result, it cannot appear as the complement of the derived noun reiziger'traveler' in (177b) either.

177

a.	Hij	reist	met de trein.
	he	travels	with the train
	'He travels by train.'

b.	*	een reiziger	met de trein
		a traveler	with the train

[+] E. Er-nominalization taking a complementive

Er-nominalization is not possible with constructions involving a complementive. This is illustrated by means of the transitive resultative constructions in example (178). That it is indeed the presence of the predicative adjective that causes the ungrammaticality of the er-noun is clear from the fact that in (178b) the verb in question can be input to er-nominalization if the complementive is not present.

178

a.		Els schildert	de deur	(groen).
		Els paints	the door	green

b.		de schilder	van de deur	*(groen)
		the painter	of the door	green

Example (179) shows that the restriction also applies to intransitive verbs: example (178b) is only acceptable if the predicate is not expressed; the fact that the noun phrase zijn schoenen cannot be expressed either in (178b) is due to the fact that it is not an argument of the verb in (178a), but only semantically licensed as the logical subject of the complementive; see Section V2.2 for a more detailed discussion of verbs taking a complementive.

179

a.	Jan loopt	(zijn schoenen	kapot).
	Jan walks	his shoes	worn.out
	'Jan is wearing his shoes out.'

b.		een loper	*(van zijn schoenen	kapot)
		a walker	of his shoes	worn.out

[+] F. Conclusion

The previous subsections have discussed the inheritance by agentive er-nouns of the argument structure of their input verb. Generally speaking, it turns out that the internal arguments of the input verb become complements of the derived noun; the external (agent) argument is not inherited but denoted by the er-noun itself. This means that, in the case of a transitive base verb, er-nouns have an argument structure with a slot for a theme argument, which is typically realized as a van-PP, or, alternatively, as a possessive pronoun or a genitive noun phrase (with the suffix -s) in prenominal position. If the base verb is ditransitive, the recipient argument is (usually optionally) added as a postnominal aan-PP. PP-themes can also be inherited, in which case the preposition selected by the input verb is also used in the er-nominalization. These findings are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: The form and position of the complements of er-nominalizations

type of input verb	form and position of the complement(s)	examples
Transitive	er-noun + van-PPTheme	de bewonderaar van Marie the admirer of Marie
	NPs/pronounTheme + er-noun	Maries/haar bewonderaar Marieʼs/her admirer
Ditransitive	er-noun + van-PPTheme (+ aan-PPRec)	de gever van het boek (aan de kinderen) the giver of the book to the children
PP-theme	er-noun + PPTheme	de jager op herten the hunter of deer

[+] II. Application of the complement/adjunct tests

The preceding subsection has shown that er-nouns typically combine with PPs that correspond to the arguments of the input verb. However, since in many cases complements and adjuncts are not formally distinguished within the noun phrase, it is conceivable that some of these PPs are adjuncts. This subsection therefore applies the four tests that have been proposed in Section 2.2.1 to distinguish complements and adjuncts within the noun phrase to er-nominalizations. The results of these tests indicate that the PPs in question should be regarded as complements of the noun.

[+] A. Obligatoriness of PP

Generally speaking, er-nouns derived from transitive verbs are normally not interpretable without the addition of the inherited theme argument: in (180) the inf-nouns maker'maker' and bedenker'designer' normally require the presence of a theme complement. The double-cross in the primed examples indicates that the theme arguments can be left out in certain contexts, to which we return below.

180

a.		Jan is de maker	van dit kunstwerk.
		Jan is the maker	of this work.of.art

a'.		Jan is *een/#de maker.
		Jan is a/the maker

b.		Peter is de bedenker	van dit plan.
		Peter is the designer	of this plan

b'.		Peter is *een/#de bedenker.
		Peter is a/the designer

Er-nouns derived from ditransitive verbs inherit both complements of the verb: the noun schenker'donor' in (181) must be related to the theme and the recipient argument in order to be interpretable. Example (181a) shows, however, that just like in the corresponding verbal construction the recipient can often be left implicit. The double-cross in (181b) again indicates that the theme argument can be left out in certain contexts. Example (181c), finally, shows that the theme argument cannot be left unexpressed if the recipient is overtly expressed.

181

a.		Els is de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	(aan onze kerk).
		Els is the donat-or	of this large sum	to our church

b.		Els is *een/#de schenker.
		Els is a/the donat-or

Els is de schenker aan onze kerk.

Where the er-noun is derived from a verb selecting a PP-object, the inherited PP is also obligatory, as illustrated in example (182a&b). An exception is formed by fully lexicalized er-nouns like jager'hunter' in example (182c).

