Direct participation effects in derived nominals

The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, 2010

Nominalization structures are in some sense 'deficient' when compared with their verbal counterparts. One particularly well-known difference found in languages like English, where external arguments are obligatorily realized in clauses, is that the overt realization of the external

2009

Nominalization structures are in some sense 'deficient' when compared with their verbal counterparts. One particularly well-known difference found in languages like English, where external arguments are obligatorily realized in clauses, is that the overt realization of the external argument is not necessary (Abney 1987, Dowty 1989, Kratzer 1996, Alexiadou 2001, among others). Nominalizations also appear to lack the OBJ grammatical function or the structural space often attributed to an extended VP (Rappaport 1983, Kayne 1984, Abney 1987): ECM, double objects, object control, and particle shift have been claimed to require VP shell-structure or Agr-o (Larson 1988, 1990; Den Dikken 1995; Collins & Thrainsson 1996, Svenonius 1996). These constructions are all lacking in derived nominals and in ING-OF gerunds, though available in the POSS-ING variety: 1

In this paper, we discuss the restriction on the realization of non-agentive causers in nominalizations (see Adultery separated Jim and Mary. vs. ??the separation/*the separating of Jim and Mary by adultery). By comparing English to German and Romanian, we show that this restriction may have two sources: the event complexity of the nominalization or the lexical semantics of the preposition that introduces the external argument. First, the realization of non-agentive causers requires the presence of a result state component that is absent in German nominal infinitives and English ing-of gerunds. This leads to the inability of these nominalizations to host non-agentive external arguments. Second, the prepositions that introduce external arguments have a restricted distribution in Romanian and English nominalizations with the effect that the restriction appears in all Romanian nominalizations and in English derived nominals. The corresponding preposition in German is unrestricted, which explains why -ung nominals, which project a result state component, can realize non-agentive external arguments.

Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1991

Lingua, 2014

Deverbal-er nominals (driver, lifesaver, blender) may have eventive properties as they may or may not entail the occurrence of an actual event. For Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1992), eventivity is linked to animacy. More recent studies have concluded that eventivity is always present but comes in different aspectual flavors (e.g. episodic/dispositional, as in Alexiadou and Schäfer, 2010). This paper argues, on the basis of French data, that both views are partially correct in the sense that instruments, which are not animate, are never eventive, and that eventive nominals (always animate) fall into two groups depending on whether they involve an episodic event or a generic one. The eventive properties are demonstrated by the interpretation of-er Ns in combination with modifying adjectives, and specifically the event-related meanings of attributive adjectives (cf. Larson, 1998), a context often neglected by previous studies. For eventive nominals, the episodic/generic sense is contributed by the argument structure under the assumption that eventive nominals are built on complex verbal structure lacking with non-eventive Ns. We argue that-er nominals can be integrated in a larger view of deverbal nouns in a syntactic approach to complex word formation that distinguishes nouns derived from roots and argument structure nominals derived from full verbal phrases. Thus, we contribute to a view in which the correlation between event reading and argument structure (as commonly assumed for event-denoting deverbal nominals since Grimshaw, 1990) is uniformly maintained.

Linguistic Review, 2010

Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), 1992

In Czech, and in other Slavic languages, the lexical-derivational operators that are applied to a verb can extend their semantic effects over a particular nominal argument. Such effects are often comparable (i) to those of articles and also (ii) to those of determiner quantifers, and various quantifying and measure expressions. This can be best shown with determinerless NPs fiat are headed by common nouns, in particular mass and plural nouns. This analysis of the interaction between verbal and nominal predicates in Czech builds on recent suggestions by Partee, Bach & Kratzer (1987), Partee(1990) and (1991) who explore the use of verbal affxes to express various kinds of quantificational or closely related meanings. Although there are many other contextual factors that determine the interpretation of determinerless NPs with common noun heads in Czech, my analysis focuses on the role played by verbal aspect in connection with incremental Theme role (cf. Krifka 1986; 1987; 1989; Dowty 1988; 1991), a semantic role that motivates the telic/atelic distinction (Aktionsart) of complex verbal expression. I propose that in Czech the lexical derivational operators that are applied to a verb direct their semantic effects at an Incremental Theme argument.

2014

Abstract: This paper focuses on agent-denoting nominalizations in various languages (e.g. the finder of the wallet), contrasting them with the much better studied action/event-denoting nominalizations. In particular, we show that in Sakha, Mapudungun, and English, agent-denoting nominalizations have none of the verbal features that event-denoting nominalizations sometimes have: they cannot contain adverbs, voice markers, expressions of aspect or mood, or verbal negation. An apparent exception to this generalization is that Sakha allows accusative-case marked objects in agentive nominalizations. We show that in fact the structure of agentive nominalizations in Sakha is as purely nominal as in other languages, and the difference is attributable to the rule of accusative case assignment. We explain these restrictions by arguing that agentive nominalizers have a semantics very much like the one proposed by Kratzer (1996) for Voice heads. Given this, the natural order of semantic composi...

Interface Explorations, 2010