• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all er-nominalizations
[+]  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, sub III, that non-agentive er-nouns do not inherit the arguments of the input verb, and may therefore be considered lexicalized.

Main types of agentive er-nouns
a. Intransitive verb: zwemmer 'swimmer'
b. Transitive verb: maker 'maker'
c. Ditransitive verb: verteller 'narrator'
d. Verb with a prepositional complement: klager 'complainer'
e. 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.

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).

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'.

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).

a. Ik ken de auteur/schrijver van dit boek.
  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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

er-nouns derived from transitive verbs taking a complementive
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.

er-nouns derived from intransitive verbs taking a complementive
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 +
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.

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.

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
c. * 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).

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.

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
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.

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.

a. rokenV (Agent, Theme): Jan rookt altijd sigaren.
  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.
  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.

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'.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

a. wiskundeleraar
  math teacher
b. banketbakker

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.

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).

a. druktemaker
cf. *maker van drukte
  'show off/fuss pot'
b. herrieschopper
cf. *schopper van herrie

Observe that whereas one might argue that the noun herrieschopper is straightforwardly derived from the ver