Nominalization, event, aspect and argument structure

Sleeman, Petra; Brito, Ana Maria

doi:10.1075/la.158.07sle

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although initially built for verbs, we propose in this paper, following Bašić (this volume), that the split vP hypothesis can be applied to other categories. In the specific case of nominalizations, we argue that the split vP hypothesis can account for the five readings distinguished by Sleeman & Brito (2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…categories, are built in Syntax. In this section, following Sleeman & Brito (2010), we adopt this approach. We argue that nominalizations can have different readings and different possibilities of realization of their argument structure and we relate the various readings to various differences within Ramchand"s split vP.…”

Section: Nominalizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grimshaw (1990) distinguishes two types of nominalizations: complex event nouns, in which the properties of the verbal base are still transparent, and result nouns, in which the properties of the verbal base are no longer transparent. Sleeman & Brito (2010) argue that more than two readings can be distinguished for nominalizations. They distinguish five readings, which are connected not only to different aspectual readings, but also to the expression of argument structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the examination of the papers by the instructor (agent) However, the situation seems to be less clear-cut. Work on nominalizations in several languages has shown that there are some phenomena that have to be considered if we want to build a general theory of nominalizations (see also Sleeman & Brito 2010):…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: A split vP analysis

Sleeman¹,

Brito²

2010

The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Nominalizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: A split vP analysis

Sleeman¹,

Brito²

2010

The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has long been observed (cf., Grimshaw 1990, Alexiadou 2001) and also well-proven crosslinguistically (van Hout 1991, Picallo 1991, Sleeman and Brito 2010 that deverbal nouns allow at least two distinct semantic interpretations: the event-process (5a), and the result-2 Abstract deverbal nouns such as discussion, sleep, swim, etc. become countable when they represent an instance of the abstract concept.…”

Section: Deverbal Nounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction or Constructing? Some Observations on English Deverbal and Gerundial Nouns

Ilc

2016

ELOPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

English deverbal and gerundial nouns are traditionally analysed as instances of verbal nominalisations with a hybrid syntactic and semantic nature: while predominantly having nominal properties, they display some of the verbal characteristics as well. Using relevant examples from English corpora (BNc, ukWac, enTenTen13), the paper examines the similarities and differences between the two types of nominalisations with special focus on their syntactic and semantic properties. The paper discusses deverbal/gerundial nouns in relation to the s.c. gerundial cline, which refers to the gradual process of nominalisation as observed in English. The analysis of examples shows that gerundial nouns are typically associated with the eventive interpretation, and that the structure of the nominal phrase headed by a gerundial noun directly reflects the syntactic properties of the verbal root. Deverbal nouns, on the other hand, are typically associated with the result-object interpretation, and the structure of the nominal phrase headed by a deverbal noun is less dependent on the syntactic properties of the verbal root. Despite these apparent differences, corpus data also reveal that the converse is also true: deverbal nouns can be used as gerundial nouns and vice versa.Keywords: deverbal nouns; gerundial nouns; gerundial cline; nominalisation; nominal phrase; syntax; semantics Gradnja ali grajenje? O angleških izglagolskih in glagolskih samostalnikihPOvZETEK Angleški izglagolski in glagolski samostalniki so primeri nominalizacij, ki skladenjsko in pomensko kažejo lastnosti tako samostalnikov kot glagolov. S pomočjo relevantnih primerov iz referenčnih angleških korpusov (BNc, ukWac, enTenTen13) članek obravnava podobnosti in razločke med izglagolskimi in glagolskimi samostalniki. Izglagolski in glagolski samostalniki so obravnavani tudi z vidika postopnosti izglagolskega nominalizacijskega procesa. Razčlemba korpusnih primerov pokaže, da se glagolski samostalniki pogosto rabijo, kadar izražajo dogodkovni pomen. Struktura samostalniške zveze, katere jedro je glagolski samostalnik, jasno odseva skladenjske zahteve glagolskega korena. Nasprotno se izglagolski samostalniki tipično pojavljajo z rezultativnim pomenom. Struktura samostalniške zveze, katere jedro je izglagolski samostalnik, ni več nujno odvisna od skladenjskih zahtev glagolskega korena. Korpusni podatki med drugim pokažejo, da je nasprotno tudi mogoče: izglagolski samostalniki se lahko rabijo kot glagolski in obratno. Ključne

show abstract

Derived Nominals

Rozwadowska

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Nominalization, event, aspect and argument structure

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: A split vP analysis

Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: A split vP analysis

Construction or Constructing? Some Observations on English Deverbal and Gerundial Nouns

Derived Nominals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About