Event-structure constraints on nominalization

Sichel, Ivy

doi:10.1515/9783110245875.159

Cited by 46 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study of manner and causation in English, Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2012) used the notion of actor and non-actor to discuss events in which an animate causer is or is not responsible for the consequences of its act, distinguishing causation from actorhood. In two studies of external arguments in nominalizations, Sichel (2010) and similarly differentiated agentivity from direct causation. In a study of reflexives in Greek (which we return to in Section 5.2), Spathas et al (2015) identified the prefix afto-as an anti-assistive modifier, again performing a similar semantic function.…”

Section: Agent-oriented Adverbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics

Kastner

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reflexive verbs in Modern Hebrew show specific morphological marking: only one of the seven verbal templates in the language can be used for reflexives. Yet this morphological marking also appears on anticausative verbs, which have different syntactic and semantic properties. I provide an analysis of reflexivity in Hebrew which does not make reference to dedicated reflexive morphosyntax. By combining independently needed functional heads, the proposal explains what in the syntax underlies this morphology and how different kinds of verbs end up with identical morphophonological properties. To this end, I consider the lexical semantics of individual lexical roots as well as the syntactic configurations in which roots and arguments are embedded. The resulting theory is one in which lexical roots trigger specific interpretations of the syntax at the interfaces.

show abstract

Section: Agent-oriented Adverbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics

Kastner

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This model can account for the differences in morphological regularity between derived nominals and gerunds while also capturing the generalization that English derived nominals disallow particles and results while English nominal gerunds allow them (Pesetsky 1995, Marantz 1997a, Harley and Noyer 2000, Alexiadou and Schäffer 2007, Sichel 2010. I show that…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

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

Punske¹

2016

The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de li

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Semantics, especially the interpretation of 'arguments' of the nominal expressions (in comparison with their verbal counterparts) is discussed in e.g. Snyder (1998), Sichel (2010), Baker (2016) and Lawrence (2017).…”

Section: Grimshaw (1991)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I will label them both as 'result nominals' (RN), because with respect to the characteristics observed here, they are identical. For more diagnostics seeGrimshaw (1991),Sichel (2010) and the studies cited there.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological taxonomy in the present-day generative framework: A case study of English and Czech nominalization

Veselovská

2018

Topics in Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the classification of morphemes in a generative framework. Referring to existing theoretical models of generative morphosyntax (e.g. Distributed Morphology), it demonstrates that a traditional long-standing taxonomic distinction reflects formal, i.e. structural (and derivational) distinctions. Using the well-known examples of the English multi-functional nominalizer -ing and some parallel data in Czech, the study reinterprets morphological taxonomy in terms of three levels, namely the (i) lexical, (ii) syntactic and (iii) post-syntactic insertion of grammatical formatives. It shows that the level of insertion in a syntactic derivation results in predictable (and attested) diagnostics for the multi-morpheme exponents.

show abstract

Event-structure constraints on nominalization

Cited by 46 publications

References 23 publications

Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics

Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics

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

Morphological taxonomy in the present-day generative framework: A case study of English and Czech nominalization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About