Derived Nominals

Abstract

Derived nominals are understood as deverbal nominalizations (i.e., nouns derived from verbs through derivational affixes, such as, e.g., destruction ). Cross‐linguistically, derived nominals constitute a mixed category and show intra‐language and inter‐language variation in the degree of their “nouniness” or “verbness” and in morpho‐syntactic patterns. Among many ambiguities, the least controversial is a clear contrast between result nominals and process nominals (i.e., Complex Event Nominals). There is no consensus, however, as to the account of this dichotomy, the relationship of the derived nominal to the base verb and the nature of the nominalization process. The crucial point is the argument distribution in derived nominals as compared to verbs. It is generally assumed that the presence of argument structure (AS) points to the verbal source of the derivation. Among the various approaches, some binary oppositions have been suggested, such as transformationalist vs. lexicalist approach, syntactic vs. lexical derivation, configurational vs. non‐configurational account, and so on. Recent developments in syntactic theory, such as Distributed Morphology or Neo‐Constructivism, dispense with the strict border between the lexicon/morphology and syntax, and within those new approaches, the ambiguities among nominalizations are attributed to the differences in functional structure. Action nominalizations (derived from Agent–Patient verbs like destroy ) have been studied most extensively. They constitute the basis for various accounts, which, on closer scrutiny, do not always work when confronted with derived nominals from a variety of different languages (Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Greek, among others) and from other semantic classes (e.g., psychological nominals). Most recent cross‐linguistic analyses of derived nominals emphasize the relevance of event structure and aspect for their behavioral properties. Also, stative nominalizations have found place on the current research agenda. All these developments significantly enriched the current state of the art in this area and influenced the views on the division of labor between different components of grammar.