182

a.		Lijders	*(aan pleinvrees)	moeten	worden	behandeld.
		sufferers	from agoraphobia	must	be	treated

b.	Klagers	*(over het lange oponthoud)	werden	vriendelijk	behandeld.
	complainers	about the long delay	were	politely	treated
	'Complainers about the long delay were treated politely.'

c.	De jagers	(op groot wild)	werden	door de politie	gearresteerd.
	the hunters	on big game	were	by the police	arrested
	'The hunters (of big game) were arrested by the police.'

Although the inherited argument must normally be overtly expressed by means of a PP, there are a number of contexts in which the PP-complement can (or even must) be left out. In what follows each of these situations will be briefly discussed.

[+] 1. Recoverability from the context

The absence of the argument can be the result of ellipsis. This is possible whenever the referent of the argument can be assumed to be recoverable from the linguistic or non-linguistic context. For example, in (183a) the theme argument of the er-noun maker can be recovered from the preceding sentence and in example (184a) leaving out the van-PP will be acceptable if the speaker and the addressee are looking at or discussing a particular painting.

183

a.	Het schilderij	wordt	daar	tentoongesteld.	De maker	zal	aanwezig	zijn.
	the painting	is	there	exhibited	the maker	will	present	be
	'The painting will be exhibited tomorrow. The maker will be present.'

b.		Het toernooi	was een groot succes.	De organisator	was erg in zijn nopjes.
		the tournament	was a big success.	the organizer	was very pleased

c.		Er	is een audioboek van	De avonden;	de verteller	is de schrijver zelf.
		there	is an audio book of	De avonden	the teller	is the writer himself

184

a.	Ken	jij	de maker	(van dat schilderij)?
	know	you	the painter	of that painting
	'Do you know the maker (of that painting)?'

b.		Wie	is de organisator	(van dit toernooi)?
		who	is the organizer	of this tournament

[+] 2. Generic contexts

Deverbal er-nouns can occur without an argument if used generically. In that case, there is no specific entity that functions as the theme: although the presence of a theme is still implied, its nature or identity is deemed irrelevant. In (185a), for instance, it is implied that Jan is a giver of something; no indication is given, however, of what this something might be. Likewise, in (185b), the reference is to “whoever oppresses”; the identity of the oppressed is not relevant in the given context.

185

a.		Jan is meer	een gever	dan een nemer.
		Jan is more	a giver	than a taker

b.		Onderdrukkers	moeten	geboycot	worden.
		oppressors	must	boycotted	be

[+] 3. Habitual contexts

Er-nouns do not take a PP-complement if they are given a habitual interpretation. In this case, the loss of adicity has probably taken place before the application of er-nominalization, that is, it is the base verb rather than the er-noun that has lost its argument. Since in most cases the original, transitive form of the base verb can also be input to the nominalization process, the derived nouns may have to be given two different representations. Examples are verbs like roken'to smoke', drinken'to drink' and eten'to eat', which have both a transitive and a pseudo-intransitive (habitual) form. The transitive verb roken in (186a), for instance, denotes an activity and the deverbal noun roker in (186a') has inherited its theme argument. The pseudo-intransitive verb roken in (186b), however, has the meaning “to be in the habit of smoking” and lacks a(n overtly expressed) theme argument; the deverbal noun roker in (186b') can also be assigned this habitual reading provided that there is no van-PP present.

186

a.		rokenV (Agent, Theme):	Jan rookt altijd sigaren.	transitive
		to smoke	Jan smokes always cigars

a'.		rokerN (Theme):	Jan is een roker van sigaren.
		smoker	Jan is a smoker of cigars

b.		rokenV (Agent):	Peter rookt.	pseudo-intransitive
		to smoke	Peter smokes

b'.		rokerN:	Peter is een roker.
		smoke	Peter is a smoker

The presence of a restrictive modifier may sometimes facilitate the use of er-nouns without a theme argument. In most cases, the presence of these modifiers triggers a generic or habitual reading.

187

a.		Jan is een gulle gever.
		Jan is a liberal giver

b.		Marie is een zware roker.
		Marie is a heavy smoker

[+] 4. Lexicalized er-nouns denoting, e.g., a profession or function

Quite a large number of er-nouns, although originally derived from a transitive verb, are not able to combine with a postnominal van-PP. This holds especially for deverbal er-nouns denoting professions or functions like bakker'baker', kapper'hairdresser', visser'fisher', verhuizer'mover', naaister'seamstress', schilder'painter/decorator', or aannemer'contractor'.

