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