Abstract
The paper pinpoints problems of a morpheme-based approach to de-verbal nominalizations as advocated by Grimshaw (1990) and Alexiadou and Grimshaw (2008). It is argued that nominalizations are capable of exhibiting the process/result dichotomy regardless of their formal exponent and there are two types of regular nominals which differ in terms of their aspectual characteristics. Nominalizations in -ing, which in Grimshaw’s model are regarded as Complex Event Nominals analyzable in terms of aspectual distinctions and having an associated argument structure, may display the process/result dichotomy and some concrete -ing formations can pluralize (building). Zero nominalizations, in turn, which are regarded as Simple Event Nominals with no a-structure, are demonstrated to be capable of appearing with satellite phrases corresponding to verbal arguments. They are telic, i.e. denote events and therefore have an aspectual analysis. Regardless of their actional interpretation, Grimshaw treats zero derivatives on a par with result nominalizations because they are countable and can pluralize, whereas, in fact, countability points to their telic character. Being telic they do not accept aspectual modifiers (for an hour, in an hour) or modifiers like frequent or constant, unless they are in the plural. Also their limited ability to accept NP satellite phrases may be explained in terms of their aspectual characteristics. Consequently, the properties of nominalizations are a reflection of the properties of two productive lexical rules which generate countable and uncountable nominalizations and lexicalization phenomena. Formal exponents should be regarded merely as clues rather than determinants of meaning/function.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
By choosing the “event structure theory” of Grimshaw we also refer indirectly to the “structure model”, in which nouns that have Argument Structure in their representation contain VPs and/or verbal functional layers (e.g. Fu et al. 2001; Alexiadou 2001, 2009; Roeper 2005; Harley 2009). Alexiadou and Grimshaw (2008: 10) compare both models and conclude that “the principal difficulties arise from the non-uniformity of deverbal nominalization patterns: different affixation types exhibit different behaviour. The successes and failures of the two models occur on exactly the same questions. What one describes, the other describes. What one fails to explain, the other fails to explain, and for fundamentally the same reasons.”
- 2.
The lexical representation of verbs has two facets, i.e. syntactic representation (Argument Structure) and semantic representation, which following Hale and Keyser (1986) has come to be known as the “lexical conceptual structure” (LCS). LCS serves as a representation of the verb’s meaning and among others specifies semantic relations obtaining between participants and spatio-temporal organization of the event. Despite close correlation between the two structures it is important to keep them distinct since there is no simple one-to-one mapping of theta roles and various syntactic roles or surface cases. Only true arguments (Pustejovsky 1995: 63–64) are necessarily mapped onto/expressed as syntactic constituents (John arrived late), whereas default arguments (John built a house out of bricks), and shadow arguments (Mary buttered her toast with an expensive butter) are not. The opposite situation is just as conceivable, i.e. there may be verbs with supernumerary syntactic arguments which contribute nothing to the semantics, e.g. reflexive arguments of perjure oneself, avail oneself of X. Furthermore, synonymous verbs may feature in different syntactic configurations, e.g. replace X with Y, substitute Y for X (Jackendoff 2010: 16–17). The level of Argument Structure introduced by Grimshaw (1990) is that part of the lexical entry which interfaces LCS representation and deep structure. It is derived from Lexical-Conceptual Structure via thematic and aspectual hierarchy.
- 3.
Apart from Beard (1976, 1985, 1995) it is also argued for by Laskowski (1981), Szymanek (1985), Malicka-Kleparska (1985, 1988), Aronoff (1994), and Bloch-Trojnar (2006). Lexical and syntactic rules are abstract operations, which apply to the grammatical representation of a lexeme, whereas affixation and other morphological processes (prosodic variation, internal modification, ∅, etc.) are effected in an autonomous postsyntactic Morphological Spelling Component.
- 4.
In the “structure model” argument taking properties of nominalizations depend on where the affix is attached: -ing is specified for “high/outer cycle attachment” and contains verbal projections, ∅ is specified for “low/root attachment”, contains no verbal projections and, therefore, has no argument structure, whereas Latinate suffixes can be doubly specified or underspecified.
- 5.
- 6.
