Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Abstract

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.

Dissimilation at the Interface: Nominalization as the Key to a Longstanding Puzzle

“…In particular, I argue, in contrast to the previous literature, that the doubl-ing effect need not be reduced to any specialized constraint, but instead entirely falls out from the interplay between the postsyntactic movement of vocabulary items (e.g., Embick 2007, Punske 2016) and, following Hiraiwa (2010aHiraiwa ( , 2010bHiraiwa ( , 2014, the presence of multiple, distinct spell-out domains, as is required in phase theory (Chomsky 2001 and related works). Event nominals, like those in (6), involve local dislocation of the -ing affixes, potentially subjecting them to the doubl-ing effect.…”

“…I argue that, by examining nominalizations, which are commonly and/or explicitly ignored within this literature, a solution becomes apparent. I show that the doubl-ing effect is a complex interaction of local dislocation (as described in Punske 2016), differences between complex event nominals (Grimshaw 1990) and other nominals, and cyclic derivation (Chomsky 2001(Chomsky , 2004(Chomsky , 2005, and many other related works). While cyclic derivation is sufficient to explain the doubl-ing effect in the verbal domain, it is insufficient to capture the effect alone in nominalization.…”

“…Previous accounts, such as Milsark (1972), Emonds (1973), and Pullum & Zwicky (1999), argued that the critical difference between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences is essentially between nouns and verbs-the offending property is found in verbs but not in nouns. However, the doubl-ing effect can be observed within nominals, as noted in Punske (2016), (see Richards 2010: 65-67 for some related facts) where gerunds and -ing modified adjectives interact with respect to the doubl-ing effect, as seen in the examples below:…”

“…Indeed, as discussed in the next section, diagnostics from Grimshaw (1990) show that the distinct interpretations of building-type nominals must be associated with different types of nominal constructions. Within the nominal domain, the doubl-ing effect only occurs when a nominal is eventive in the sense of Grimshaw (1990), 5 a fact that, when combined with Punske's (2016) approach to regularity, can be readily explained.…”

“…The primary focus of the paper is related to the English morpheme -ing, where adjacent -ing affixed forms are sometimes, but not always, ungrammatical, as first described by Ross (1972). 1 This phenomenon has received considerable attention in the literature (with subsequent additional descriptions and discussion by Milsark (1972), Emonds (1973), Pullum (1974), Milsark (1988), Emonds (1991, Yip (1998), Pullum & Zwicky (1999), Milsark (2006), Richards (2010), Nevins (2012), along with related discussions by Menn & MacWhinney (1984), Borer (1990), Hiraiwa (2014), Punske (2016), among others, but, as I argue, still lacks a satisfactory solution. I argue that, by examining nominalizations, which are commonly and/or explicitly ignored within this literature, a solution becomes apparent.…”