188

a.		Jan bakt	brood.
		Jan bakes	bread

a'.		Jan is bakker	(??van brood).
		Jan is baker	of bread

b.		Marie neemt	opdrachten	aan.
		Marie takes	assignments	prt.

b'.		Marie is aannemer	(*van opdrachten).
		Marie is contractor	of assignments

c.		Peter kapt	Jans haar.
		Peter cuts	Janʼs hair

c'.		Peter is kapper	(*van Jans haar).
		Peter is hairdresser	of Janʼs hair

The fact that these er-nouns can no longer be realized with a complement shows that we are not dealing with some form of ellipsis: they are, rather, lexicalized, as a result of which they have lost their argument structure. This is also supported by the fact that they have often gained a specialized meaning and may have lost any direct relation to the base verb. This becomes clear from the fact that sentences (188c&c') do not have the same meaning. The fact that someone has cut my hair does not make him a hairdresser. Nor does a hairdresser necessarily cut peopleʼs hair; he or she may have the qualifications, without actually practicing the profession. Sometimes, however, an er-noun can either be used as a lexicalized noun or as a derived noun complemented by an inherited argument; this is illustrated by (189) for the er-noun vertegenwoordiger'salesman'.

189

a.		Jan is vertegenwoordiger.
		Jan is salesman
		'Jan is a salesman.'

b.		Jan is de vertegenwoordiger	van onze afdeling.
		Jan is the representative	of our department

Sometimes, whether a certain er-noun should be interpreted as a lexicalized or as a derived form depends on the nature of the complement of the van-phrase. Despite the fact that the theme argument in (190a) can be either a definite noun phrase (headed by a count noun) or an indefinite phrase (headed by a substance noun), only the former leads to a fully acceptable result: the noun phrase de bakker van brood feels as a tautology, which suggests that we are actually dealing with the lexicalized profession noun.

190

a.	Jan heeft [NP	deze broden]/[NPbrood]	gebakken.
	Jan has	these loafs of bread/bread	baked
	'Jan has baked these loafs of bread/bread.'

b.		de bakker	van [NP	deze broden]/[[NP??brood]
		the baker	of	these loafs of bread/bread

Some profession nouns are related to transitive verbs that have a pseudo-intransitive (habitual) counterpart. An example is schilderen'to paint' in (191): the transitive form in (191a) simply denotes the action of painting, and has no implications for whether Jan is a decorator or an artist; the intransitive form in (191b), on the other hand, can only mean that Peter is an artist. In contrast to this, the lexicalized er-noun schilder can have both meanings, which is due to the fact that the loss of argument structure has neutralized the difference between the two corresponding verbs.

191

a.		Jan schildert	het huis/een landschap.	Jan is a decorator/artistic painter
		Jan paint	the house/a landscape

b.		Jan schildert.		Jan is an artistic painter
		Jan paints

c.		Jan is schilder.	Jan is a decorator/artistic painter
		Jan is painter

There are also lexicalized er-nouns derived from ditransitive verbs. This is illustrated in example (192) for the noun onderwijzer'teacher': the theme argument of the input verb cannot be realized as a postnominal van-PP. Note that the loss of adicity must have taken place after er-nominalization, as the input verbs of these nouns do require a theme argument.

192

a.		Peter	onderwijst	(de kinderen)	wiskunde.
		Peter	teaches	the children	mathematics

b.	*	Peter is onderwijzer	van wiskunde	(aan deze kinderen).
		Peter is teacher	of mathematics	to these children
		'Peter is a teacher.'

The noun leraar'teacher' behaves more or less like onderwijzer'teacher', but is special in that it can be complemented by means of a nonspecific bare noun expressing the theme argument.

193

a.		Jan leert	(de kinderen)	wiskunde.
		Jan teaches	the children	mathematics

b.	*	Jan is leraar	van wiskunde	(aan deze kinderen).
		Jan is teacher	of mathematics	to these children

b'.		Jan is leraar wiskunde.
		Jan is teacher mathematics

The fact that lexicalized er-nouns cannot be followed by a van-PP expressing the theme of the corresponding input verb does not mean that they cannot be modified by a van-PP; this is possible if the van-PP is interpreted as the possessor and refers to. for example, the baker my parents buy their bread from or even the bakerʼs shop where they buy their bread. That we are dealing with a possessive relation can be supported by the fact that example (194a) is more or less equivalent to (194b); Subsection I has shown that recipients can never be realized as a prenominal possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. It is also clear from the fact that the van-PP can (at least marginally) occur in postcopular position.

194

a.		de bakker	van mijn ouders
		the bakerʼs	of my parents

b.		hun/?mijn oudersʼ	bakker
		their/my parentsʼ	baker

c.	?	Die bakker	is van mijn ouders.
		that bakerʼs	is of my parents
		'That is my parentsʼ baker.'

Similarly, although example (195a) will be interpreted as the person teaching Jan a certain subject, we seem again to be dealing with a possessive relation: the proper noun Jan may occur as a genitive noun phrase and the PP van Jan can occur in postcopular position.

195

a.		de leraar	van JanPoss/JansPoss leraar
		the teacher	of Jan/Janʼs teacher

b.		Dat	is Jans/zijn leraar.
		that	is Janʼs/his teacher

c.	(?)	Deze leraar	is van JanPoss.
		this teacher	is of Jan
		'This is Janʼs teacher.'

