1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Cross-linguistic Investigations of Nominalization Patterns
  4. Chapter

Simple event nominalizations

Roots and their interpretation

image of Simple event nominalizations

In one popular view, expressed most fully in Borer 2005, word meanings are nothing but unstructured, polysemous ‘blobs’ of content, with no formal properties. It is the syntactic context that shapes their meaning, and only this functional scaffolding delivers the kinds of meanings that the compositional semantics trades in. I call this the ‘Blob Theory’ of root meanings. I am going to argue against the Blob Theory by investigating an overlooked class of nominalizations that show properties unexpected under most classifications (Grimshaw 1990, and following): they exhibit some properties of event nominals (they can be modified by frequent/constant, cf. Borer 2003, Alexiadou 2009) but they nonetheless do not have argument structure. I provide an account of these nominalizations as eventive root nominalizations. I then examine the behaviour of these nominalizations with respect to clausal arguments. I argue that their ability to combine with clausal complements shows that roots have a structured semantics that interacts, as unexpected by Blob Theory, with the compositional semantics.

  • Affiliations: 1: Simon Fraser University

References

  1. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
    2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 On the role of syntactic locailty in morphological processes. InQuantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 253–280. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arsenijevic, Boban
    2009 Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua119: 39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach, Emmon
    1986 The algebra of events. Linguistcs and Philosophy9: 5–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Borer, Hagit
    2003 The forming, formation and the form of nominals. Ms, USC.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 2005. The Normal Course of Events. Structuring Sense, Vol. II. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Caponigro, Ivano & Polinsky, Maria
    2011 Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29: 71–122. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9121‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9121-9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A
    2004 Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dowty, David R
    1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fu, Jingqi , Roeper, Tom & Borer, Hagit
    2001 The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19: 549–582. doi: 10.1023/A:1010654105760
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010654105760 [Google Scholar]
  13. Grimshaw, Jane
    1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay
    2002 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Harley, Heidi
    2009 The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. InQuantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 321–343. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Higgins, F. Roger
    1972 The pseudocleft construction in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kayne, Richard S
    2009 Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook8: 1–31. doi: 10.1075/livy.8.01kay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.8.01kay [Google Scholar]
  19. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. InPhrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2002 The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Semantics Archive, 8July 2003, semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU1NWM4Z/ (24 June 2013).
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 Telicity and the meaning of objective case. InThe Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 398–423. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2006 Decomposing attitude verbs. Semantics Archive, 24November 2009, semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006.pdf (24 June 2013).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lebeaux, David
    1986 The interpretation of derived nominals. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society , Vol. 22, Anne M. Farley , Peter T. Farley & Karl-Erik McCullough , 231–247. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Marantz, Alec
    1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Marantz, Alec . Alexis Dimitriadis , Laura Siegel , Clarissa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams
    1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(2), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Marantz, Alec
    2001 Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, USC, 23–25 February.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Moulton, Keir
    2009 Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013a CPs: Copies and compositionality. Ms, under submission.
  29. 2013b Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax16(3): 250-291. doi: 10.1111/synt.12007
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Myers, Scott
    1984 Zero-derivation and inflection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol.7(5), 3–69. Cambridge MA: MITPWL.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ogawa, Yoshiki
    2001 A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Parsons, Terence
    1990 Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
    2002 Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Lecarme & Jacqueline Geuron , 495–537. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Potts, Christopher
    2002 The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax5: 55–88. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00047
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00047 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ramchand, Gillian Catriona
    2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rothstein, Susan
    2004 Structuring Events. Malden MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470759127
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127 [Google Scholar]
  38. Salanova, Andrès P
    2010 Action nominalizations do not embed verbal projections. Handout of talk presented at McGill, January.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Stowell, Timothy
    1981 Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
    2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 On the role of syntactic locailty in morphological processes. InQuantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 253–280. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arsenijevic, Boban
    2009 Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua119: 39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach, Emmon
    1986 The algebra of events. Linguistcs and Philosophy9: 5–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Borer, Hagit
    2003 The forming, formation and the form of nominals. Ms, USC.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 2005. The Normal Course of Events. Structuring Sense, Vol. II. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Caponigro, Ivano & Polinsky, Maria
    2011 Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29: 71–122. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9121‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9121-9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A
    2004 Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dowty, David R
    1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fu, Jingqi , Roeper, Tom & Borer, Hagit
    2001 The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19: 549–582. doi: 10.1023/A:1010654105760
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010654105760 [Google Scholar]
  13. Grimshaw, Jane
    1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay
    2002 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Harley, Heidi
    2009 The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. InQuantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 321–343. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Higgins, F. Roger
    1972 The pseudocleft construction in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kayne, Richard S
    2009 Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook8: 1–31. doi: 10.1075/livy.8.01kay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.8.01kay [Google Scholar]
  19. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. InPhrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2002 The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Semantics Archive, 8July 2003, semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU1NWM4Z/ (24 June 2013).
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 Telicity and the meaning of objective case. InThe Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 398–423. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2006 Decomposing attitude verbs. Semantics Archive, 24November 2009, semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006.pdf (24 June 2013).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lebeaux, David
    1986 The interpretation of derived nominals. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society , Vol. 22, Anne M. Farley , Peter T. Farley & Karl-Erik McCullough , 231–247. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Marantz, Alec
    1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Marantz, Alec . Alexis Dimitriadis , Laura Siegel , Clarissa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams
    1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(2), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Marantz, Alec
    2001 Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, USC, 23–25 February.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Moulton, Keir
    2009 Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013a CPs: Copies and compositionality. Ms, under submission.
  29. 2013b Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax16(3): 250-291. doi: 10.1111/synt.12007
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Myers, Scott
    1984 Zero-derivation and inflection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol.7(5), 3–69. Cambridge MA: MITPWL.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ogawa, Yoshiki
    2001 A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Parsons, Terence
    1990 Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
    2002 Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Lecarme & Jacqueline Geuron , 495–537. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Potts, Christopher
    2002 The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax5: 55–88. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00047
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00047 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ramchand, Gillian Catriona
    2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rothstein, Susan
    2004 Structuring Events. Malden MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470759127
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127 [Google Scholar]
  38. Salanova, Andrès P
    2010 Action nominalizations do not embed verbal projections. Handout of talk presented at McGill, January.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Stowell, Timothy
    1981 Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270702-la.210.05mou
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270702-la.210.05mou
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270702
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error