In this paper, I show that Embick's (2010) cyclic head approach to regular morphology alone cannot account for the freely available variations in the realization of nominalizers in English nominalizations involving overt verbalizers. Instead, I offer an account of the regularity effects using the technology of Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2007a, 2007b. Using this analysis, I derive both the variable nominalization patterns and the restrictions on particles and results in derived nominals from Sichel (2010). By treating regularity as the by-product of extant morphosyntatic operations, we can better explain the distribution of regular and irregular nominalizers and account for particle/result restrictions in English derived nominals.

No abstract

No abstract

The narrow goal is to provide a complete account of the doubl-ing effect (Ross 1972) within a Minimalist and Distributed Morphology * I am indebted to a number of helpful hands who have helped shape this work too many to properly thank. I would like to express special gratitude to audiences at the Arizona

No abstract