[+] 5. Compound er-nouns (incorporation)

As a general rule, complementation by means of a thematic van-PP is not possible once an element has been incorporated into an er-noun. As will be shown, this is true regardless of the function of this element (as complement or adjunct, theme or non-theme).

[+] a. Incorporation of theme

If a theme argument of an er-noun has nonspecific reference, it may also be incorporated, in which case it forms a compound with the er-noun. Examples are such lexicalized forms as wiskundeleraar'math teacher' and banketbakker'confectioner' in (196).

196

a.		wiskundeleraar
		math teacher

b.		banketbakker
		pastry-baker
		'confectioner'

Incorporation of the theme is a very productive mechanism, applying not only to the lexicalized cases in (196) but also to er-nominalizations in general, and in all these cases, the theme cannot be expressed by means of a van-PP. In other words, if a theme argument is incorporated, the syntactic postnominal position is no longer available, which is in keeping with the principle that thematic roles can be assigned only once.

197

a.		televisiekijker	(*van documentaires)
		T.V. watcher	of documentaries

b.		krantenlezer	(*van columns)
		newspaper reader	of columns

c.		marathonloper	(*van lange afstanden)
		marathon runner	of long distances

d.		systeemontwikkelaar	(*van software)
		systems developer	of software

e.		aandeelhouder	(*van toegangskaarten)
		stockholder	of admission tickets

These compound nouns may become lexicalized to various degrees, which may be reflected in that some of these compounds can no longer alternate with a construction in which the theme is expressed as an argument. Two examples are given in (198).

198

a.	druktemaker	cf. *maker van drukte
	fuss.maker
	'show off/fuss pot'

b.	herrieschopper	cf. *schopper van herrie
	row.kicker
	'hellraiser'

Observe that whereas one might argue that the noun herrieschopper is straightforwardly derived from the verb herrieschoppen'to raise hell', this is not readily possible for the noun druktemaker given that there is no corresponding verb druktemaken'to show off', albeit that the second, less common, meaning of “fuss pot” is shared by the idiomatic expression drukte maken om ...'to make a fuss about ...'.
As in the case of schilder in example (176), the postnominal position of er-nouns with an incorporated theme is not only blocked for theme arguments, but also for manner and place adjuncts. This is illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the constructions in (199): (199a) cannot be used to refer to the person who makes shoes with a machine, only to the person with a machine; similarly, the relation in (199b) can only hold between the er-noun as a whole and the PP (a person in California), not between the underlying base verb kweken'grow' and the PP.

199

a.	#	de schoenmaker	met een machine
		the shoemaker	with a machine

b.	#	de boomkweker	in Californië
		the tree grower	in California

Apparently, the process of incorporation has the same effect as the lexicalization of er-nouns like kapper'hairdresser' and leraar'teacher', as illustrated in examples (188) and (193): in both cases the postnominal position is no longer available for constituents (whether complements or adjuncts) that enter into a semantic relation with the base verb. This is not surprising given that in many cases incorporation of a theme argument results in an er-noun that denotes a profession or an occupation.

[+] b. Incorporation of other elements

Incorporation of the arguments of er-nouns is not restricted to theme arguments, but is also possible with other types of constituents. Some examples are given in the table in example (200).

200

base verb	er-nominalization	type of relation
gaan‘to go’	kerkganger‘churchgoer’	direction
reizen‘to travel’	treinreiziger‘train passenger’	means
tekenen‘to draw’	sneltekenaar‘cartoonist’	manner (lit.: fast drawer)
roven‘to rob’	straatrover‘street robber’	location
schilderen‘to paint’	voetschilder‘foot painter’	instrument
schilderen‘to paint’	winterschilder‘winter decorator’	time
schrijven‘to write’	broodschrijver‘bread writer’	purpose

As might be expected, the presence of an incorporated adjunct blocks the postnominal realization of an adjunct of the same type. This is illustrated in example (201).

201

a.	*	een kerkganger	naar onze kerk
		a churchgoer	to our church

b.	*	een treinreiziger	met de Thalys
		a train passenger	with the Thalys

c.	*	een winterschilder	in januari
		a winter decorator	in January

Interestingly, these incorporated adjuncts not only exclude adjuncts of the same type from postnominal position, but also exclude the possibility of postnominal realization of a theme argument. Thus, as shown by example (202), in those cases in which the incorporated constituent is a (manner, location, etc.) adjunct, the syntactic position for the theme is also blocked.

