Cover not available
Part of
Cross-linguistic Investigations of Nominalization Patterns
Edited by Ileana Paul
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 210] 2014
► pp. 119–144

Simple event nominalizations

Roots and their interpretation

| Simon Fraser University

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.

Published online: 18 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.210.05mou
References
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 On the role of syntactic locailty in morphological processes. In Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 253–280. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Arsenijevic, Boban
2009 Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua 119: 39–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1986 The algebra of events. Linguistcs and Philosophy 9: 5–16.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2003 The forming, formation and the form of nominals. Ms, USC.Google Scholar
2005. The Normal Course of Events. Structuring Sense, Vol. II. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano & Polinsky, Maria
2011 Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 71–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A
2004 Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R
1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Theory 19: 549–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay
2002 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2009 The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 321–343. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. Roger
1972 The pseudocleft construction in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S
2009 Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Semantics Archive 8 July 2003, [URL] (24 June 2013).Google Scholar
2004 Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 398–423. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006 Decomposing attitude verbs. Semantics Archive 24 November 2009, [URL] (24 June 2013).Google Scholar
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
Marantz, Alec
1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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 Linguistics 4(2), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
2001 Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, USC, 23–25 February.
Moulton, Keir
2009 Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
2013a CPs: Copies and compositionality. Ms, under submission.
2013b Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax 16(3): 250-291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott
1984 Zero-derivation and inflection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 7(5), 3–69. Cambridge MA: MITPWL.Google Scholar
Ogawa, Yoshiki
2001 A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence
1990 Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995 Zero Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
Potts, Christopher
2002 The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5: 55–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2004 Structuring Events. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salanova, Andrès P
2010 Action nominalizations do not embed verbal projections. Handout of talk presented at McGill, January.
Stowell, Timothy
1981 Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Barrie, Michael & Sihun Jung
2020. The Northern Iroquoian nominalizer and lexical categories. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 65:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Barrie, Michael & Isaiah Won Ho Yoo
2017. Bare Nominal Adjuncts. Linguistic Inquiry 48:3 ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo
Berro, Ane & Beatriz Fernández
2019. Applicatives without verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37:4 ► pp. 1273 ff. DOI logo
Borer, Hagit
2023. Argument Structure and Derived Nominals. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Cheng, Adæmrys Chihjen
2021. The property concepts and the possessive verb Ū ‘Have’ in Taiwan Southern Min. Asian Languages and Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
He, Angela Xiaoxue & Eva Wittenberg
2020. The acquisition of event nominals and light verb constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass 14:2 DOI logo
Knyazev, Mikhail
2020. ‘Need’ with Accusative in Russian. Scando-Slavica 66:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Rudnev, Pavel
2015. Events, locations and situations. Linguistics in the Netherlands 32 ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Uegaki, Wataru
2022. Thinking About: Clausal Complements as Predicates?. In Question-orientedness and the Semantics of Clausal Complementation [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 106], ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Uegaki, Wataru & Yasutada Sudo
2019. The *hope-wh puzzle. Natural Language Semantics 27:4 ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.