Cover not available
Part of
Noun Valency
Edited by Olga Spevak
[Studies in Language Companion Series 158] 2014
► pp. 89–112

Chapter 4. Case assignment, aspect, and (non-)expression of patients

A study of the internal structure of Czech verbal nouns

| Rutgers University
After reviewing various surface realizations of agents, patients and goals in Czech nominalizations, I present a syntactic analysis which straightforwardly accounts for the case form of these arguments, based on the well-known idea in the literature that nouns can share with verbs a substantive part of the extended verbal projection. Moreover, both imperfective verbs and nouns can combine with null existentially interpreted patients while neither perfective verbs nor perfective nouns allow them. I explain this as the interaction of the properties of verbal Aspect/Quantity category and the missing number projection of implicit patients. Finally, I show that only nominals (regardless of their aspectual value) but not verbs can combine with null patients referring to an entity from the previous discourse.
Published online: 19 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.158.04dvo
References (52)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel G. 2010. Temporal Interpretation in Narrative Discourse and Event Internal Reference. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 73–117. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of Non-canonical NP Positions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amherst.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Implicit arguments. In Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 2, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 558–588. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1999. The form, the forming, and the formation of nominals. Ms, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Structuring Sense: An Exo-skeletal Trilogy, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Structuring Sense: An Exo-skeletal trilogy, Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
. 1980. On binging. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, John Martin, David Michaels & Jane Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–53. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1971. Větné členy obligatorní, potenciální a fakultativní (Obligatory, potential, and facultative sentential constituents). In Miscellanea Linguistica, Miroslav Komárek (ed.), 131–138. Ostrava: Profil.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly & Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3(2): 123–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dočekal, Mojmír & Kučerová, Ivona. 2010. Aspectual presuppositions in Slavic and Romance. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Ithaca Meeting 2009, 125–139. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dvořák, Věra. 2010. On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Ithaca Meeting 2009, 161–177. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
. 2011. Inherent case and locality requirement: Evidence from ditransitives and their nominalizations. In U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1): Proceedings of PLC 34, 95–104. Philadelphia PA: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
. 2013. When silent ‘something’ and silent ‘someone’ behave like mass nouns. Talk presented at RULing VIII, Rutgers University. [URL]
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1): 55–101.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingqui, Roeper, Thomas & 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
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Goals and sources are aspectually equal: Evidence from Czech and Russian prefixes. Lingua 118: 1664–1689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Extended projection. Ms, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvian Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jablońska, Patrycja. 2007. Radical Decomposition and Argument Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Karlík, Petr. 2000. Valence substantiv v modifikované valenční teorii (Valency of nouns in a modified valency theory). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 2, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 181–192. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
. 2002. Ještě jednou k českým deverbálním substantivům (Once more on Czech deverbal nouns). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 4, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 13–23. Praha: Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Kolářová, Veronika. 2010. Valence deverbativních substantiv v češtině (na materiálu substantiv s dativní valencí) (Valency of deverbal nouns in Czech, with a special regard to nouns with dative valency). Praha: Karolinum.Google 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
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 357–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, Sam Mchombo (ed.), 113–150. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): Proceedings of PLC 21 , Alexis Dimitriadis (ed.), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
. 2007. Phases and Words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, Sook-Hee Choe (ed.), 196–222. Seoul: Dong In.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Novotný, Jiří. 1980. Valence dějových substantiv v češtině (Valency of event nouns in Czech) [Sborník pedagogické fakulty v Ústí nad Labem]. Prague: SPN.Google Scholar
Panevová, Jarmila. 1974. On verbal frames in Functional Generative Description. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 22, 3–40.Google Scholar
. 2000. Poznámky k valenci podstatných jmen (Notes on the valency of nouns). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 2, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 173–180. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
Piťha, Petr. 1992. Posesívní vztah v češtině (Possessive Relation in Czech). Prague: Aved.Google Scholar
Procházková, Věra. 2006. Argument Structure of Czech Event Nominals. M.Phil. thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2004. Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 32(2): 323–361.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas & van Hout, Angeliek. 1999. The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and middle: Burzio’s generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon. In MITWPL 35: Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon, Liina Pylkkänen, Angeliek van Hout & Heidi Harley (eds), 185–211. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Romanova, Eugenia. 2004. Superlexical versus lexical prefixes. Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 32(2): 255–278.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working papers on Language and Linguistics 32(2): 205–253.Google Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila. 2001. K analýze českých deverbálních substantiv (On the analysis of Czech deverbal nouns). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 3, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 11–27. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro. 1989. The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Nominalization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amherst.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Giger, Markus & Jana Kocková
2024. Grenzüberschreitungen an der Peripherie: Aspektuelle Funktionen von Aktivpartizipien und Verbalsubstantiven im Tschechischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 69:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kosta, Peter & Petr Karlík
2020. Die Nominalisierung von Nebensätzen im Tschechischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 65:4 ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 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.