202

a.	*	de sneltekenaar	van deze portretten
		the fast drawer	of these portraits
		'the cartoonist who made these portraits'

b.	*	de straatrover	van die appels
		a street robber	of those apples

c.	*	de voetschilder	van dit landschap
		the foot painter	of this landscape

d.	*	de winterschilder	van deze raamkozijnen
		a winter decorator	of these window.frames

e.	*	de broodschrijver	van die kinderboeken
		a bread writer	of those childrenʼs books

Potential counterexamples to the claim that compounds cannot have a theme argument expressed by means of a van-PP are compound nouns like wegbereider'pioneer' in (203a). However, example (203a) differs from the ones in (201) and (202) in that the van-PP is not the theme of an underlying verb bereiden but of the idiomatic verbal expression de weg bereiden voor'prepare the way for'; cf. (203b). It may therefore be that wegbereider is the result of nominalization of this complex expression, and that the van-PP is inherited from the complex verbal expression.

203

a.	Hij	was een van de wegbereiders	van het socialisme.
	he	was one of the pioneers	of the socialism
	'He was one of the pioneers of socialism.'

b.		Hij bereidde	de weg	voor het socialisme.
		he prepared	the way	for the socialism

However, this would run afoul of the fact that the PPs in (203) are headed by different prepositions. We have seen that inheritance of PP-complements preserves the choice of the preposition; cf. the examples in (175). This suggests that we are dealing with a lexicalized compound, which would in fact be the only option for the er-noun grondlegger'founder' in (204a) given that there is no complex verbal expression that could be the input for this compound; cf. the unacceptability of (204b). The van-PP therefore must be a non-inherited theme argument of the lexicalized compound grondlegger.

204

a.	Hij	is de grondlegger	van de kernfysica.
	he	is the founder	of the nuclear physics
	'He is the founder of nuclear physics.'

b.	*	Hij	legde	de grond	voor de kernfysica.
		he	laid	the ground	for the nuclear physics

[+] c. Nonspecific van-PPs

Although er-nouns with incorporated elements normally block the presence of a theme argument, this does not hold for theme arguments with generic or nonspecific reference; the constructions in (205a&b) are perfectly acceptable, provided that the elements portretten'portraits' and landschappen'landscapes' do not refer to specific objects, but function to specify the kind of cartoonist or foot-painter we are dealing with. In fact, this use of nonspecific postnominal van-PPs is not restricted to er-nouns involving incorporation, but occurs with habitual or professional er-nouns in general: the van-PP in example (205c) does not refer to a particular set of books that Jan has written, but to the type of book he normally writes.

205

a.	een sneltekenaar	(van portretten)
	a fast drawer	of portraits
	'a cartoonist specialized in portraits'

b.	een voetschilder	(van landschappen)
	a foot painter	of landscapes
	'a foot painter specialized in landscapes'

c.		Jan is een schrijver	(van kinderboeken).
		Jan is a writer	of childrenʼs books

The fact that the nonspecific postnominal van-PPs are not required raises the question as to whether they should actually be seen as inherited theme arguments in these cases; it suggests that the er-nouns have become fully lexicalized and that the van-PP functions instead as an adjunct to the head noun. This suggestion seems to be supported by the fact that the PPs in (205) and their specific counterparts differ in behavior. Consider the examples in (206), which show that a regular deverbal er-noun like tekenaar'drawer' can take a specific theme argument in postnominal position. If the definite article is used, as in (206a), the implication is that Peter was the only artist involved in drawing the portrait; use of the indefinite article in (206b), on the other hand, implies that more artists were involved. Example (206c) shows that, in either case, the van-PP can be preposed.

206

a.	Peter is de tekenaar	van dit portret.
	Peter is the drawer	of this portrait
	'Peter is the drawer of this portrait.'

b.	Peter is een tekenaar	van dit portret.
	Peter is a drawer	of this portrait
	'Peter is one of the drawers of this portrait.'

c.		Van dit portret	is Peter een/de tekenaar.
		of this portrait	is Peter a/the drawer

As soon as the er-noun contains an incorporated element, as in sneltekenaar'cartoonist' in (207a), the use of a specific theme argument becomes impossible. Example (207b) further shows that with a nonspecific theme, the use of the indefinite article no longer forces a reading in which more than one artist is involved, while the use of a definite article is only felicitous if more identifying information is available in the (linguistic or non-linguistic) context. Finally, (207c) shows that the nonspecific van-PP cannot be preposed.

207

a.	*	Peter is een/de sneltekenaar van dit portret.
		Peter is a/the fast drawer of this portrait

b.	Peter is een/#de sneltekenaar	van portretten.
	Peter is a/the fast drawer	of portraits
	'Peter is a cartoonist who draws portraits.'

c.	*	Van portretten	is Peter een/de sneltekenaar.
		of portraits	is Peter a/the fast-drawer

These differences between the constructions in (206) and (207) support the idea that the specific and nonspecific van-PPs are different in the sense that we are dealing with inherited arguments in the former, but with adjuncts in the latter case.

[+] B. Occurrence of the PP in postcopular predicative position

According to the second test, only adjunct van-PPs can occur in postcopular predicative position; complement PPs in this position lead to unacceptable results. The ungrammaticality of the transitive examples in (208) therefore suggests that the postnominal van-PPs of agentive er-nouns are indeed arguments.