Malicka-Kleparska (1988: 165) observes that civilizing and civilization are equivalent and interchangeable on the actional/process interpretation but not in the lexicalized sense.
… to attempt the civilization of the Australian aborigines
the civilizing of the Highlands of Scotland …
the ancient civilizations / *civilizings
- 7.
- 8.
In Levin (1993: 2–3) many verbal diathesis alternations (e.g. causative-inchotative) are regarded as rule governed conversions, i.e. a particular word is used in two lexical categories, because they show clear changes in argument structure, e.g. The window broke. vs. The little boy broke the window.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
References
Adams, V. 2001. Complex words in English. London: Longman.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) nominals. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, eds. A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert, 253–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, A. and J. Grimshaw. 2008. Verbs, nouns and affixation. In Working papers of the SFB 732 Incremental specification in context 01, ed. F. Schäfer, 1–16.
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beard, R. 1976. A semantically based model of a generative lexical word-formation rule for Russian adjectives. Language 52: 108–120.
Beard, R. 1985. Is separation natural? Studia Gramatyczne 7: 119–134.
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme morpheme base morphology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Beard, R. 1998. Derivation. In The handbook of morphology, eds. A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky, 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bierwisch, M. 2009. Nominalization – lexical and syntactic aspects. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, eds. A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert, 281–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloch-Trojnar, M. 2006. Polyfunctionality in morphology. A study of verbal nouns in Modern Irish. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Brinton, L. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. 1998. Aspectuality and countability: A cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2: 37–63.
Cetnarowska, B. 1993. The syntax, semantics and derivation of bare nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.
Collins cobuild advanced dictionary of English. 2009. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers.
Di Sciullo, A. M. and E. Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Filip, H. 1993. Aspect, situation types and nominal reference. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Fu, J., T. Roeper, and H. Borer. 2001. The VP within process nominals: evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–582.
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1986. Some transitivity alternations in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Harley, H. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, eds. A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert, 321–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higginbotham, J. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593.
Jackendoff, R. 2010. Meaning and the lexicon. The parallel architecture. 1975 – 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical matters, eds. I. A. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, 29–53. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language Information.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63: 53–94.
Laskowski, R. 1981. Derywacja słowotwórcza. In Pojęcie derywacji w lingwistyce, ed. J. Bartmiński, 107–126. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Zakład Języka Polskiego.
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Malicka-Kleparska, A. 1985. The conditional lexicon in derivational morphology. A study of double motivation in Polish and English. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL.
Malicka-Kleparska, A. 1988. Rules and lexicalisations. Selected English nominals. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL.
Marchand, H. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C. H. Beck.
Mourelatos, A. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–34.
Newmeyer, F. 2005. Some remarks on Roeper’s remarks on Chomsky’s 'Remarks’. A comment on Tom Roeper: Chomsky’s remarks and the transformationalist hypothesis. Special issue of SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics: 26–39. http://www.pulib.sk/skase/Volumes/JTL03/04.pdf.
Newmeyer, F. J. 2009. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. In Time and again: Papers in honor of D. Terence Langendoen, eds. W. D. Lewis, S. Karimi and H. Harley, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. and P. Anick. 1988. On the semantic interpretation of nominals. In Proceedings of the 12 th Conference on Computational Linguistics. Vol. 2, ed. D. Vargha, 518–523. Budapest: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.
Randall, J. 1988. Inheritance. In Thematic relations: Syntax and semantics, ed. W. Wilkins, 129–146. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.
Roeper, T. 2005. Chomsky’s remarks and the transformationalist hypothesis. In Handbook of word-formation, eds. P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, 125–146. Dordrecht: Springer.
Smith, C. 1972. On causative verbs and derived nominals in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 36–38.
Szymanek, B. 1985. English and Polish adjectives. A study in lexicalist word-formation. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL.
Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wierzbicka, A. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat? Language 58: 753–799.
Williams, E. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 1: 81–114.
Willim, E. 2006. Event, individuation, and countability: A study with special reference to English and Polish. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bloch-Trojnar, M. (2011). A Morphologist’s Perspective on “Event Structure Theory” of Nominalizations. In: Pawlak, M., Bielak, J. (eds) New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20082-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20083-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)