208

a.		de maker	van dit schilderij
		the maker	of this painting

a'.	*	De maker	is van dit schilderij.
		the maker	is of this painting

b.		de schrijver	van deze boeken
		the writer	of these books

b'.	*	De schrijver	is van deze boeken.
		the writer	is of these books

c.		de ontdekker	van Tasmanië
		the discoverer	of Tasmania

c'.	*	De ontdekker	is van Tasmanië.
		the discoverer	is of Tasmania

Application of this test to er-nominalizations derived from ditransitive verbs yields similar results. Here, too, placement of the van-PP in postcopular position is excluded, as exemplified in (209).

209

a.		de gever	van het cadeau
		the giver	of the present

a'.	*	De gever	is van het cadeau.
		the giver	is of the present

b.		de schenker	van het geld
		the contributor	of the money

b'.	*	De schenker	is van het geld.
		the contributor	is of the money

c.		de vertelster	van verhalen
		the teller	of stories

c'.	*	De vertelster	is van verhalen.
		the tellerfem	is of stories

[+] C. R-pronominalization

The R-pronominalization test suggests that the van-PPs following er-nouns derived from transitive verbs behave like complements: the examples in (210) show that they allow R-pronominalization.

210

a.		Ik	ontmoette	gisteren	de maker	van het schilderij/ervan.
		I	met	yesterday	the maker	of the painting/of.it

b.		De organisator	van het toernooi/ervan	was erg	in zijn nopjes.
		the organizer	of the tournament/of.it	was very	pleased

c.		De vertelster	van die verhalen/ervan	heeft	een grote verbeeldingskracht.
		the tellerfem	of those stories/of.them	has	a great power of imagination

Section 2.2.1, sub IV, has shown that using the split version of the pronominal PP normally leads to a marked result. The examples in (211) show, however, that with er-nouns, use of the split version is often fully acceptable. This may support the suggestion in Subsection D that many of the apparent cases of extraction of van-PP actually involve cases with an independent restrictive adverbial phrase.

211

a.		Jan is de maker	van dit schilderij.
		Jan is the maker	of this painting

a'.		Jan is <er>	de maker <er>	van.
		Jan is there	the maker	of

b.		Peter is de organisator van het toernooi.
		Peter is the organizer of the tournament

b'.		Peter is <er>	de organisator <er>	van.
		Peter is there	the organizer	of

Application of R-pronominalization to constructions involving a ditransitive base verb yields similar results: example (212a) is acceptable both with the split and the unsplit pattern, provided that the recipient is not expressed. Example (212b) shows that R-pronominalization is only marginally possible with recipient arguments, and requires that the pronominal PP be unsplit.

212

a.	Els	is <er>	de schenker <er>	van	(*aan de kerk).
	Els	is there	the giver	of	to the church
	'Santa Claus is the giver of it (not the receiver).'

b.		Els is <*er>	de schenker	(van geld) <??er>	aan.
		Els is there	the donor	of money	to

Application of the R-pronominalization test to inherited PPs with prepositions other than van yields somewhat equivocal results. The examples in (213) show that R-pronominalization may lead to marked constructions, although it is certainly not impossible given the right context (that is, one in which the pronominalized part is the discourse topic), especially if the head noun is given contrastive accent. Note that only the constructions with the unsplit form are acceptable.

213

a.		De politie	heeft	de jagers	op ons groot wild	gearresteerd.
		the police	has	the hunters	on our big game	arrested

a'.		De politie	<*er>	heeft	de jagers <??er>	op	gearresteerd.
		the police	there	has	the hunter	on	arrested

b.		De arts	heeft	alle lijders	aan deze ziekte	behandeld.
		the doctor	has	all sufferers	from this disease	treated

b'.		De arts	<*er>	heeft	alle lijders <?er>	aan	behandeld.
		the doctor	there	has	all sufferers	from	treated

c.	Veel luisteraars	naar dit programma	klaagden	over de slechte ontvangst.
	many listeners	to this program	complained	about the poor reception
	'Many listeners to this program complained about the poor reception.'

c'.	?	Veel luisteraars	ernaar	klaagden	over de slechte ontvangst.
		many listeners	there-to	complained	about the poor reception

d.		Klagers	over de slechte ontvangst	kregen	een vriendelijk antwoord.
		complainers	about the poor reception	received	a friendly answer

d'.	?	Alle klagers	erover	kregen	een vriendelijk antwoord.
		all complainers	there-about	received	a friendly answer

e.		Oprechte gelovers	in de wereldvrede	zijn zeldzaam.
		sincere believers	in the world peace	are rare

e'.	??	Oprechte gelovers	erin	zijn	zeldzaam.
		sincere believers	there-in	are	rare

[+] D. Extraction of PP

The examples in (214) and (215) suggest that PP-extraction of a theme argument is possible with er-nouns, although the results are somewhat marked. The slightly degraded status that results from extraction is surprising given that the first three tests give a positive result as far as complement status of the van-PP is concerned.

214

a.	Ik	heb	de maker	van dit schilderij	ontmoet.
	I	have	the maker	of this painting	met
	'Iʼve met the maker of this painting.'

a'.

Van dit schilderij heb ik de maker ontmoet.

b.	Ik	heb	de organisator	van dit toernooi	gesproken.
	I	have	the organizer	of this tournament	talked
	'Iʼve talked to the organizer of this tournament.'

b'.

Van dit toernooi heb ik de organisator gesproken.

c.		Ik bewonder	de vertelster	van die sterke verhalen.
		I admire	the tellerfem	of these strong stories

c'.

Van die sterke verhalen bewonder ik de vertelster.

215

a.	?	het schilderij	waarvan	ik	de maker	heb	ontmoet
		the painting	of.which	I	the maker	have	met

a'.	?	Van welk schilderij	heb	jij	de maker	ontmoet?
		of which painting	have	you	the maker	met

b.	?	het toernooi	waarvan	ik	de organisator	gesproken	heb
		the tournament	of.which	I	the organizer	talked.to	have

b'.	?	Van welk toernooi	heb	jij	de organisator	gesproken?
		of which book	have	you	the organizer	talked.to

c.	??	de sterke verhalen	waarvan	ik	de vertelster	bewonder
		the strong stories	of.which	I	the tellerfem	admire

c'.	??	Van welke sterke verhalen	bewonder	jij	de vertelster?
		of which strong stories	admire	you	the tellerfem

PP-over-V is fully acceptable if the PP is preceded by an intonation break. This, however, triggers a reading in which the PP is presented as an afterthought. If such an intonation break is lacking, as is normally the case in PP-over-V constructions, the result is marked. The same thing holds for the scrambling examples in (217).

216

a.	?	Ik	heb	de maker	ontmoet	van dit schilderij.
		I	have	the maker	met	of this painting
		'Iʼve met the maker of this painting.'

b.	?	Ik	heb	de organisator	gesproken	van dit toernooi.
		I	have	the organizer	talked	of this tournament
		'Iʼve met the organizer of this tournament.'

c.	?	dat	ik	de vertelster	bewonder	van die sterke verhalen.
		that	I	the tellerfem	admire	of these strong stories

217

a.	?	Ik	heb	van dit schilderij	gisteren	de maker	ontmoet.
		I	have	of this painting	yesterday	the maker	met

b.	?	Ik	heb	van dit toernooi	gisteren	de organisator	gesproken.
		I	have	of this tournament	yesterday	the organizer	spoken

c.	??	dat	ik	van die sterke verhalen	de vertelster	bewonder.
		that	I	of these strong stories	the tellerfem	admire

Extraction of the theme-argument of an er-nouns derived from a ditransitive base verb is possible, provided that the recipient is left unexpressed. Extraction of the recipient always leads to a severely degraded result. This is illustrated here for example (218).

218

Ik	heb	de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	(aan de kerk)	ontmoet.
I	have	the donor	of this large sum	to the church	met
'I have met the donor of this large sum to the church.'

219

a.		Van dit grote bedrag	heb	ik	de schenker	?(*aan de kerk)	ontmoet.
		of this large sum	have	I	the donor	to the church	met

b.	*	Aan de kerk	heb	ik	de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	ontmoet.
		to the church	have	I	the donor	of this large sum	met

220

a.		het grote bedrag	waarvan	ik	de schenker	?(*aan de kerk)	heb	ontmoet
		the large sum	of.which	I	the donor	to the church	have	met

a'.	*	de kerk	waaraan	ik	de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	heb	ontmoet
		the church	to.which	I	the donor	of this large sum	have	met

b.		Van welk groot bedrag	heb	jij	de schenker	?(*aan de kerk)	ontmoet?
		of which large sum	have	you	the donor	to the church	met

b'.	*	Aan welke kerk	heb	jij	de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	ontmoet?
		to which church	have	you	the donor	of this large sum	met

221

a.		Ik	heb	de schenker	(*aan de kerk)	ontmoet	van dit grote bedrag.
		I	have	the donor	to the church	met	of this large sum

b.	*	Ik	heb	de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	ontmoet	aan de kerk.
		I	have	the donor	of this large sum	met	to the church

222

a.		Ik	heb	van dit grote bedrag	de schenker	(*aan de kerk)	ontmoet.
		I	have	of this large sum	the donor	to the church	met

b.	*	Ik	heb	aan de kerk	de schenker	van dit grote bedrag	ontmoet.
		I	have	to the church	the donor	of this large sum	met

The fact that the presence of a recipient makes the examples ungrammatical may give rise to the conclusion that we are actually not dealing with extraction of a theme-PP from the noun phrase but with independently generated restrictive adverbial phrases: the ungrammaticality of the (a)-examples with a recipient present would then follow from the fact that the noun phrase does not contain a theme argument; cf. the discussion of (181d) in Subsection A.
Just like in the case of the recipient aan-PPs, the PP-extraction tests do not yield the expected results for cases in which the theme complement is headed by a preposition other than the functional preposition van. Examples (223) show that topicalization leads to an unacceptable result. The examples in (224) and (225) show that the same thing holds for the other forms of extraction.

223

a.	De politie	heeft	de jager	op ons wild	gearresteerd.
	the police	has	the hunter	on our game	arrested
	'The police has arrested the hunter of our big game.'

a'.

Op ons wild heeft de politie de jager gearresteerd.

b.		De arts	heeft	de lijders	aan deze ziekte	behandeld.
		the doctor	has	the sufferers	to this disease	treated

b'.

Aan deze ziekte heeft de arts de lijders behandeld.

224

a.	*	het wild	waarop	de politie	de jager	heeft	gearresteerd
		the game	where-on	the police	the hunter	has	arrested

a'.	*	Op welk wild	heeft	de politie	de jager	gearresteerd?
		on which game	has	the police	the hunter	arrested

b.	*	de ziekte	waaraan	de arts	de lijders	heeft	behandeld
		the disease	where-from	the doctor	the sufferers	has	treated

b'.	*	Aan welke ziekte	heeft	de arts	de lijders	behandeld?
		from which disease	has	the doctor	the sufferers	treated

225

a.	#	De politie	heeft	de jager	gearresteerd	op ons wild.
		the police	has	the hunter	arrested	on our game

a'.	#	De politie	heeft	op ons wild	de jager	gearresteerd.
		the police	has	on our game	the hunter	arrested

b.	#	De arts	heeft	de lijders	behandeld	aan deze ziekte.
		the doctor	has	the sufferers	treated	from this disease

b'.	*	De arts	heeft	aan deze ziekte	de lijders	behandeld.
		the doctor	has	from this disease	the sufferers	treated

In view of these facts, one possible conclusion would be that theme arguments headed by prepositions other than van are not complements of the noun, but adjuncts. It is clear, however, that the PPs under discussion behave differently from undisputed adjuncts and more like the PP-complements of the input verb: they are obligatory, headed by the same preposition as the PP selected by the base verb, and their semantic relation to the er-noun is similar to that between the input verb and its PP-complement. This may lead to the conclusion that the PP-extraction test is in fact not a good test for establishing complement status of the PP, that is, just like adjunct PPs, complement PPs cannot be extracted from noun phrases. This would again lead to the conclusion that the “displaced” van-PPs are in fact not arguments of the noun but independent restrictive adverbial phrases; cf. the discussion in Section 2.2.1, sub VC.

[+] E. Conclusion

Table 6 summarizes the results from the previous subsections of the four tests for inherited theme arguments of agentive er-nouns. The third and fifth columns indicate whether the results provide evidence for or against the assumption that we are dealing with complements.

Table 6: Complements of agentive er-nominalization: outcome of Tests 1-4

	van-PPs		other PPs:
Test 1: PP obligatory	+	positive	+	positive
Test 2: Post-copular position	—	positive	n.a.	n.a.
Test 3: R-pronominalization	+	positive	?	?
Test 4A: Topicalization	?	positive	—	negative
Test 4B: Relativization/questioning	?		—
Test 4C: PP-over-V	?		—
Test 4D: Scrambling	?		—

The results show that it is justified to regard inherited theme arguments that surface as van-PPs as complements of the derived er-noun. Recipients and theme PPs with prepositions other than functional van, however, are more problematic. It is only Test 1 concerning the obligatoriness of the PP that provides unequivocal evidence in favor of complement status of these PPs. Test 2 concerning postcopular placement of van-PPs does of course not apply to these cases. The outcome of Test 3 concerning R-pronominalization seems to point in the direction of complement status, but the results are still not entirely convincing. The results of Test 4 are plainly negative.
Although the results of the test do not unequivocally show that PPs introduced by a preposition other than van are complements, we will regard them as such. A first reason for this is that we have seen that Test 4 is perhaps not a good test for distinguishing between adjuncts and complements: seeming cases of extraction may actually involve independent restrictive adverbial phrases. A second reason is that at least the theme PPs clearly function as complements with all of the other forms of deverbal nominalization; cf. Sections 2.2.3.2-2.2.3.4.

References:

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Bare NounComplementCompoundDitransitive VerbIntransitive VerbNominalizationNounPredicative ComplementProfession NounPseudo-intransitive VerbR-pronominalizationScramblingTopicalizationTransitive VerbVerbWh-movement

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Evelien Keizer	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles