Nominalization: 50 years on from Chomsky's remarks 2020947982, 9780198865544, 9780198865582

Citation preview

Nominalization

OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS General Editors David Adger and Hagit Borer, Queen Mary University of London

Advisory Editors Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Büring, University of Vienna; Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of California, Santa Cruz; Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Andrew Nevins, University College London; Christopher Potts, Stanford University; Barry Schein, University of Southern California; Peter Svenonius, University of Tromsø; Moira Yip, University College London

  62 The Morphosyntax of Transitions A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages by Víctor Acedo-Matellán 63 Modality Across Syntactic Categories edited by Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero, and Andrés Salanova 64 The Verbal Domain edited by Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego 65 Concealed Questions by Ilaria Frana 66 Parts of a Whole Distributivity as a Bridge between Aspect and Measurement by Lucas Champollion 67 Semantics and Morphosyntactic Variation Qualities and the Grammar of Property Concepts by Itamar Francez and Andrew Koontz-Garboden 68 The Structure of Words at the Interfaces edited by Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa deMena Travis 69 Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface by Osamu Sawada 70 Encoding Events Functional Structure and Variation by Xuhui Hu 71 Gender and Noun Classification edited by Éric Mathieu, Myriam Dali, and Gita Zareikar 72 The Grammar of Expressivity by Daniel Gutzmann 73 The Grammar of Copulas Across Language edited by María J. Arche, Antonio Fábregas, and Rafael Marín 74 The Roots of Verbal Meaning by John Beavers and Andrew Koontz-Garboden 75 Contrast and Representations in Syntax edited by Bronwyn M. Bjorkman and Daniel Currie Hall 76 Nominalization 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer

For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 450–2.

Nominalization 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks Edited by

A R T E MI S A L E X I A D O U AND H A G I T BO R E R

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © editorial matter and organization Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer 2020 © the chapters their several authors 2020 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947982 ISBN 978–0–19–886554–4 (hbk.) ISBN 978–0–19–886558–2 (pbk.) Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

General Preface The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfaces between subcomponents of the human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the different subdisciplines of linguistics. The notion of ‘interface’ has become central in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky’s Minimalist Program) and in linguistic practice: Work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc., has led to a deeper understanding of particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component of the mind/brain. The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics, morphology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/pragmatics, and intonation/discourse structure, as well as issues in the way that the systems of grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including language acquisition, language dysfunction, and language processing). It demonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena, languages, language groups, or inter-language variations all require reference to interfaces. The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines. Nominalization, the process whereby new complex nouns are created in a language, was a central area of investigation in generative grammar even before Chomsky published his seminal Remarks on Nominalization. The succeeding decades have explored in further depth the issues that Chomsky identified: how notions of synonymy are to be encoded in syntactic theory; productivity and exceptions to proposed rules; the architecture of the grammar, and how different kinds of information are stored. Analysis of these issues has deepened our insights into how morphology, syntax, and semantics interact and has led to major revisions to the lexical and phrase structure components in generative syntactic theory over the years. The current volume is a state-of-the-art collection of chapters, showing both how broadly the cross-linguistic investigation of

viii

 

nominalizations has developed and how far theoretical understanding has deepened. Though Chomsky, in his brief remarks here, indicates he is still in favor of a lexicalist view of non productive nominalization, the chapters themselves mostly argue that nominalizations are fundamentally generative, though exactly how to express their structural complexity is still clearly a question of vigorous theoretical debate. David Adger Hagit Borer

List of Abbreviations √ π 1 1 2 2 3 3 12  A AASN        ADJZ   /    ANTIP AP AS ASN Asp AspP ASPQ ATK  BA 

Root passive first person first person singular agreement second person second person singular agreement third person third person singular agreement first person, second person, third person, first person inclusive ‘Set A’(ergative/possessive) agent-like argument of transitive verb adjectival argument structure nominals ablative case absolutive accusative active Voice additive (particle) adjective adjectivalizer adjectivizing affix adnominal adverb Agent Focus Agent agreement anterior antipassive adjectival phrase argument structure Argument Structure Nominal aspect aspect phrase telicity (quantity) aspect -ation and kin (latinated NOM suffixes) ‘Set B’(Absolutive) big-type adjectives lexical category

x

  

 CAUS.ACT   CI      COS CP   , Decl,     DFG DIR   DM DN DOM DS ECE CM  EO    EPP  ES Ev EVG  EvP exam ExP ExP[X]

causative hif ’il template (hiXYiZ) case domain Complex Event Nominal conceptual-intentional level connegative (stem) Corpus of Contemporary American English comitative completive copula change of state complement clause converb dative declarative definite demonstrative determiner German Research Foundation direction dispositional derived intransitive suffix Distributed Morphology deverbal nominals (also derived nominals) differential object marking different-subject construal Existential Closure Exceptional Case Marking emphatic Experiencer Object epenthesis epenthetic episodic the extended projection principle ergative Experiencer Subject event English verbal gerund evidential (past) event phrase examination Extended Projection Extended Projection of X

   EP[V] ,  FA Fin FL FN Fn[X] (n an integer)     GloWb  GNI GS GVI IDEO        . .   IRR ITER ,  LASN LAT  .     NACT  

xi

Extended Projection of V feminine frequency adjectives finiteness faculty of language factive nominalization a functional node in the Extended Projection of X focus frequentative future tense genitive Corpus of Global Web-based English gender German nominal infinitives grammatical subject German verbal infinities ideophone illative case inclusive inessive case infinitive inflection instrumental interrogative particle piél template (XiY̯eZ) hitpaél template (hitXaY̯eZ) intransitive imperfective irrealis iterative intransitive Long Argument Structure Nominals (including prenominal subject) lative locative locative nominalizer malefactive masculine middle Voice nonfinite or nominal form of lexical verb nonactive negative neuter

xii

  

 NG NI  NMZ,   NOW NP  NPI NVP NZLR . OBL OED P p, pl, ,  . P5  PASS       PRO-arb    PRT  , PST,  PTCP.FUT  RC    REMP  RN RoN

nonfuture tense noun gerund nominal infinitive nominal suffix nominalizing affix nominative News on the Web noun phrase nonpast tense negative polarity item nonverbal predicate nominalizer object nominalizer oblique Oxford English Dictionary patient-like argument of transitive verb plural past perfect position 5 clitic passive designated passive template perfective possessive Principles and Parameters participle predicate present tense PRO with arbitrary (generic) interpretation progressive prospective aspect present particle Phrase Structure Grammar past future participle punctual relative clause reduplication reflexive relativizer remote past reportative Result Nominals, Referential Nominals, result nouns Remarks on Nominalization

   RootP S S(E)A s, sg, ,  . S.REL SASN SC Sdev, Sy SEN SFP sfx SM . . SOAs SPAT SRPV SS   stc subj sup Sv TAM TG TH, THEME   UTAH  VAI / VTA WF XSM ZD ZN

Root Phrase sole argument of intransitive verb silent external argument, silent argument singular subject nominalizer subject relativizer Short Argument Structure Nominals (no logical subject) small clause substantiva deverbalia Simple Event Nominals sentence final particle suffix sensory motor level qal/pa’al template (XaYaZ) nif ’al template (niXYaZ) states-of-affairs spatial location Spanish reflexive psychological verb same-subject construal status suffix stative static subject supine substantiva verbalia tense, aspect, or mood Transformations Grammar Theme topic transitive Universal Theta Assignment Hypothesis finite verbal form verb animate intransitive verbalizer verb transitive animate Word Formation Exo-skeletal model zero derivation zero-derived nominals (conversion)

xiii

Notes on Contributors Peter Ackema is Professor of Morphosyntax at the University of Edinburgh. He is a graduate of Utrecht University, where he obtained his PhD in 1995. He specializes in research on the interface between morphology and syntax, on which he has published a wide variety of articles and three books (Issues in Morphosyntax, Benjamins, 1999, Beyond Morphology, OUP, 2004, and Features of Person, MIT Press, 2018, the latter two co-authored with Ad Neeleman). Odelia Ahdout is a doctoral researcher at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Her topics of interests include the interface between morpho-syntax, lexical semantics, and pragmatics. Her upcoming doctoral dissertation presents an extensive survey of deverbal nouns in Hebrew, focusing on the relevance of verbal (templatic) morphology to the behavior of nominal derivatives. Her dissertation focuses on the interaction of Voice marking and nominalization, and seeks to provide an account of systematic gaps found between active and nonactive Voice marking in the domain of nominalization. Artemis Alexiadou is Professor of English Linguistics at the Humboldt University in Berlin and Vice Director of Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS) in Berlin. She obtained her PhD in 1994 from the University of Potsdam. Her research is concerned with the syntax and morphology of noun phrases and argument alternations, on which she has published several articles and books (e.g. Functional Structure in Nominals, Benjamins 2001, External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations, OUP, 2015, co-authored with Elena Anagnostopoulou and Florian Schäfer). Hagit Borer is a Professor of Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. Her research involves the division of labor between the lexicon and syntax, and touches on morphosyntax as well as the syntax-semantics interface. She is the author of a threebook series on these topics, titled ‘Structuring Sense’: In Name Only (OUP, 2005), focusing on nominal structure; The Normal Course of Events (OUP, 2005), focusing on event structure, and Taking Form (OUP, 2013) focusing on morphosyntax and word formation. Noam Chomsky is Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He is an Institute Professor (emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was Professor of Linguistics from 1955. He has made numerous groundbreaking contributions which radically transformed the field of modern linguistics, including his 1970 paper Remarks on Nominalization.

xvi    Jessica Coon is Associate Professor of Linguistics at McGill University and Canada Research Chair in Syntax and Indigenous Languages. She completed her PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2010, with a dissertation focusing on split ergativity. Much of her work is centered on the syntax and morphology of Mayan languages, especially Ch’ol and Chuj, and she has published on topics relating to ergativity, agreement, verb-initial word order, A’-extraction, and nominalization. Her 2013 OUP book, Aspects of Split Ergativity, examines split ergativity in Ch’ol and crosslinguistically. Éva Dékány is a post-doctoral researcher at the Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She received her PhD in Theoretical Linguistics from the University of Tromsø in 2012 and has published on the structure of nominal and adpositional phrases as well as the history of Hungarian. She is currently working on finite and nonfinite subordination in various Finno-Ugric languages. Ekaterina Georgieva is a post-doctoral researcher at the Research Institute for Linguistics in Budapest. She received her PhD in Linguistics from the University of Szeged in 2019. Her research focuses on the morphosyntax of Udmurt, and more specifically, on nonfinite subordination. Heidi Harley is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. She works on syntax, morphology, and argument structure, as well as the grammar of the UtoAztecan language Hiaki. Gianina Iordăchioaia is a researcher at the Institute of English Linguistics, University of Stuttgart. She graduated from the University of Bucharest and obtained her PhD from the University of Tübingen in 2009. Her most recent research concerns the interface between morphology, syntax, and (lexical) semantics with a focus on word formation. She is currently the principal investigator of the DFG-funded project ‘Zeroderived nouns and deverbal nominalization: an empirically-oriented perspective’. Itamar Kastner is Lecturer in the Cognitive Science of Language at the University of Edinburgh, which he joined after a post-doctoral position at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and graduate studies at New York University. His research concerns various aspects related to morphology, including morphosyntax, morphophonology, lexical semantics, and lexical processing. Keir Moulton is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Toronto. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he obtained his PhD in 2009. His research centers on the interaction between syntax and semantics on topics such as embedding, binding, quantification, and relativization, with publications on these topics in journals such as Linguistic Inquiry and Language. He conducts experiments on these and other topics as the director of the Toronto Experimental Syntax-Semantics lab.

  

xvii

Ad Neeleman is Professor of Linguistics at University College London. He obtained his PhD at Utrecht University in 1994. His research focuses on syntax and its interfaces, in particular morphology and information structure. Following his doctoral dissertation on complex predicates, he published some seventy research papers and co-authored three monographs: Flexible Syntax (Kluwer, 1999, with Fred Weerman), Beyond Morphology (OUP, 2004, with Peter Ackema) and Features of Person (MIT Press, 2018, with Peter Ackema). Tom Roeper is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. He works primarily on language acquisition, derivational morphology, syntaxsemantics, and on applied issues in language disorders and second language acquisition. He currently specializes in the study of how recursion is acquired in many languages, with various collaborators working on coordinated experimentation. He has written a book for parents and teachers called The Prism of Grammar (MIT Press, 2009), and co-edited Recursion: Complexity in Cognition (Springer, 2014), and Recursion Across Domains (Cambridge University Press, 2018). He is co-editor of the series ‘Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics’, a former editor of Language Acquisition, and Director of the Language Acquisition Research Center at the University of Massachusetts. Isabelle Roy is a Professor of Linguistics at Université de Nantes. She has previously held a position at Université Paris VIII, as an Associate Professor, and at CASTLUniversity of Tromsø. She graduated from the University of Southern California in 2006. Her main research interests are in linguistic theory, with a focus on the syntaxsemantics interface, in the areas of events, predication, copular constructions, adjectives, categories and categorization, and in linguistic ontology. She is the author of Nonverbal Predication:Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface (OUP, 2013). Justin Royer is a PhD student in linguistics at McGill University. His research has mainly focused on the syntax and semantics of nominals and the determiner phrase, on free relatives, and on the syntax-prosody interface. He works primarily on Mayan languages, and he has conducted original fieldwork on Chuj, an underdocumented language spoken in Guatemala and Mexico. Bożena Rozwadowska has been a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wrocław since 1999. She studied at the University of Technology in Wrocław, at the University of Wrocław and at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She obtained her PhD in 1988 and her post-doctoral degree in 1998 for the Habilitationsschrift Towards a Unified Theory of Nominalizations; External and Internal Eventualities. In 2019 she received the title of Full Professor approved by the President of Poland. Her research focuses on the syntax-semantics interface, in particular within the area of psychological predicates. Andrés Pablo Salanova has studied the language of the Mẽbêngôkre since 1996; in addition, he has been involved in descriptive projects on other languages of lowland

xviii    South America, and has carried out theoretical research in morphosyntax and in the semantics of aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. He obtained his MA in Campinas (Brazil) in 2001, and his PhD at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2007, and he currently teaches linguistics at the University of Ottawa. Elena Soare is an Associate Professor at the University of Paris 8 where she teaches formal syntax and comparative linguistics. She is a graduate of the University of Bucharest and of the University of Paris 7, where she completed her PhD in 2002. She is currently working on nominalizations and the structure of nonfinite clauses across languages. She is the author of numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals and one of the editors of the ‘Sciences du Langage’ collection at Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. She has participated in, and conducted research programs on Argument Structure, Stative Predicates, and Nominalizations. Since 2014, she has been one of the leaders of a project on multilingualism entitled ‘Langues and Grammaires en Ile-deFrance’. Adam Tallman is a post-doctoral researcher at the Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage of the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (Université Lumière Lyon II). He obtained his PhD at the University of Texas at Austin and his dissertation was a Grammar of Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. His research focuses on the description and documentation of the languages of the Americas, linguistic typology, and quantative methods. His recent research focuses on constituency structure and the morphology-syntax distinction. His papers appear in journals such as Amerindia, Empirical Studies in Language, Studies in Language, Language and Linguistics Compass, among others. Jim Wood is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Yale University and associate editor of the Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. His primary research interests lie in syntax and its interfaces with morphology and semantics. He is the author of Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure (Springer, 2015), and his research has been published in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Linguistic Inquiry, Syntax, Glossa, Linguistic Variation, American Speech, and elsewhere. Since 2012, he has been a leading member of the Yale Grammatical Diversity Project, investigating micro-syntactic variation in North American English, and was a co-principal investigator on the National Science Foundation grant funding its work.

1 Introduction Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer

1.1 The Remarks challenge In 1967 (published 1970), in a move that was as controversial as it was influential, Chomsky proposed that certain aspects of morphological relatedness, e.g. those that hold between destroy and destruction, and erstwhile presumed to be within the jurisdiction of the syntax, are to be moved to the lexicon, a nongenerative component of the grammar, where their properties were to be treated on a par with other listed properties such as subcategorization, selectional restrictions, category specification, and phonological properties, already proposed to reside in the lexicon in Chomsky (1965). The primary rationale for the move to the lexicon was twofold. First, it was heuristic. Syntactically deriving deverbal nominals (DN), and complex words in general, proved detrimental to attempts to formally constrain the syntax along more universal lines, a disadvantage that was, in fact, to lead to the formal collapse of syntactic models which rejected the Remarks move. Moving word-internal structure to the lexicon, on the other hand, allowed the development of a more constrained syntax, capable of dealing better with syntactic challenges of the time (and see Chomsky, Chapter 2, for some relevant comments). The second rationale for moving complex word-internal properties to the lexicon was formal. Chomsky (1970) puts forth a series of arguments designed to show that the formation of words, however achieved, is not a generative device, but rather, must avail itself of lexically listed information. The lexicon, thus extended, was specifically targeted as the locus not only of idiosyncratic information associated with individual words, but also as the locus of relationship between pairs of related words, by assumption potentially arbitrary and unpredictable. Reasoning on the basis of a detailed comparison between complex nominals arguably with a verbal source, and gerunds (and assuming both are derived from a sentential structures), Chomsky constructs a typology of syntactic vs.

Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Introduction In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0001

2

    

lexical operations. Specifically, he points out that while gerunds are entirely regular and predictably share just about all the properties of the verbs embedded within them, that is not the case for DNs, where morphological, interpretational, and syntactic idiosyncrasies are common, and where the systematic inheritance of verbal properties cannot be taken for granted. Relevant examples of idiosyncrasy include, e.g., the item-specific choice of nominalizer (formation, but govern-ance or proof ). Others relate to the emergence of unpredictable meaning (proofs, transmission), and finally, derived nominals (but not gerunds) can occur without what are otherwise obligatory arguments for the verb, including both subject and object, e.g. the destruction was complete. Importantly, no such effects emerge with gerunds such as destroying *(the bridge), or transmitting (≠car gear). The appropriate integration of DNs into syntactic structures, Chomsky reasoned, thus must avail itself of unpredictable listed information, thereby necessitating their removal from the syntax and their listing, thereby resulting in a formal enrichment of the lexicon.¹ Chomsky (1970) does note, however, that alongside potential idiosyncrasies, DNs are frequently systematically related to their verbal correlates, to wit, destroy and destruction, defer and deferral, and so on, both in terms of the emerging meaning, and in terms of the (optional) availability and interpretation of complements. To capture these regularities, he introduces X’ theory, within which a pair such as destroy/destruction is perceived as a single category-less lexical entry with a fixed subcategorization frame. This entry, in turn, is inserted under an X⁰, be it N⁰ or V⁰ and thus acquires its categorial status. Finally, it is the categorial context of the insertion that determines the phonologically appropriate form for the entry. When under N⁰, it would be pronounced deferral or destruction, but when under V⁰, it would be pronounced defer or destroy.² For both, and in accordance with the provisions of the X’-scheme, a listed (direct) complement would be realized in a sisterhood relationship with X⁰, in a parallel fashion for the nominal and the verbal instantiations. The Remarks on Nominalization (RoN) representation of destroy vs. destruction can thus be represented as in (1) (irrelevant details

¹ An intermediate status, for Chomsky (1970) is that of mixed nominalizations, i.e. cases such as the growing of the tomato, which are morpho-phonologically regular, but where arguments may nonetheless be missing (the growing phase ended), and where idiosyncratic meaning does occasionally emerge (e.g. reading in the sense of ‘interpretation’; see Borer, 2013, for discussion). ² For a strict Bare Phrase Structure approach, note, this execution is impossible as a head projects its categorial properties, if any, and is not inserted under a preconstructed categorial node.



3

omitted), where  is an entry associated with meaning and with subcategorization, but not a syntactic category:

N’

(1)

N DESTROY

V’ [of NP]

destruction

V DESTROY

NP destroy

Crucially, whatever operation relates destroy, as the verbal instantiation of the relevant entry, and destruction, its nominal instantiation, it is not syntactic and is not represented syntactically. In fact, within that approach, it is not clear that the relationship is derivational in nature, as opposed to constituting a salient statistical correlation, an approach explicitly put forth by Jackendoff (1975). A number of crucial properties of (1) are worth highlighting. First, note that the complement of the noun here is optional, but that of the verb is obligatory. Chomsky (1970) assumes, explicitly, that this is a structural difference between nouns and verbs, which spans both the object and the subject, the latter optional for nouns and obligatory for verbs as well. In fact, the correlation between the optionality of complements in DNs and the optionality of complements in non-DN nominals serves for Chomsky as an additional argument for the lexical rather than (syntactically-)derived nature of DNs. To wit, if DNs have a verb embedded under them, indeed, a sentence, one expects the obligatoriness of both complement and subject, typical of verbs/sentences and clearly attested in gerunds. That such obligatoriness is not found in DNs therefore serves as an argument that fundamentally, they are inserted into an exclusively nominal slot, and are not syntactically composed of a verb plus some nominal affix.³ A second important observation concerning the structure in (1) is that syntactically, destroy, a verbal head, and destruction, a nominal noun, are equally complex—both are terminals. That one of them is morphologically complex and includes within it a stem that is largely identical to the verbal realization is most certainly not a syntactic fact and, in fact, for Chomsky

³ Additional arguments in favor of the view that DNs are not verb-derived come from the absence of Tough movement, Raising, and ECM for DNs; these operations are possible with gerunds suggesting that these have a verb embedded under them. Recently, however, Lieber (2016) and Bruening (2018) presented evidence suggesting that DNs do behave similarly to gerunds in this respect, after all.

4

    

(1970), it is not clear that it reflects any systematic derivational relationship altogether. Finally, note that albeit not explicitly acknowledged, the entry for  must contain some phonological information. Were that not the case, the phonological overlap between destruction and destroy and similar pairs would become an inexplicable and repeated coincidence. The case for the idiosyncrasy of complex words, and hence their listed nature, was considerably enhanced with Halle (1973)’s Prolegomena for Word Formation. Halle highlighted the phonologically unpredictable nature of morphological operations, primarily within the domain of inflection. Observing, among other phenomena, lexically specified stem alternations under affixation, incomplete paradigms, impoverishment, the occasionally idiosyncratic interpretation of some inflectional morphemes (e.g. Russian instrumental case), and the unpredictable fusion of distinct inflectional markers, Halle argues that the erratic nature of the phonological output of word formation clearly necessitates the consultation of listed information, and hence supports the case for the transfer of WF away from the more phonologically well-behaved parts of the grammar, i.e. syntax. Halle does, however, propose a semiformal WF component, albeit independent from the syntax, and structured so as to allow its output to consult idiosyncratically listed information. Ironically, in the direct aftermath of RoN and Prolegomena for Word Formation, and with the notable exception of Jackendoff (1975), a burgeoning community of scholars eschewed, collectively, the notion that WF is nongenerative, applying considerable talent to the attempt to systematize and formalize accounts of word structure and word formation. The systems that emerged were largely not only generative, but also suspiciously syntax-like. Especially beginning with Aronoff ’s (1976) influential distinction between analytic and productive morphology, we see the introduction of rewrite rules and phrase structure (cf. Selkirk, 1982); of heads for words (cf. Williams, 1981); and of subcategorization and constituent structure for affixes (cf. Lieber, 1980). In fact, the formal devices used in constructing complex words became gradually so syntax-like, that a special condition had to be introduced for the sole purpose of preventing the syntax from interacting with word-internal structure, and formulated, specifically, as the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (Lapointe, 1980) or the Atomicity Thesis (DiSciullo & Williams, 1987). Alongside the attempt to build a hierarchical structure for words, we also see a systematic attempt to introduce some order into the chaos by separating those affixes in which a high degree of regularity—morphological, syntactic, and phonological—is observed, from those affixes where such regularity is less



5

frequent (cf. Siegel, 1974; Allen, 1978; Pesetsky, 1979; and most influentially, Kiparsky, 1982a, within the general framework of the Level Ordering Hypothesis). Suppose we attempt an admittedly coarse summary of the consensus among lexicalist scholars working on word formation in the mid-1980s, focusing specifically on approaches to derivational morphology and on the syntactic implications of such approaches. By that time, and integrating many of the generative or semigenerative devices briefly outlined above, the formation of complex words takes place in a component distinct from the syntax, call it WF (Word Formation). Word in such models is a technical term reserved for formal objects which are the output of WF (including trivial outputs). The primitives of WF are affixes and bases (alternatively, ‘stems’ or ‘roots’). In that system affixes such as -ation, -al, or re- are functors (to appropriate the term from DiSciullo & Williams, 1987), insofar as their attachment to some stem results in the emergence of some well-defined formal properties. Bases, on the other hand, are by and large inert from a WF perspective. They are assumed to be pairs of sound and some lexical semantics, and they have a category, but they do not define any grammatical operations, as such. WF manipulates affixes and bases (or, possibly, affixes trigger WF manipulations of various sorts), giving rise to Words (themselves potentially recycled into the WF component as a base for further affixation), and where Word, now, is assumed to consist of a sound—lexico-semantics pairing and always with a syntactic category and a syntactic insertion frame, the latter possibly derived from its lexical semantics. Crucially, then, such models, although they do assume that, e.g., destruction is derived from destroy, continue to assume that the morphological complexity of destruction is syntactically obscured, and that syntactically, the representation should fundamentally remain as in (1).⁴

1.2 Nominalization and θ-theory Lexicalism, as put forth in RoN (as well as Chomsky, 1965), brought with it a renewed focus on argument structure, and the emergence of frameworks ⁴ The picture is, of course, greatly simplified. Morpheme-based accounts of word formation may differ greatly as concerning the degree of abstractness of affixes, the extent to which they spell out the output of rules, or are themselves the names of rules, and, of course, concerning the type of rules which manipulate morphemes and their possible target, ranging over category, subcategorization, argument array, and so on. From the perspective of these introductory comments, what is important is the assumption, we believe inherent in all lexicalist approaches, that the output of the word formation component is atomic in the relevant sense of the text.

6

    

which directly focused on it, such as Relational Grammar (Johnson & Postal, 1980; Perlmutter, 1980, i.a.) and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 1982a,b; Bresnan & Kaplan, 1982; Bresnan & Kanerva, 1989, i.a.). The research results of Relational Grammar, in particular, were integrated into the Government and Binding model in the form of θ-theory, which crucially viewed each lexical entry as the locus for item-specific information on argument selection, both in terms of their roles (agent, patient, etc.) and in terms of their syntactic instantiation (subject/object, or, following Williams, 1981, external argument and internal argument). While contemporaneous developments sought to derive such lexical specification from more lexical semantic consideration, the information, nonetheless, was crucially tied up with the properties of individual lexical items, be they syntactic (C-selection) or semantic (S-selection). From that perspective, nominalizations once again became the target of intense study, seeking to investigate the extent to which θ-roles, or more generally event-related argumental roles, do indeed match each other in the verbal and the nominal instantiations of structures such as those in (1). At one end of the research continuum were models which advocated a strict parallelism, or inheritance, of argumental roles from verbs to nouns (e.g. Hoekstra, 1986; Giorgi & Longobardi, 1991). At the other end of this research continuum were models in which there was no inheritance at all, and nominal argumentation emerged independently from verbal one (Grimshaw, 1990). Occupying an intermediate space, finally, were a family of models which allowed inheritance in some cases (e.g. -able or -ing cases, as discussed in Roeper, 1987), but which highlighted the absence of such inheritance in others (e.g. bare nominals, or Zero Nominals, as discussed in Roeper, 1987, cf. (2)), or partial inheritance in others (see Randall, 1988, for a review). For such models, the challenge was to gain an understanding of how partial role mapping is negotiated between nominal and verbal argumentation. Such partial mapping is attested, e.g. in the loss of the subject in nominalization, as in (3); the impossibility of double objects and adjuncts in -er nominals, as in (4) (as discussed in Randall, 1982); or in DNs (already discussed in RoN), as in (5); restrictions on the emergence of nominalizations for psychological predicates, as in (6) and (7) (Anderson, 1984; Pesetsky, 1995), and others: (2) a. the sink (*of the ship) b. the crumble (*of the cookie) (3) The destruction of the city

(Roeper, 1987)

 (4) a. a writer (of books) (*with a pen) b. *a giver of the children of gifts c. a giver of gifts (to the children)

7

(Randall, 1982)

(5) a. the giving of gifts to children b. *the giving of children of gifts (6) a. b. c. d.

John enjoyed the movie. (Based on Anderson, 1984) The movie was enjoyed by John. John’s enjoyment of the movie *the movie’s enjoyment by John (and compare with ‘the city’s destruction by the barbarians’)

(7) a. b. c. d.

Kim annoyed the cat (deliberately) Kim’s (deliberate) annoyance of the cats The film annoyed Kim *the film’s annoyance of Kim

(Pesetsky, 1995)

These patterns inspired lexicalist ‘thematic’ approaches to nominalization represented among others by Amritavalli (1980), Hoekstra (1986), Rappaport (1983), and Rozwadowska (1988). The basic claim in these approaches is that the formal realization of arguments is dependent on the thematic grids, which are themselves categorially independent. In other words, it is not the syntactic structure which is shared by noun and the verb, but the thematic grid alone, which, in turn, may be subject to mapping operations which are categorially unique. Importantly, such accounts fundamentally allow not only verbs (or adjectives), but also nouns to be at the core of eventive argumental arrays. In turn, if the emergence of eventive argumental arrays is dependent on the presence of an event argument, as is frequently assumed (see, in particular, Higginbotham, 1985; Kratzer; 1995; Grimshaw, 1990), this entails that event arguments are not unique to the verbal/adjectival domain. The question of the relationship between the emergence of event-related argumental arrays and the category of the head (specifically V/A or N), has continued to play a central role in syntactic approaches to nominalization. At one end of the spectrum here are approaches which force a verbal (or adjectival) projection in conjunction with any eventive argumental array (Borer, 1999, 2003, Chapter 6; Roy, 2010; Roy & Soare, 2013, 2014, Chapter 13; Alexiadou, Iordăchioaia, & Soare, 2010; Iordăchioaia, Chapter 10;

8

    

Alexiadou, Chapter 5). At the other end of the spectrum are approaches which consider the emergence of arguments to be independent of the categorial nature of the (lexical) head, either because arguments are associated with functional structure which is not uniquely verbal (or adjectival), e.g. as in Alexiadou (2001), or, alternatively, because arguments are properties of a-categorial roots, which could then be embedded under verbal or nominal structure, very much on a par with (1) (Marantz, 1997; Harley, 2009b, Chapter 9).

1.3 Going syntax: early distributive morphological approaches Within an approach that seeks to reintegrate word formation into the syntax, and which has, at its core, a-categorial roots, Marantz (1997) observes, correctly, that there is little to block the structures in (1) as syntactic representations. In a departure from RoN, however, and seeking to accommodate the truly a-categorial nature of roots, the a-categorial entry for e.g. , now relabeled √, is not inserted under N⁰ or V⁰, as in RoN, but rather, under some functional structure (D, T) which effectively nominalizes or verbalizes it, as in (8): (8) a.

F[V] F

b.

√root = verb

F[V] F

√root = noun

As in RoN, the emergence of e.g. destroy vs. destruction, or form vs. formation is a phonological realization effect associated with the categorial position of the root. In other words, in (8), as in RoN, destroy and destruction are equally (non)complex, categorially, and there is no direct sense in which destruction or formation are derived, specifically, from the verbs destroy or form, respectively. In an attempt to capture the morphological complexity of some of these structures, Marantz (1999) replaces the structure in (8) with the structures in (9): (9) a.

ν ν Ο̸ν

b. √destroy

n n -tionn

√destroy



9

n and v are categorial nodes, and in the structures in (9) what corresponds to traditional N or V are not terminals, but rather, the combination of the a-categorial root with a functionally categorial head. Both, e.g. destroy the verb and destruction the noun, then, emerge from (9) as complex. We note, however, that while destructionn in (9b) is complex, thereby reflecting syntactically its morphological complexity, it is neither more nor less complex than destroyv. More importantly, it remains the case that in (9), as well as similar structures in e.g. Harley (2009b, Chapter 9), there is no sense in which destructionn is related to destroyv. Both, to be sure, are derived from the same root, but the deverbal nature of destruction remains unrepresented. The structures in (8) and (9), harking back as they do to RoN, raise the question of the position of complements. For Marantz (1997, 1999, et seq.) and for Harley (2009b, Chapter 9, i.a.) and very much in line with RoN, complements are properties of roots, and are therefore associated with either (emergent) nouns, or (emergent) verbs, in an identical fashion. A different approach is taken in van Hout & Roeper (1998), Alexiadou (2001, 2009), and Borer (1999, 2003), among others, where arguments are severed from the terminal (be it a root or a verb), and are rather associated with functional structure (typically aspectual). Seeking to represent the commonality between all these accounts, in a diagram such as (10), internal arguments (so-called) are associated with F1, while external arguments are associated with F2. The root, potentially a-categorial in these accounts, is an inert syntactic terminal, devoid of syntactic properties:

F1

(10)

ex. Arg F1

F2 int. Arg F2 …

√root

(10), as it stands, is neutral on two related questions. One is the categorial nature of the root (N? V? a-categorial?). The second is the representation of morphological complexity, with at the very least the possibilities in (11) for, e.g. formation:

10      (11) a. [F2 . . .

[√ √ ]...] formation

b. [F2 . . .

[N/n N/n ation

[√

√]] . . . ] form

c. [F2 . . .

[N/n N/n ation

[V/v

√]]] form

d. [F2 . . .

[N/n N/n ation

[V/v V/v [√ ∅v

√]]]] form

(11a) is a variant of (8b), and to the best of our knowledge is not presently endorsed by research on nominals. All other structures, however, have been proposed, and some continue to be endorsed. A variant of (11b) is endorsed, e.g. in Alexiadou (2001) (but not in later work), and is commonly assumed for DN with or without arguments (see, in Chapter 10, Iordăchioaia, as well as Coon & Royer (Chapter 7), and Roy & Soare (Chapter 13)). (11c) is specifically proposed in Borer (2013, Chapter 6, i.a.), and consists of the claim that –ation is a functor which effectively ‘verbalizes’ its complementation domain (much like e.g. T would), i.e. form here is effectively verbalized without a separate categorial head, thereby forcing all DN to include a V constituent. Finally, some version of (11d), with a syntactically a-categorial root, is routinely endorsed for argumental DN (including Alexiadou, Chapter 5, Iordăchioaia, Chapter 10), as well as in Marantz (1999) specifically for Chomsky’s ‘mixed nominalizations’.

1.4 The typology of derived nominals: Grimshaw (1990) At the core of the attempt to correlate the behavior of verbs and the nouns potentially derived from them, is the conundrum in (12), epitomized by the presence of the arguments in (12a), vs. their absence in (12b): (12) a. the enemy’s destruction of the city (started at dawn) b. the destruction (was complete) In RoN it is already recognized that in addition to the distribution of arguments, a polysemy of sorts holds for the forms in (12), insofar as the argumental form references an event, while the nonargumental one tends to have a result reading, but such polysemy was, if anything, considered as further evidence for the listed nature of DN, given the absence of any such



11

polysemous effects in the verbal domain. While a myriad of studies of the argumental array of nominals emerged in the 70s and 80s, including some that incorporated syntactic mapping (notably Roeper & Siegel, 1978; Hoekstra, 1986; Roeper, 1987), most of these studies (e.g. Williams, 1981; Safir, 1987; Ouhalla, 1991; Picallo, 1991; Giorgi & Longobardi, 1991, i.a., and as noted above, Marantz, 1997, 1999; Harley 2009b, Chapter 9), continue to presuppose that e.g. destruction represents a single (polysemous) entry (however derived), and with optional arguments (however represented), thereby giving rise to (12a), alongside (12b). Early exceptions to this generalization are Anderson (1984), Higginbotham (1983), and Dowty (1989), for whom the optionality of arguments suggests that nouns crucially differ from verbs in that they lack arguments and, as a consequence, that nouns definitionally lack argument structure altogether (and see Section 1.2 for present day approaches endorsing the same claim). A significant challenge to the polysemous approach was mounted by Grimshaw (1990), what has come to be one of the most influential work on DNs to date.⁵ Grimshaw proposes that DNs are not polysemous, but rather structurally ambiguous, with event nominals taking, as their external argument, an event argument (Ev), and with Result Nominals taking, as their external argument, an argumental index (R, following Williams, 1981 and Higginbotham, 1985). Importantly, in this picture R-nominals, even in the presence of optional arguments, are not eventive and do not have an event structure. In turn, the Ev argument is what correlates with the emergence of what Grimshaw calls Complex Event Nominals (CEN; at times called Argument Structure Nominals (ASN)) and which render complements obligatory. The tests in (13) distinguish between these distinct nominal types: (13)

R-nominals (RNs) No obligatory arguments No necessary event reading No agent-oriented modifiers Subjects are possessives by-phrases are nonarguments; in Spanish, selects de f. No event control (implicit argument control) g. No aspectual modifiers a. b. c. d. e.

CENs (ASNs) Obligatory arguments (where relevant) Event reading Agent-oriented modifiers Subjects are arguments by-phrases are arguments; in Spanish, selects por (where licit in verbal contexts) Event control (implicit argument control) Aspectual modifiers such as for three hours; in three hours

⁵ Some aspects of the Grimshaw typology are already in place in Ruwet (1972). See also Lebeaux, (1986); Roeper, (1987); Zubizarreta, (1987).

12      h. Modifiers like constant and frequent only with plural i. Postnominal genitives possible j. Pluralize, allow one, a, that determiners k. May be predicates

Modifiers like frequent may occur without plural Postnominal genitives impossible Do not pluralize, do not allow one, a, that determiners May not be predicates

Some of these diagnostics are exemplified for CENs in (14) and for RNs in (15): (14) a. b. c. d.

The instructor’s (intentional) examination of the student (c) The frequent collection of mushrooms (by students) (e,h) The monitoring of wild flowers to document their disappearance (f ) The destruction of Rome in a day (g)

(15) a. b. c. d. e.

The instructor’s examination/exam (a,d) John’s collections (a,h) The frequent destruction*(s) took their/*its toll (h) That exam of Mary’s (i) This kind of destruction (?? of cities) (k)

Alongside the typology in (13), Grimshaw proposes a typology of nominal suffixes, such that they correlate directly with the selection between Ev and R: (16) a. -ing-NOM: Ev only b. ∅-NOM (zero nominals, ZN): R only c. ation and kin (ATK -ation, -ence/ance, -ment, -al, etc.): Ev, R Finally, Grimshaw observes that RNs, so named, in fact span over both nominals which indeed denote a result, e.g. as in (12b), and nominals which denote an event, although CEN characteristics are missing, as in (17). She labels the latter Simple Event Nominals: (17) a. The exam/class started at 5pm and lasted 5 hours b. the (*frequent) exam/class (*in/for three hours) (*by graduate students) Importantly for Grimshaw, event properties are not inherited from the verb, but rather are associated with the nominal suffix, and some considerable effort



13

is actually spent to ensure that the verbal argument is severed from that of the related nouns. While some commonality is attributable to lexical semantics, no inheritance of any sort is assumed as such. The severance of the argument structure from the verb, in turn, leads to one of the major problems with Grimshaw’s system (acknowledged in a footnote). Specifically, the fact that CEN/ASNs are systematically derived from verbs goes unaccounted for, and the absence of CEN properties for nouns denoting events but not of deverbal source (e.g. Simple Event Nominals such as class or trip) remains unexplained.⁶ The typology set up in Grimshaw (1990) has turned out to inform almost all studies of derived nominals that have proceeded to emerge subsequent to it. It has been shown, rather compellingly, to apply to a vast number of languages, including, but not limited to Romance (Italian, French, Spanish), Germanic (Dutch, German), Greek, Slavic (Russian, Polish), Semitic (Hebrew, Arabic), Chinese, Altaic (Japanese, Korean), and Hungarian, among others, and is extended in the present volume to a number of understudied languages, including Mayan (Ch’ol and Chuj), and Amazonian languages (Mẽbêngôkre, Ch’acobo) (see, in particular, Rozwadowska, 2006, for a review). While some studies do deny the fundamental validity of the distinction (Marantz, 1997; Harley, 2009b), many others take it as their starting point. This notwithstanding, challenges continue to be mounted to some aspects of the Grimshaw model, and debates concerning the validity of some of her claims remain extremely current. To exemplify, the correlation between affixal types and the emergence of RN or CEN has come under a major challenge on two fronts. That -ing nominalizations (‘mixed nominalizations’) must be CEN is directly challenged in Borer (2013), highlighting, in particular, the absence of arguments for the forms in (18a), and their licit occurrence in predicate contexts, as well as the potential emergence of noncompositional meaning, as in (18b): (18) a. this kind of parenting, bullying, touching, etc. b. this reading of historical events is sure to lead to major misunderstandings A major challenge to the claimed correlation between zero-affixed nominals (ZN) and RNs has been mounted by Alexiadou & Grimshaw (2008) as well as Iordăchioaia (2019a,b, Chapter 10), pointing to cases such as (19):⁷ ⁶ See Newmeyer (2009) and Harley (2009b) for some counterexamples. See Borer (2013) for a detailed rebuttal. ⁷ The presence of some counterexamples is pointed out already in Grimshaw (1990). See Borer (2003) and Newmeyer (2009) for aspects of the debate.

14      (19) a. the (frequent) crash of the economy b. the (ongoing) rewrite of the city’s land-use code Of the tests in (13), the claims in (13c, h, j), in particular, have been challenged. For (13c), the challenge involves the availability of agentive modifiers with expressions which are clearly not DNs (deliberate strategy, deliberate fire). Similarly, for (13h), through the existence of expressions such as frequent/ constant pain, frequent/constant joy, frequent/constant sorrow, frequent fire, which are not DNs, and some which do not clearly correspond to a simple event either (frequent guest). Nor is it the case that the distribution of CEN/ ASN can be successfully characterized through the distribution of determiners, or the availability of pluralization (as claimed in (13j)). Rather, and as noted originally in Mourelatos (1978), atelic CEN/ASN are mass nouns, thereby blocking pluralization or indefinite determiners and numerals, in English. Telic nominalizations, on the other hand, are count, thereby allowing both pluralization and indefinite determiners and numerals (see Borer, 2005b, for discussion): (20) a. three late arrivals of the train (adapted from Mourelatos, 1978) b. a deliberate capsizing of the boat by Mary (21) a. *three deliberate pushings of the carts (by Mary) b. *a painting of the nativity (for hours) (by Jones) Finally, as emerges in particular from Alexiadou & Doron (2012) as well as Doron (2014), the distribution of by-phrases is considerably more complex than it might appear, and raises the distinct possibility that by-phrases in nominals do not, in actuality, correspond to their nominal instantiations (but cf. Bruening, 2013).

1.5 Affixation height Several approaches to the internal structure of nominalizations pursued the view that a nominal affix can apply to different levels of projection of a verbal structure creating different types of derived nominals. For instance, an affix may combine directly with a root as shown in (8) and see also Embick (2010), but it can also attach to a verbal stem or a verbal projection including the internal argument and maybe also the external argument and even higher



15

projections such as Aspect. Hoekstra (1986) and Roeper (1987) are two examples of earlier accounts which appeal to affixation height. More recent such proposals include Borer (1993, 1999, 2003, i.a. for RN vs. ASN), van Hout & Roeper (1998), Alexiadou (2001, 2009, 2017a,c, Chapter 5), Alexiadou, Iordăchioaia, & Soare (2010), Sichel (2010), Alexiadou, Iordăchioaia, & Schäfer (2011), among others. The common idea shared by all these authors is that the higher the affix attaches the more verbal layers they include and thus the more verbal properties the respective nominalizations exhibit. In other words, the gradient verbal behavior nominalization show within a language and across languages is due to the size of verbal structure they embed. Within this line of thinking, it was initially proposed that since RNs lack arguments and other verbal properties, they must involve direct affixation to the verbal stem, see e.g. Borer (1999, 2003), or involve root affixation, see e.g. Alexiadou (2001). By contrast, CENs/ASNs necessarily include verbal layers which are responsible for the licensing of arguments and other verbal properties. The claim that RNs lack verbal layers has been revisited in Alexiadou (2009) and Harley (2009b), who both argue that at least Simple Event Nominals (SENs) must include a verbal layer, responsible for introducing event implications.

1.6 Some of the significant questions under consideration The original agenda set up by RoN, as augmented by supplemental work on argument structure, on the typology of derived nominals, and on the role of morphological complexity, continue to inform the agenda for the study of derived nominals, now expanded to include a number of previously unstudied languages. Of these questions, the following seem to us to emerge as most prominent, in the context of the present volume: I Morphology and syntax A. How is morphological complexity to be represented in the syntax, and specifically, what is the syntactic representation of roots, categorizers, and functional nodes relative to such morphological complexity? B. Do nominal affixes correlate with different types of nominalizations, and if so, how? C. On a related note, can height of affixation emerge as a crucial factor in distinguishing RN from CEN/ASN?

16      II The typology of DN A. Is the ambiguity set up by Grimshaw fundamentally correct? In other words, is there important insight to be gained from assuming that fundamentally, RN and CEN/ASN are structurally distinct? B. Is the distinction between RN and CEN/ASN syntactic? And if so, how is it to be represented? C. Assuming a syntactic realization for the RN and CEN/ASN distinction, how is argument structure to be modeled within CEN/ASN? Specifically, are arguments associated with roots, identically, across the N/V divide? Alternatively, are they associated with dedicated functional structure, and if so, is that functional structure specifically verbal (i.e. belonging to the verbal extended projection), nominal, or both? D. And on a related note, but more generally, do nouns have event structure? E. As in (IB), but within a distinct domain, can the height of affixation emerge as a crucial factor in distinguishing different CEN/ASNs from each other? F. And even more concretely, what are nominalizations, crosslinguistically? Is there a uniform core to their structure that can be syntactically described? III Restrictions A. Can we shed light on those domains which continue to exhibit different behavior within the verbal and the nominal domain, including some of the tests originally in Chomsky (1970) (the absence of tough movement and raising to subject in derived nominals), or those identified originally by Anderson (1984) and Pesetsky (1995), highlighting restrictions on psych nominalizations which are absent in the verbal domain? B. And more generally, how can we model the emergence of noncompositional meaning, or Content, within syntactic approaches to the formation of words?

1.7 The chapters in this volume In Chapter 2 Noam Chomsky reviews the historical background surrounding the emergence of RoN, the restrictive view of the syntax which it promoted, and, in that context, the need to separate syntactically



17

predictable constructions, such as gerunds from less predictable formations, and specifically derived nominals, as described in Lees’ (1960) seminal study. It is also in that context that Chomsky reviews the emergence of the X’-scheme, offering, in particular, a contemporary perspective on its merits and drawbacks. Taking a page from the RoN agenda which seeks to attribute fundamentally identical syntax to nouns and verbs, Peter Ackema & Ad Neeleman, in their contribution ‘Unifying nominal and verbal inflection: Agreement and feature realization’ (Chapter 3), pursue the parallel syntax of nominal and verbal projections by considering agreement phenomena. Some apparent agreement phenomena within the NP behave differently in some respects from verbal agreement, an observation that has led to a view that sees it as a distinct phenomenon, labeled concord. The authors defend two claims. First, concord is not itself an instance of agreement. Rather, following Norris (2014), it consists of the spellout of features of an XP on terminals contained in that XP. These features can be present on XP because they are inherited from one or more heads contained in XP. These heads may have these features because they partake in agreement, or because they are inherent to the head. Second, neither agreement nor concord is unique to the category of the phrase in which it is found. Following the agenda set in Remarks, the authors argue that both agreement and concord occur in nominal as well as verbal domains. They show that various instances of apparently unusual agreement in TP, such as agreement in which adverbs are targets, are better analyzed as cases of concord, and conclude that the general syntax of agreement and concord does not need to refer to nominal or verbal status. Tackling directly the structure of nominalizations, Odelia Ahdout & Itamar Kastner, in their contribution ‘Bases, transformations, and competition in Hebrew niXYaZ’ (Chapter 4), examine a set of interactions between syntax, morphological marking and nominalization in Modern Hebrew, where one kind of morphological marking is associated with a number of distinct morpho-syntactic patterns. They report a difference between two main groups of niXYaZ verbs—syntactically active/unergative (have an external argument realized in the syntax) and syntactically nonactive: unaccusative (lack an external argument altogether) and passive (where an agent is implicit). The authors then offer a distinct syntactic representation for each group, and show, on the basis of 415 verbs, that despite sharing morphological marking, the two groups correspond to distinct nominalization patterns: Verbs of the nonactive group—mostly passives—fail to produce a nominalization, while activeunergative verbs nominalize rather freely. Although the difference in structure

18      of niXYaZ active vs. nonactive verbs may potentially account for the gaps in nominalization, they propose that the incongruence of passives with a nominalized form is not syntactic, but rather stems from pragmatic effects to do with the markedness of niXYaZ when contrasted with the alternant morphologically active form XaYaZ. The markedness of the niXYaZ forms, according to Ahdout & Kastner, translates to a dispreference of speakers toward using this form, opting instead for the nonmarked form, XaYaZ. Crucially, and unlike passive verbs, the same option is not available for active/unergative verbs in niXYaZ as they do not substantiate a transitivity alternation with a XaYaZ form. As such, no competition with XaYaZ exists, and nominalization is enabled. Thus, the chapter identifies the involvement of both grammatical factors and extragrammatical factors in the process of nominalization. In ‘D vs. n nominalizations within and across languages’ (Chapter 5) Artemis Alexiadou, based on cross-linguistic and inner language variation, discusses two types of nominalizations: D-based vs. n-based. Building on Hiraiwa (2005) and Wiltschko (2014), Alexiadou assumes that there is a common skeleton for the nominal and verbal domain. This allows then the formation of mixed categories and the inclusion of layers of the same semantic basis, which can be interchanged. The chapter shows that not all nominalizations are equally verbal, although they have a verbal core. Importantly, however, nominalizations are not derived transformationally from clauses. Rather, both verbal and nominal clauses are assembled in the syntax, share functional layers, and thus show similar properties. Finally, Alexiadou discusses denominal verbalization and proposes that it is not possible in languages such as English as licensing of case on nominal internal arguments blocks it. In her contribution ‘Nominalizing verbal passives: PROs and cons’ (Chapter 6), Hagit Borer argues that nominalization, and by extension many other morphological processes, must be syntactic. Borer focuses on so-called Short Argument Structure Nominals (SASNs), i.e. ASNs which are missing an overt logical (external) subject, and which do not obligatorily take a by-phrase. Borer provides evidence that SASNs embed a passive structure, with the latter showing most of the syntactic properties of clausal verbal passive, including the promotion of the internal argument. Nominalization is thus an operation which can combine a passivized verbal extended projection with a higher nominal head. Long ASNs, in turn, are nominalizations which bring together a nominalizer with an active Verbal Extended Projection, ExP[V], complete with all its arguments, including the external. ASNs (deverbal/de-adjectival), according to Borer, therefore must contain a verbal/adjectival ExP, and the argument array in ASNs is that which is associated with the embedded ExP[V]



19

and ExP[A] respectively, and not with the noun. This in turn means that the operation Nominalization, which brings together a verbal/adjectival stem with a nominalizing affix, must be allowed to apply to the output of syntactic operations which involve complex syntactic phrases, including passive and movement. In ‘Nominalization and selection in two Mayan languages’ (Chapter 7) Jessica Coon & Justin Royer investigate nominalization in languages from two subbranches of the Mayan family: Ch’ol and Chuj. At the heart of this work is the tension between semantic requirements of certain roots, and the syntactic structure available to license arguments in different types and sizes of constructions. The fact that roots in Mayan belong to well-defined and diagnosable root classes, combined with the rich inventory of derivational morphology, sheds light on the division of labor between roots and functional heads in governing the appearance of nominal arguments. The authors show that roots belonging to transitive and (unaccusative) intransitive classes in Ch’ol and Chuj always require semantic saturation of an argument slot, but that this is accomplished by different means in the Mayan equivalents of the types of nominalizations examined in Chomsky (1970). They attribute this difference to the variation in the realization of the internal argument to the site of nominalization—specifically, to the presence or absence of functional heads available internal to the nominalization to syntactically license arguments. In Chapter 8, ‘Three ways of unifying participles and nominalizations: The case of Udmur’, Éva Dékány & Ekaterina Georgieva discuss the fact that the same morpheme appears in both DNs and participial relative clauses with relative systematicity in different language families. This makes it unlikely that we are dealing with unconnected cases of accidental homophony in the lexicon. Instead, a principled syntactic account is called for. The authors aim to lay out the hypothesis space for an explanatory account of the crosslinguistic participle-nominalizer polysemy, and to discuss which of the hypotheses is best suited to capture the Udmurt facts in particular. They present three different ways in which the polysemy can be given a unified syntactic account, such that the same lexical entry underlies the shared suffix of relatives and DNs. They then proceed to the empirical focus of the chapter, detailing the morpho-syntactic properties of Udmurt relatives and DNs with -m. They argue against treating -m as a nominalizing head and develop an account of -m as a head in the extended verbal projection. In Chapter 9, ‘Relative nominals and event nominals in Hiaki’, Heidi Harley discusses an interesting formal overlap between nominalizations which create

20      relative clause-like structures and nominalizations which create event nominals in Hiaki (Yaqui). The nominalizer which usually derives a subject relative nominal, when applied to an argumentless predicate such as a weather verb or an impersonal passive, also derives an event nominal. Harley argues that this is because the event argument is the ‘subject’ of an argumentless predicate, the only accessible argument for the nominalizer to reify. In the process of proposing a uniform semantics for the relative nominalizers and the event nominalizer, a detailed analysis of both is provided. The nominalizers are argued to select an Aspect Phrase (AspP) complement. In entity-referring relative nominals, null operator movement is involved; in the event-referring event nominals, no operator is needed or possible. The syntax and morphology of the relative nominalizers is worked out in detail, with particular attention to the genitive-marked subjects of object, oblique, and locative relative nominals. In ‘Categorization and nominalization in zero nominals’ (Chapter 10) Gianina Iordăchioaia discusses a type of nominalization generally neglected in the generative literature after Chomsky (1970), namely ZNs. While overtly suffixed nominals are taken to systematically nominalize verbal constructions with argument structure, ZNs are considered to represent quite lexicalized uses corresponding to Grimshaw’s (1990) result or SENs. In current syntactic models of word formation like DM or XSM, the implication is that ZNs are simple categorizations of roots as nouns in specific syntactic contexts and cannot instantiate real nominalizations of verbal structure. One important argument that Borer (2013) brings in support of this hypothesis is the alleged inability of ZNs to realize verbal argument structure. Iordăchioaia shows that, depending on the ontological type of the root that the base verb is built on, ZNs may in fact realize argument structure and receive compositional deverbal readings of the kind that nominalizations with overt suffixes resent. Building on Beavers & Koontz-Garboden’s (2020) distinction between property concept and result roots, she argues that ZNs corresponding to verbs built on the two types of root exhibit a contrast in their potential to realize argument structure. She then compares ZNs derived from change of state verbs (which are built on result roots) with ZNs derived from psych verbs (which are built on property concept roots) and shows by means of corpus data that the former often instantiate inchoative or causative change of state readings with which they realize argument structure. By contrast, the apparent semantic arguments of psych ZNs are not structural as they involve idiosyncratic prepositional realizations, similarly to underived psych nouns. Keir Moulton’s ‘Remarks on propositional nominalization’ (Chapter 11) investigates nominalization at the highest reaches of the extended verbal



21

projection, finite CPs. While CPs can express propositions, Moulton puts forward the novel claim that only nominalization of CPs by a semantically contentful N can deliver reference to propositional objects. This conclusion is in contrast to the propositional nominalization operations proposed in Chierchia, (1984); Potts, (2002); and Takahashi, (2010). Evidence comes from a correlation between two types of D+CP constructions in Spanish (Picallo, 2002; Serrano, 2014, 2015) and the kind of propositions they can describe. Moulton then shows that a similar pattern arises in the case of exophoric propositional proforms, a novel observation. Putting the two case studies together, the following picture emerges: Natural language does not permit reference to proposition-like objects directly by adding a D to a CP, but only via some content-bearing entity (e.g. Moltmann’s, 2013’, attitudinal objects). In the case of propositional nominalizations, this entity must come in the form a lexical N; in the case of propositional discourse anaphora, this must come in the form of a discourse referent that bears propositional content, such as an assertion event (Hacquard, 2006). In ‘Where are thematic roles? Building the micro-syntax of implicit arguments in nominalizations’ (Chapter 12) Tom Roeper attempts to account for implicit arguments in a fashion that is closely linked to that utilized for the projection of verbs. Roeper argues for clitic-like projections that accompany the verb, particularly evident in nominalizations: These separate the lexical Argument-theta projections of the verb from the conditions on Maximal Projections which enter into syntactic operations, while the larger pattern of subject, object, and control behavior remains consistent across the syntax and the lexicon. Roeper argues that bare nominalizations (e.g. a look, a glance, a comment) all carry argument structure capable of motivating syntactic binding. Moreover, the argumental interpretation of the possessive in nominalizations shows predictable sensitivity to passive morphemes (-ed, -able) buried inside nominalizations. They allow only an object interpretation of nominalized possessives precisely as they do for subjects in verbal structures. The theory of Theta-role projection must allow projection of an Agent to Subject in little v, Subject in TP, and Subject in Possessives, and if acquisition is efficient, it should all follow automatically from UG. Roeper then argues that impersonal passives that appear in a subset of languages call for both special syntax and a special vision of possible integration into discourse structure. In their contribution ‘Agent and other function nominals in a neoconstructionist approach to nominalizations’ (Chapter 13) Isabelle Roy & Elena Soare revisit the question of whether the analysis in terms of complex verbal/aspectual structure that is well supported for DNs denoting events

22      (ASNs, gerunds) is also motivated for nouns denoting Agents, or, more generally, participants and entities performing a role or a function (including instruments) (function nominals). They ask to what extent function nominals form a homogeneous class and what the morpho-syntactic properties are of this class or classes. Furthermore, are Agent and other function nominals simplex or complex forms? And are they, or at least some of them, syntactically derived from a full verbal structure? Building in part on previous work in Roy & Soare (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015), they defend a form of the heterogeneity hypothesis, according to which some function nominals are derived from verbs, while others are not. Function nominals belong to different classes depending on whether they are morphologically complex or simplex, whether they are derived from a true verbal structure, and depending on the type of suffix they involve. Considering data from French and Romanian, they argue for two distinct patterns of nominalization, namely an eventive pattern and a noneventive pattern. Eventive nominals are necessarily complex and involve a verbal structure. Noneventive nominals may be morphologically simplex or complex, but they do not derive from a verbal structure. These two patterns are distributed differently across French, Romanian, and English. In ‘Polish psych nominals revisited’ (Chapter 14) Bożena Rozwadowska provides supports for the n-based approach to nominalizations (developed in numerous papers by Alexiadou & Borer, among others) by providing the evidence from a variety of Polish psych nominals for varying sizes of the verbal structure embedded in them. So far, it has been widely recognized in crosslinguistic literature that psych nominals denote states (see Grimshaw, 1990; Pesetsky, 1995; Alexiadou 2011a; Fábregas & Marín, 2012; Melloni, 2017; Iordăchioaia, 2019a; i.a.). Rozwadowska argues that in addition to stative psych nominals, which themselves have a verbal layer embedded in them, Polish systematically has eventive reflexive psych nominalizations with a rich verbal structure that describe inceptive events, i.e. boundary events which denote the beginning of a state. To show that, she focuses on nominals derived from alternating Experiencer Object / Experiencer Subject reflexive verbs. Additionally, Rozwadowska argues that eventive inceptive psych nominals derived from Experiencer Object verbs, with a rich verbal structure embedded in them, are not causative. Thus, this chapter constitutes a contribution to the debate on the presence/absence of the component of causation in Experiencer Object verbs and their nominalizations. In Chapter 15, ‘Nominalizations, case domains, and restructuring in two Amazonian languages’, Andrés Pablo Salanova & Adam Tallman examine the synchronic state of two constructions whose diachronic origin in



23

constructions that embed nominalizations is clear. Though nominal morphology in the lower clause and subordinating elements, such as adpositions, are the most obvious signs of their structure, the primary motivation in the literature for proposing embedding of nominalized clauses has been to explain unusual alignment patterns: In languages that are normally ergative, these constructions are associated with a double nominative (or double unmarked) alignment. This is the case in the two constructions examined, and so their discussion is built around the alignment observed in them. The data come from Mẽbêngôkre, a Northern Jê language spoken in central Brazil, and of similar facts in Chácobo, a Panoan language spoken in northern Bolivia, where, however, the status of the relevant construction as a nominalization is less clear, categorially speaking. The authors propose an analysis of these constructions that capitalizes on the presence of two case domains in these languages. This volume closes with Jim Wood’s ‘Prepositional prefixing and allosemy in nominalizations’ (Chapter 16), which discusses how Icelandic prepositional prefixing supports three main points. First, Wood shows that prepositions play a dual role in constructing verb meaning—while they may have meaning of their own, they may also condition a special meaning for verbal roots. Second, the patterns of prefixation in Icelandic support the claim that DNs, even in the CEN reading, can be built by combining heads together directly, without any phrasal material below the nP level. This is in contrast to what Wood calls the ‘Phrasal Layering’ analysis, where what is nominalized is a full verb phrase, perhaps with a VoiceP or other extended vP layers. Third, Wood shows that adjunction and complementation define distinct domains for the conditioning of idiosyncratic meaning, and both are available for the syntactic assembly of words and phrases.

Acknowledgments This volume would not have been possible without the dedication and the diligence of our contributors, who met tight deadlines patiently and efficiently, and with a great cooperative spirit. Thanks, as well, to Jane Grimshaw for extremely useful early suggestions, to Andrew McIntyre for helping out with the reviewing process, to Onur Özsoy for assisting with the index compilation, and to Liz Backes, Dan Bondarenko, and Onur Özsoy for helping out with the references. The DFG grant AL 554/8-1 (Alexiadou) is hereby acknowledged.

2 Remarks on Nominalization Background and motivation Noam Chomsky

It is, naturally, gratifying to see that the issues raised in Remarks on Nominalization (RoN) are alive and well: the subject of lively debate, also both developed further and challenged in very interesting directions, as illustrated in the fine chapters collected here. My own (rather conservative) feeling, for what it is worth, is as expressed by J. F. Newmeyer (2005) in a valuable paper that extends some of the ideas in RoN while also correcting flaws: Generally ‘on the right track’. I won’t try to elaborate that position here, but will instead discuss the background and motivation for RoN and some of the developments that followed from its conclusions in important ways that were not anticipated or appreciated at the time. The background assumptions, as the paper indicates, are spelled out more carefully in work of the immediately preceding years, mainly Chomsky (1965). As in rational inquiry generally, the primary concern is explanation and understanding: for linguistic theory, what was called ‘explanatory adequacy’.¹ The goal is to construct a theory—Universal Grammar (UG) in conventional terminology—that specifies the possible languages and provides an evaluation procedure that selects the correct language (L), given primary linguistic data. More generally, the approach presupposes what was later called ‘the biolinguistics framework’ (BL; Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini’s term), taking a person’s language to be a biological trait of the person, a state of the general faculty of language FL—the topic of UG—much as the person’s visual system is a state of the general visual faculty.²

¹ A crucial goal, but a way station to deeper queries, in particular, why should UG have these properties and not others, a major concern of what later became the Minimalist Program. ² Though this may—and I think should—seem to be virtual truism, it departed from prevailing conceptions, still widely held. See Chomsky (2013) for a sample of prominent examples. Noam Chomsky, Remarks on Nominalization: Background and motivation In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Noam Chomsky. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0002

26   There is strong evidence that FL is a true species property, common to humans apart from in severe pathology and without close analogue in other organisms. Adopting BL, explanatory adequacy requires the further condition that the procedure for selecting a language from the search space be feasible. It must provide a realistic abstract account of language acquisition on the basis of the data available, in particular accounting for the huge gap between the data and what the child knows. It was recognized from the early days of work on generative grammar that this problem of Poverty of Stimulus is enormous, and later investigations of what is known by a very young child along with statistical study of the sparsity of data available have revealed that the problem is far more severe even than what was assumed at the time of RoN.³ Achieving explanatory adequacy, then, requires sharp restriction of the search space and highly constrained search procedures. The latter problem was not seriously addressed until development of the Principles and Parameters (PP) approach, which actually had its roots in RoN, though it was not understood at the time. The search procedure is still under intense investigation, with many valuable contributions.⁴ The only idea at the time of RoN was systematic search, which actually yields an answer though it is radically unfeasible. The main concern in RoN, therefore, was restriction of the search space. It should be noted that the other familiar levels of adequacy (observational, descriptive) are intertwined with explanatory adequacy in the process of discovery by the linguist, and have priority in acquisition (in which case UG, yielding explanatory adequacy by definition, is given, with maturational stages; see Lenneberg, 1967). As is familiar, even the simplest observations—say a field worker’s preliminary efforts at phonetic transcription—presuppose a tentative explanatory theory, and elicitation techniques are basically critical experiments, heavily theory-dependent. For the linguist, choice of theory (i.e. choice of grammar and, more deeply, UG) is of course dependent on data and description, and conversely for decisions about relevance of observation and accuracy of description. Features of research generally, not specific to language. Returning to restriction of the search space, at the time of RoN there were two cases to examine: Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG) and transformations (TG). PSG was far too rich to be seriously considered as a candidate for UG, facts recognized in the earliest work. There is, for example, nothing in PSG to block a vast array of such rules as NP→V PP. Furthermore the notations ³ Yang et al. (2017).

⁴ Roberts (2020).

  

27

(NP, VP, etc.) are a superfluous complication, implicitly incorporating properties of the rule system that should be spelled out explicitly. RoN therefore suggests dispensing with PSG entirely in favor of X-bar theory, sharply restricting the search space; the superfluous vocabulary was reduced twenty years later in Bare Phrase Structure, based on ideas of Peggy Speas and Naoki Fukui. Separating projection from composition led in turn to inquiry into labeling algorithms, productively underway. Eliminating PSG in favor of X-bar theory had several important consequences. One is a mismatch between the structures that appear at the interface levels: at the sensory motor level (SM), the language generates phonetic form (PF) (or something similar) with linear order; at the conceptual-intentional level (CI), it generates pure structures with no linear order. There is by now extensive evidence confirming the conclusion that linear order and other SM arrangements are not strictly speaking part of language but rather properties of an amalgam of two distinct systems: language proper and SM systems that long preceded the emergence of language in evolutionary history and have no special relation to it. The significance of the conclusion that linear order does not enter into syntax or CI (formal semantics, logical syntax), which is substantial, was only recognized years later, even after the influential work of Tanya Reinhart (1979) on c-command that lent further support to it. Adopting X-bar theory, it follows that each language must choose a value for what was called the ‘head parameter’: head-first or head-final. This consequence of X-bar theory and other research through the ’70s led to a new approach to achieving explanatory adequacy, the PP framework, distinguishing (i) fixed principles that determine the array of possible languages—the search space—and (ii) a finite set of parameters that have to be set in acquiring a language. This approach is a sharp departure from the tradition, including early generative grammar. It eliminates rule systems apart from TG. Through the same post-RoN years, TG was radically simplified in ways I will not review here, reaching finally the conclusion that the ubiquitous property of displacement in natural language, the basic concern of TG, is provided by the simplest computational operation, and in fact is its simplest case. Along with radical simplification of the search procedure (see Yang et al., 2017), the PP framework thus offered the first real hope for achieving feasible explanatory adequacy. To realize this hope it is necessary to establish the status of parameters and to ensure that the search procedure through the set of parameters is feasible. The ‘head parameter’ is a good starting point. More precisely, there is no head parameter, hence no question about how it evolved or how it is captured in UG and stored in the brain. There is simply a mismatch between

28   two systems: language proper and the SM system of externalization. In language acquisition, it is necessary to resolve the mismatch, but it is not technically a parametric choice. Much more far-reaching conclusions are reached in Ian Roberts’s important work on parameters (see Yang et al., 2017), which not only sharply restricts the search procedure but concludes finally that parameters are ‘emergent’, not given in UG as assumed in the PP framework. Another consequence of X-bar theory is that all constructions are endocentric. This however is incorrect. Exocentric constructions abound. In practice, these were forced into the endocentric framework by various artifices and stipulations, problems not addressed until Chomsky (2013), leading to new explorations into labeling algorithms and a systematic solution to the problem of when Move (Internal Merge) may, must, or does not apply. Returning to RoN, with PSG eliminated, the problem of restriction of the search space reduced to the resort to TG-related devices that were then being used promiscuously, well beyond the formulations of TG that existed. That was notoriously the case in generative semantics, but also in more restricted approaches. For examining these issues, an obvious choice of materials was Robert Lees’s (1960) careful and comprehensive study of English nominalization, the object of inquiry in RoN. One category of nominalizations, gerunds, raises no problems: The rules are simple and productive, with no relevant anomalies. But application of TG-style devices to other types of nominalization was highly problematic. The rules were complex, varied, unmotivated, often idiosyncratic in form and interpretation. Accordingly the mechanisms involved yielded an expansive search space, undermining the quest for feasible explanatory theory. The problem was significantly reduced by separating the lexicon from the generative rules and resorting to the featural analysis of syntactic categories (Chomsky, 1965) to establish a class of derived nominals, not formed transformationally from underlying sentences but listed lexically, embedded within a broader class of nominal structures. Idiosyncrasies remained, as is typical of the lexicon (Bloomfield’s ‘list of exceptions’), but were sharply reduced, with many of their properties derived from more general lexical properties. There has since been extensive investigation of lexical properties in many domains, often reviving traditional insights within the generative framework. That was the basic strategy of RoN, generally ‘on the right track’ in my opinion. Parts have been incorporated into subsequent inquiry into UG, with substantial consequences, not then recognized or understood. Parts have been developed in diverse ways, and are also strongly contested. From a personal perspective after fifty years, a welcome outcome.

3 Unifying nominal and verbal inflection Agreement and feature realization Peter Ackema and Ad Neeleman

3.1 Introduction Remarks on Nominalization argues that the parallel syntax of nominal and verbal projections originates in abstract principles that generalize over the two domains. This line of analysis gave rise to the development of X-bar theory (Jackendoff, 1977) and the theory of extended projection (Grimshaw, 1991). In this chapter we will pursue this theme, but instead of focusing on the internal structure of NP and VP, we will consider agreement phenomena. This is of interest, because it is arguably the case that there are two distinct processes, one which appears to be common in the VP and one which appears to be common in the NP. We refer to the two processes as agreement and concord, respectively. (For a discussion of terminology, see Corbett, 2006: 5–7; for an overview of the typology of and approaches to concord, see Norris, 2017.) Agreement is one of the most studied phenomena in Minimalism and its predecessors. While theories differ in details, it is not controversial that agreement is a syntactic dependency, and as such subject to syntactic conditions on such dependencies. It is a relation between two elements that is established under c-command. One of the elements (the controler, or in the terminology of Chomsky, 2000, the Goal) carries features that are interpretable, while the other (the target, or in Chomsky’s terminology the Probe) carries features that are uninterpretable. Agreement between the verb and an argument is common in TPs. Many instances of what looks like agreement within DP are difficult to analyze in the same way as verb-argument agreement. Consider (1), which

Peter Ackema and Ad Neeleman, Unifying nominal and verbal inflection: Agreement and feature realization In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Peter Ackema and Ad Neeleman. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0003

30      shows that the form of attributive adjectives in German reflects various nominal features, in particular case, gender, and number. (1) mein klein-er Hund my small-.. dog() ‘my small dog’ The features reflected in the adjective originate in multiple positions in the DP. Gender is a lexically determined property of the noun, number is located higher, and case is a property of the entire DP, possibly encoded through a Case Phrase (Lamontagne & Travis, 1987). This implies that concord cannot be modeled as a one-to-one relationship between c-commanding nodes (see Norris, 2014). If it is to be modeled in terms of c-command, it must be a many-to-one relationship in the sense that a single element collects features from multiple controlers and realizes these in a single ending. If it is to be modeled as a one-to-one relationship, c-command cannot be maintained, because the only node that plausibly contains all the features reflected in the adjective is the top node of the DP, assuming features in an extended projection percolate. However, the DP dominates, rather than c-commands, the AP. In this chapter, we defend two claims. First, concord is not an instance of agreement. Rather, following Norris (2014), we assume that it consists of the spell-out of features of an XP on terminals contained in that XP (see also rule 5 in Pesetsky, 2013: 8). These features can be present on XP because they are inherited from one or more heads contained in XP. These heads in turn may have these features because they partake in agreement, or because they are inherent to the head. Second, neither agreement nor concord is unique to the category of the phrase in which it is found (see also Norris, 2014: 240–3). Following the agenda set in Remarks, we argue that both agreement and concord occur in nominal as well as verbal domains. For agreement, this is not a controversial assumption. We therefore primarily consider concord. We first show, on the basis of examples from the nominal domain, how concord works, and how it is restricted. We then show that various instances of apparently unusual agreement in TP, such as agreement in which adverbs are targets, are better analyzed as straightforward cases of concord. No conditions on concord specific to TP are required for this. Hence, the general syntax of agreement and concord does not need to refer to nominal or verbal status.

    

31

3.2 Concord in the nominal extended projection 3.2.1 How concord works Unquestionably, there are instances of agreement within DPs. It is common, for example, for a possessor to agree with the head of the DP (the possessum) (see, for example, Corbett, 2006: 47). There are other instances where the form of one element in the DP depends on the features of another, but where an agreement analysis seems less plausible. A straightforward example is provided by Bantu. Modifiers in Bantu DPs are marked for the noun class of the head noun, as in the following Swahili example (Welmers, 1973: 171, cited from Corbett, 2006: 87): (2) ki-kapu ki-bubwa ki-moja ki-li-anguka 7-basket 7-large 7-one 7--fall ‘one large basket fell.’ The head noun carries an overt class marker, here for class 7. The appearance of the same class marker on the verb is plausibly the result of agreement. The appearance of class markers on the adjective and the numeral could in principle also be accounted for through agreement (see Carstens, 2000, for a proposal). However, an alternative account could be based on the assumption that the class feature of the noun is inherited by DP and spelled out on all modifiers within it. Typically, features located on a maximal projection cannot be spelled out on that maximal projection itself. With few exceptions, affixes require morphological hosts that are words rather than phrases. We postulate that categories within a maximal projection can be recruited as hosts for features of that maximal projection. In this, we essentially follow the analysis of concord in Norris (2014), although some of the analytical details below are different. The general idea is stated in (3a). The additional rule in (3b) is necessary because some hosts are themselves maximal projections. (3) a. γ is a potential host for the spell-out of the features on an extended projection XP if γ is dominated by XP and there is no extended projection YP such that XP dominates YP and YP dominates γ. b. If γ is a host for spell-out of features on a dominating category and γ is an extended maximal projection, then spell-out is on the lexical head of γ.

32      We use the term ‘potential host’ in (3a), because not all elements dominated by XP may be able to morphologically combine with an affix that realizes a particular feature of XP. Concord as in (3) could indeed explain the appearance of class markers on Bantu modifiers. The class feature of the noun is inherited by its (extended) maximal projection, the DP. (Inheritance of features by dominating nodes within an extended projection is a basic mechanism of syntax, also used to express headedness at least since Remarks.) In accordance with (3a), potential hosts for the realization of this feature are demonstratives, numerals, and attributive APs. Bantu languages are morphologically rich in that all these potential hosts are actual hosts. Therefore, class markers are found on demonstratives and numerals.¹ Given (3b), a class marker should also be attached to the head of AP, though not to any other elements within AP. This seems a fair description of the Bantu data (see Mpofu, 2009: 120, for an example showing the lack of a class marker on adverbials within AP). If there is more than one AP, a class marker shows up on all adjectives. This indicates that concord is subject to a maximalization principle according to which every suitable host must realize relevant features of the dominating category. (Maximal realization is a general property of inflection: Schütze, 1997; Ackema & Neeleman, 2018.) Thus, concord results in the class feature of the noun being reflected on terminals contained within the DP, as in (4).

NP [7]

(4)

NP N [7]

Num AP A

An argument in favor of a concord analysis rather than an agreement analysis for the Bantu data can be based on an observation by Carstens (2000: 334). She notes that prepositions carry class markers reflecting the

¹ We assume here that, like demonstratives, numerals have no internal structure. However, if they head a NumP modifier or specifier within DP, we would still expect a class marker to be attached to the head of this NumP.

    

33

class of the head noun of the DP within which the PP is contained, rather than the class of the preposition’s complement noun: (5) a. *ki-ti w-a 7-chair 1-of

m-toto 1-child

b. ki-ti ch-a m-toto 7-chair 7-of 1-child ‘the child’s chair’ Given (3a), PP is another potential host for the class features present on the dominating DP, and therefore, as per (3b), these features can be spelled out on the head of PP. As the preposition’s complement DP does not dominate PP, the features of this DP cannot be realized on P. Having introduced the basic workings of concord, let us consider some more intricate cases of this phenomenon within DP.

3.2.2 Concord in the Dutch DP Attributive adjectives in Dutch show one of two inflectional forms: They either carry an -e (schwa) ending, or remain bare. Which form appears depends on features present in the DP, in particular gender, number, and definiteness: -e appears unless the DP is neuter, singular, and indefinite (Kester, 1996: 94ff ). The form of the definite determiner, too, is sensitive to these features. It is realized as de, unless the DP is neuter and singular, in which case it is het. We assume that φ-features are privative, so what is seen as the negative value in a binary feature system is really the absence of the feature altogether. In particular, singular is the absence of number, neuter is the absence of gender, and indefinite is the absence of definiteness (see Ackema & Neeleman, 2018, on number and gender; and Lyons, 1999, on definiteness). If so, the morphology of attributive adjectives in Dutch can be described with a simple generalization: If and only if the DP contains any feature from the set {Definite, Gender, Plural}, the adjective carries a schwa-ending; if not, the adjective remains uninflected. Similarly, the definite determiner de is used when either of the features in the set {Gender, Plural} is present; otherwise, het is used. (Nonneuter Dutch R-expressions do not divide into masculine and feminine subsets; hence, all nonneuters are said to have common gender.) These generalizations pose a theoretical problem. In effect, they express disjunctions in the feature specification of particular morphemes. However,

34      disjunction in feature specification is arguably undesirable, because it leads to a situation in which no contentful theory about patterns in syncretism can be developed (Blevins, 1995; Ackema, 2002). A theory of the morphology of Dutch prenominal determiners and adjectives in which this morphology results from concord rather than agreement can avoid this problem, as we will now argue. Let us define a notion of a ‘marked domain’ for a category: (6) XP is a marked domain for a category γ if γ is a potential host for the features on XP and XP has one or more features absent in γ. This definition expresses that spell-out can be sensitive to whether or not the host has a feature of the same type as the feature on XP that it acts as a host for. We can now capture the Dutch data with the following spell-out rules. First, the form of the definite determiner can be computed with the following two rules:² (7) a. D $ /het/ b. D $ /de/ iff DP is a marked domain for D Definiteness is inherent in the definite determiner. Therefore, whether or not DP is a marked domain for D does not depend on the presence of definiteness on DP, but only on the presence of gender () and/or number (), these not being features of the determiner (see (3) and (6)). Consequently, the determiner is realized as de if the DP is nonneuter, plural, or both: (8)

–



– het de  de de Let’s now turn to attributive adjectives. Whether these carry -e depends on whether the DP is a marked domain for AP. Given that AP does not have definiteness, gender, or number features, the DP is a marked domain unless it

² For reasons of space, we cannot discuss the structural position and spell-out rules for indefinite determiners here.

    

35

lacks any of these features and is therefore indefinite neuter singular. The following spell-out rule expresses this:³ (9) /X/ ! /X/+/e/ if X is contained in NP and DP is a marked domain for XP The following table gives the distribution of the attributive schwa, and shows that it is indeed present except when the DP is neuter, singular, and indefinite ( stands for definite,  for plural and  for gender.) –

(10)



– –

een groot paard a big horse  een grote koe a big cow



–



grote paarden big horses grote koeien big cows

het grote paard the big horse de grote koe the big cow

de grote paarden the big horses de grote koeien the big cows

The concord relations within the Dutch DP are depicted in (11) for a definite singular DP with a common gender noun. (11)

DP [def gnd] D [def]

NP AP

N

A In short, a concord analysis of the morphology of Dutch determiners and attributive adjectives is straightforward once we accept the notion of marked domain. We think it also solves the problem that the data pose with respect to the desired ban on a disjunctive specification of morphemes. The definition of marked domain in effect describes a disjunction, as it mentions a surplus of one or more features (from a set relevant to a potential host). However, ³ Note that this rule does not specifically mention adjectives. Indeed, any attributive modifier is inflected with -e in the context mentioned in the rule. Infinitives in attributive position are a case in point: (i) de te gan-e weg the to go- way ‘the road to be traveled’ However, the determiner does not get the inflectional schwa, as clearly shown by its absence on neuter het; this is why the rule in (9) mentions NP as its domain.

36      marked domains are contained in the context of the spell-out rules in (7) and (9), rather than in their input. As long as disjunctions are contained in the context of spell-out rules, the problems pointed out in Blevins (1995) and Ackema (2002) do not present themselves.⁴ There is a proviso to this solution. In principle, a spell-out rule that contains a disjunction in its input can easily be reformulated as a spell-out rule that contains the disjunction in its context: (12a) and (12b) appear to be equivalent. Both rules express that both the feature combination F₁ + F₂ and the feature combination F₁ + F₃ are realized as /aaa/. (12) a. [F1 F2] ∨ [F1 F3] $ /aaa/ b. [F1] $ /aaa/ / [__F2] ∨ [__F3] In order to avoid this confound, we must assume that, for a spell-out rule to apply, no features present in the element to be spelled out may appear in the context of the rule (instead of in its input). This is precisely the difference between a concord analysis and an agreement analysis of the Dutch data. In the concord analysis, what are spelled out are just D and A. The rules that insert the forms are sensitive to the presence of features in the context (the dominating DP). In an agreement analysis, however, the adjective acquires all relevant features through feature sharing or copying. As a consequence, that analysis requires a spell-out rule for the Dutch adjectival agreement that has a disjunctive input. One possible way out of this problem for the agreement analysis is through the use of elsewhere forms. The disjunctive feature specification required for -e could be avoided by designating this morpheme as an elsewhere form. This would work if the null form were a more specific form. Such a set up is incompatible with the above assumptions about features, as the adjectival zero ending expresses the absence of features and therefore cannot possibly be more specific than any other form. However, if one assumes binary, rather than privative, features, it is possible to formulate a spell-out rule for the null form that is formally more specific than the rule that introduces -e: (13) a. [-, -, -] $ ∅ b. elsewhere: /e/

⁴ There are other cases where it is desirable for a spell-out rule to contain a variable over features in its context (Halle & Marantz, 1993: 151; Ackema & Neeleman, 2018: 267–8).

    

37

The rule in (13b) functions as an elsewhere rule because its input is less specified than the input of (13a). However, what is supposed to function as the most highly specified form in the elsewhere-based competition has only negative feature values. This analysis therefore comes at the cost of divorcing elsewhere argumentation from markedness, as there is strong evidence that the positive values of these features are the marked values. Hence, what is formally the most highly specified form is, in fact, the least marked form by standard measures of markedness.

3.2.3 Concord in the German DP We now turn to a more complex case of concord in the nominal domain, namely inflection on prenominal elements in the German DP. German has an intricate system of concord. For a start, it is necessary to distinguish ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ inflection. Weak inflection is comparable to the inflection we described for Dutch: It only marks whether the dominating category counts as a marked domain for AP and/or N. Strong inflection expresses the combined feature content of DP, the relevant features being gender, number, and case. German has three genders, namely neuter, masculine, and feminine, which we analyze as absence of gender features,  and -, respectively. (Nothing hinges on the marked status of feminine as compared to masculine. It is motivated by the fact that masculine behaves as a default in certain contexts.) As for case, we assume that the absence of features corresponds to nominative (Falk, 1991; Neeleman & Weerman, 1999). For the other cases, it suffices to assume that they have some featural content, which we designate with traditional labels, leaving open the possibility that the feature structure is more fine-grained (Caha, 2013). We now show how the data can be accounted for with an analysis in terms of concord. In most cases, the two types of inflection interact. We start by discussing the distribution of strong inflection, as the distribution of weak inflection depends on this. German has a set of spell-out rules for strong inflection, given in (14). (14) a. b. c. d.

[ -] $ /r/ [ -] $ /r/ [ ] $ /n/ [ ] $ /m/

e. f. g. h.

[-] $ /i/ [ ] $ /n/ [ ] $ /r/ [] $ /r/

i. j. k. l.

[] $ /m/ [] $ /s/ [] $ /i/ ∅ $ /s/

38      In contrast to Dutch, German attributive adjectives show a schwa-ending regardless of the features in DP. This schwa could be incorporated in the inflectional endings in (14), but it may be more insightful to regard it as the overt realization of an operator that turns adjectives into attributive expressions (the Join operator of Partee, 1986; see also Truswell, 2004). Finally, D is realized as /dV/, with some variation in the realization of the vowel that we cannot discuss here. To capture the distribution of strong inflection, two domains must be distinguished, namely DP and NP. There is a preference for spelling out strong inflection on one or more hosts in the higher domain, the DP. This leads to realization on D, and/or on N as the head of NP (note that NP is part of the DP domain) (see (16)–(18), (20), and (23a) below). If neither D nor N permits morphological realization of strong inflection, then realization within the lower domain, the NP, is attempted. This will lead to spell-out on A (as the head of AP) (see (21) and (23b)). If morphological realization of strong inflection is still not possible, in particular because there is no AP, no suffix is inserted. The spell-out rule for weak inflection is as in (15), where X is a variable over morphological hosts. (15) /X/ ! /X/+/n/ if X is contained in NP and DP is a marked domain for XP This rule is similar to the rule for attributive inflection in Dutch (see (9)). However, there is a difference between the two languages regarding the features that define a marked domain. In German, these are limited to case and number, whereas in Dutch definiteness, number, and gender are relevant (Dutch lacks case). The distribution of weak inflection follows two generalizations: (i) whenever strong inflection is realized in the DP domain (so on D and/or N), weak inflection appears in the NP domain (see for instance (16)–(18), (20), and (23a)); (ii) whenever strong inflection is realized in the NP domain, weak inflection does not normally appear (see (21) and (23b)). We can make sense of these generalizations if the rules for both weak and strong inflection are obligatory where applicable, but on morphological hosts that permit only one affix, strong inflection overrules weak inflection. There is one specific set of hosts that permit multiple affixation and show both weak and strong inflection.

    

39

These generalizations depend on whether or not particular heads are possible hosts for strong inflection. This is an arbitrary morphological property of the relevant heads. The definite determiner can carry strong inflection. The indefinite determiner ein and possessors containing this form (mein ‘my’, dein ‘your’, sein ‘his’) can carry strong inflection except in the masculine nominative singular and the neuter nominative and accusative singular.⁵ Neither the definite nor the ‘ein’-forms will show weak inflection, as they occur exclusively in the higher (DP) domain. Adjectives can carry strong and weak inflection, but not both together. Nouns, finally, divide into several classes. Regular nouns carry strong inflection when genitive masculine/neuter or dative plural, but in no other circumstances. Weak nouns carry weak but usually not strong inflection. Finally, a subset of weak nouns carry both weak and strong inflection in those contexts where regular nouns show the latter. We now discuss a number of representative examples, starting with definite DPs. Consider (16). (16) de-m nett-e-n the-.. kind--

Mann man

The relevant features on DP are  and . As expected, the definite determiner carries the strong ending -m (see (14d)). The noun Mann belongs to the large class that does not carry inflection in this context. Since strong inflection is realized in the higher domain (DP), weak inflection is realized in the lower domain, so ultimately on A. The DP is a marked domain for AP, because it has a Case feature  (which the AP lacks). Hence, weak inflection is realized as -n (see (15)). A similar case, but with a nominative DP, is given in (17). Again the determiner carries the strong ending, here -r (see (14h)). In this context, however, DP is not a marked domain for AP, as it does not have a Case feature (nominative corresponds to absence of Case). Therefore, (15) does not apply, so no weak -n ending appears on A. (17) de-r nett-e Mann the-.. kind- man

⁵ Forms like einer ‘a-..’ do surface in contexts where a null noun is present after the indefinite, as in Nur einer hat mich verstanden ‘Only one (person) has understood me’. The null noun contains the morphological slot that hosts strong inflection, which subsequently attaches phonologically to ein (Murphy, 2018).

40      Consider next a context in which the noun Mann carries strong inflection, for example in the genitive singular. Here, both D and N show a strong ending (-s, see (14j)), while weak inflection is realized on A. The latter is realized as -n given that the presence of a Case feature yields DP a marked domain for AP. (18) de-s nett-e-n the-.. kind--

Mann-es man-..

For concreteness’ sake, we give the structure of this example in (19).

DP [gen gnd]

(19)

strong

D

NP

AP

weak

N

A Consider next examples introduced by ein-forms. Where the ein-form can carry strong inflection, the patterns are identical to the ones with the definite determiner. One such example is given in (20). (20) ein-es nett-e-n a-.. kind--

Mann-es man-..

However, in contrast to definite determiners, there are contexts in which the ein-form cannot carry strong inflection. If the noun cannot do so either, strong inflection can only be realized in the lower domain, hence on any As present. One example of this is given in (21). (21) mein my

klein-e-r Hund small--.. dog

DP [nom gnd]

(22)

D

NP

strong

AP A

N

    

41

If more than one AP is present, all As carry strong inflection (mein hübscher kleiner Hund ‘my pretty little dog’). If no prenominal modifier is present, strong inflection remains unrealized (mein Hund). Consider next cases without any article. As strong inflection cannot be realized on D, what happens depends on whether or not it can be realized on N. If it can, it is realized in the higher domain (recall that NP is part of this), and therefore the adjective in the lower domain will carry weak inflection, as per (15). If N cannot carry strong inflection, it will be realized in the lower domain, so on A. This is illustrated by (23a,b). (23) a. heiss-e-n hot--

Kaffee-s coffee-..

b. heiss-e-m Kaffee hot--.. coffee Thus far, we have only considered examples with nouns from the large class that cannot carry weak inflection. In (24), the noun belongs to the more limited class that can carry weak (but not strong) inflection. The result is that both A and N will carry weak inflection where D can host strong inflection: (24) de-m nett-e-n the-.. kind--

Student-en student-

If D cannot carry strong inflection, this is realized on A instead, so we get strong inflection on A and weak inflection on N with this class of noun: (25) ein nett-e-r Student-en a kind--.. student- Finally, we turn to the small group of nouns that can carry strong and weak inflection simultaneously. This is relevant because N has a special status in the system. NP is contained in DP, and hence is a target for concord in the higher domain (realized on N). At the same time, N is contained in NP, the lower domain, and is therefore a potential host for weak inflection. Hence, if DP is a marked domain for NP, so that (15) applies, we see both a strong and a weak ending on nouns of the relevant class: (26) de-s froh-e-n the-.. joyous--

Herz-en-s heart--..

42      This suffices to illustrate the workings of concord in the German DP. A full account of the entire paradigm would require just one additional type of rule, namely feature impoverishment. This is necessary to account for a handful of systematic syncretisms. In particular, the accusative Case feature is deleted (thereby rendering the accusative identical to the nominative) in the feminine and neuter singulars, and in the plural. Additionally, in the plural all gender features are deleted. Various agreement analyses of the German data have been proposed (see, for instance, Leu, 2008; and Schoorlemmer, 2009). These face specific difficulties (Roehrs, 2015), but more generally it appears to us that the data fit better in a concord analysis. This is partly because both weak inflection and strong inflection can ‘spread’ across multiple elements. Strong inflection can be simultaneously found on determiners and nouns (for example in the masculine genitive singular), as well as on (in principle limitless) sequences of adjectives. Weak inflection also appears on sequences of adjectives, and can also appear simultaneously on adjectives and certain nouns. This indicates that we are dealing with a phenomenon that involves the realization of the features of a node on morphological hosts dominated by that node, rather than with a one-to-one relation between a target and a controler, subject to c-command. A second difficulty for agreement accounts lies in the ‘dislocation’ of strong agreement, that is, the phenomenon that strong agreement appears on lower elements (adjectives) exactly when there is no suitable higher host. This kind of dislocation cannot be explained syntactically if concord in the higher domain (DP) and concord in the lower domain (NP) are independent agreement relations, as proposed, for example, by Baker (2008). Therefore, it would require a type of spell-out mechanism in addition to the core agreement relations themselves, a mechanism that will have to incorporate many of the assumptions underlying the concord analysis above.

3.3 Concord in the verbal domain 3.3.1 Introduction We have argued that there are reasons to consider some apparent agreement phenomena in the nominal domain as resulting from the spell-out of features present in XP on nodes dominated by that XP. If nominal and verbal syntax are really parallel, we would expect similar phenomena in the TP. In this

    

43

section we will argue that this does indeed occur. It provides a simple account of some apparently exotic agreement patterns in the verbal domain. The proposal that this kind of spell-out exists in the verbal domain is not an innovation as such. Round (2013) proposes an analysis of so-called case stacking in Kayardild that in essence invokes a mechanism exactly like this. What is called case stacking involves the morphological realization of multiple tense, aspect, and mood (TAM) markers on DPs in the language. Such features are, of course, not intrinsic to DPs, but are features of verbal projections. Round shows that the Kayardild clause contains several verbal domains, each associated with a particular subset of the TAM features. The features are morphologically realized on constituents contained in the relevant domains, just as in the concord mechanism we have used above. Remarkable about the Kayardild data is that DPs have slots for multiple affixes, with the effect that a low DP will reflect the features of all domains it is contained in, thus giving rise to the ‘stacking’ effect. The order of morphological markers corresponds transparently to the size of the domains: features associated with a smaller domain appear closer to the nominal base than features associated with a larger domain. Our proposal is simply an extension of this type of analysis to φ-features in some contexts, following a suggestion in Norris (2014: 242–3). φ-features can, of course, be licensed on a verbal head under agreement. If we assume that extended projections share features with their head, we may expect φ-features to be present on TP. This implies that, if there are suitable morphological hosts within the TP, concord will give rise to the realization of φ-features on constituents not themselves involved in the agreement relation (such as adjuncts and arguments other than the controler). We will now discuss examples of this.

3.3.2 Single domain concord: Archi In Archi, absolutive arguments agree with verbs and/or auxiliaries for gender and number (Bond et al., 2016). This instantiates an ordinary agreement relation, with a typical controler (a nominative/absolutive DP) and a typical target (a verbal head). However, other elements can reflect the features of the controler as well. For instance, VP-level adverbs can do this, as illustrated by (27a–b) ((27a) is from Kibrik et al., 1977, via Polinsky, 2016: 207; (27b) is from Chumakina & Bond, 2016: 70–1). In these examples, an adverb appears to

44      agree for gender (indicated by Roman numerals) with the absolutive argument.⁶ (27) a. pro balah dit:au b-erχin. trouble(III).. soon III.-forget. ‘One forgets trouble quickly.’ b. tu-w-mi is mišin alliju that-I.-. IV..1. car(IV).. for.free mua--ši i. repair--. IV..be. ‘He is repairing my car for free.’ Our account is that the adverb does not actually agree with the absolutive argument. Rather, the absolutive agrees with the verb, which licenses the presence of gender features in the extended projection of the verb. In turn, these features partake in concord. Hence, a constituent within the relevant verbal domain reflects the features of the absolutive argument if it has a morphological slot for them. (The latter property is idiosyncratic; indeed, the adverbs showing ‘agreement’ are a lexically restricted subset of the class of adverbs in Archi.) In short, an example like (27a) receives the following analysis (where agreement is marked through coindexation):

. . . [iii]

(28)

...

DP1 [iii] AdvP

V1 [iii]

Adv In (27), the apparently agreeing constituents are adverbs, but various other elements in the verb’s projection show the same behavior, including postpositions (as in (29)) and even pronominal co-arguments of the absolutive controler (as in (30)). ⁶ The reviewers of this chapter ask whether the agreeing elements in question could be DP-internal adjectives (on a par with cases like the occasional sailor in English). This is not likely to be a possible analysis, as the relevant adjuncts need not occur adjacent to the absolutive DP, see (29).

    

45

(29) φ-features of controler realized on a PP: goroχči b-aqʕa haʕtɘr-če-qʕa-k rolling.stone(III)[.] III.-come. river(IV)-.-- eq’en up.to ‘The rolling stone went up to the river.’ (Bond & Chumakina, 2016: 73) (30) φ-features of controler realized on a co-argument a. b-ez dogi kɬ’an-ši b-i III-1. donkey(III)[] like- III-is ‘I like the donkey.’ b. w-ez dija kɬ’an-ši w-i I-1. father(I)[] like- I-is ‘I like father.’ (Kibrik, 1972: 124, Corbett, 1991: 114–15, and Kibrik, 1994: 349 cited from Corbett, 2006: 67) The examples in (30) indicate that the domain of concord in Archi must include the subject position, and is therefore larger than VP. It is unclear whether it is, in fact, the entire clause or perhaps a domain slightly smaller than that. Polinsky (2016: 208) contends that TP-level adverbs do not partake in agreement, giving the example in (31) in evidence. However, the strength of this argument is hard to assess, in view of the fact that, according to Chumakina & Bond (2016: 111), only thirteen adverbs out of over 300 in the language show concord to begin with. (31) *Talaħliš-ijr’u/ejt’u χʕel eχdi-t’aw fortunately-II./IV. rain.IV.. IV..to.rain.-. da-qʕa. II.-come. ‘Fortunately, I (woman speaking) came back before it rained.’ If our analysis is correct, a remarkable type of concord should be possible. The absolutive argument that is the controler in the agreement relation with the verb, and therefore the ultimate source of the features on VP/TP, is positioned within the VP, and thus within the domain of concord. This means that if it has a morphological slot for φ-features, it could show a form that reflects its own features as a consequence of concord. This apparent agreement of an argument with itself has indeed been observed for Archi by Kibrik (1977), as

46      discussed in Corbett (2006: 68). The argument is somewhat complicated. As a starting point, consider the data in (30) again, which show that a co-argument of the absolutive can express the latter’s φ-features. In (30), this co-argument is a dative subject pronoun. There is one pronoun that has a slot for concord when it appears in the ergative, namely the first person inclusive: (32) nenau χwalli 1.. bread(III)[] ‘We (inclusive) made bread.’

au made

In (32), the absolutive argument that acts as controler for the agreement relation with the verb is an R-expression, but of course this controler can be a pronoun as well. If in a transitive construction the absolutive pronoun is a first or second person plural, the apparently agreeing ergative first person plural inclusive pronoun has the form nent’u. Consider now what happens in an intransitive clause in which the first person plural inclusive pronoun itself appears in the absolutive. Here, it also shows up in the form nent’u, as in (33). For all the other first and second person pronouns (except the first person singular), the absolutive and ergative forms are the same. Given that in the ergative nent’u is the form of the first person inclusive pronoun that reflects the features of a first or second person plural pronominal controler, this means that in (33), with the pronoun in the absolutive, the same must be true. So here, too, the form of the pronoun reflects the features of a first or second person pronominal controler. The controler is the argument in the absolutive—which is nent’u itself (which is, of course, indeed the type of controler that triggers the observed form; as noted, this form occurs when the controler is first or second person). Hence, we must conclude that the absolutive pronoun shows concord for its own features. (33) č’éba χará-ši baqI’á let’s back- return. ‘Let’s go back.’

nént’u 1...1

On our account, the absolutive agrees with just the verb, as usual. The relevant φ-features are inherited by VP. Through concord, they are spelled out on morphologically suitable elements dominated by VP; in (33) the absolutive is such an element. A somewhat related set of data that can also be construed as agreement of an argument with itself involves the Archi emphatic marker =ejt’u. This

    

47

element attaches to the focus of a sentence and has a morphological slot that expresses the features of the absolutive argument, as illustrated in (34) (from Bond & Chumakina, 2016: 74). (34) Gubčit:i kɬ’an=iju b-ez. basket(III)[.] want= III.-1. ‘I only  a basket’ (I don’t  it) If the absolutive argument itself is in focus, the emphatic marker attaches to this argument and expresses its features (see (35), from Bond & Chumakin a, 2016: 74). In other words, an emphatic absolutive argument contains a slot for phi-features in which its own features are expressed. (35) Gubčit:i=ju kɬ’an b-ez. basket(III)[.]= wantIII.-1. III.-1. ‘I want only a .’ (I don’t want anything else.) If the Archi data are to be dealt with through agreement, then the notion of agreement will have to be stretched. The standard view is that agreement instantiates a syntactic dependency between a probing head and one or more phrasal goals. Like other syntactic dependencies, it is established under c-command. If treated as agreement, the Archi data require that the relationship be established between phrases (namely an absolutive DP and adverbials or other DPs). Moreover, c-command cannot be a conditioning factor if absolutive pronouns can indeed reflect their own features. Alternatively, one could adopt the line of analysis in Polinsky (2016) and Polinsky et al. (2017). On this analysis, the absolutive agrees with a local ν head. In turn, there is a series of higher ν heads in the clause, which all agree with the features of the next ν head lower down. The features of agreeing coarguments and adjuncts are not valued directly by the absolutive, but instead by a local ν head. While couched in terms of agreement, this theory extends the standard view in permitting heads with unvalued features (Probes) to agree with other such heads. It is, in essence, an implementation of the notion of feature percolation in terms of agreement. The analysis faces a number of empirical problems. To begin with, we have seen that Archi has a pronoun that appears to agree with itself (see (33)). Polinsky et al. argue, following the standard view in Minimalism, that agreement is a search for missing information. In the Archi case, the missing information is a class feature: Agreeing pronouns initially lack such a feature,

48      but are required to have it by the end of the derivation. It goes without saying that the absolutive pronoun that acts as controler, and hence as the source of this feature, cannot simultaneously be the pronoun that lacks this feature. Second, while the analysis shares properties with the concord analysis suggested here, it is difficult to extend it to the Dutch and German nominal concord data discussed in Section 3.2. Take the Dutch case, which would require that gender and number features travel upward to D and A via some form of agreement with local n heads, while at the same time the Def feature must travel downward from D to A. This seems to require that the same agreement relation transmits information both upwards and downwards, which is unusual. Finally, below we will discuss examples from Gujarati in which the features morphologically realized on the head of a lower domain are not those realized on elements that agree with this head (see (38)). This requires that features from a controler in the higher domain are somehow copied onto the lower head, while having to be ignored in the agreement relations in the lower domain itself. Polinsky et al.’s analysis has no mechanism by which this can be achieved. In contrast, our analysis posits only a perfectly conventional agreement relation between the verb and the absolutive DP. This is complemented by an extension of the process of concord, as described for the nominal domain in Section 3.2, to φ-features in the verbal domain. Such an extension is to be expected if nominal and verbal syntax are cut from the same cloth. Rudnev (to appear) gives three arguments for treating very similar data in Avar in terms of agreement rather than concord. Rudnev adopts the view that concord is a process by which features of a (nominal) head are realized on elements contained in its maximal projection. His first argument is based on this assumption: As the agreeing adjuncts, PPs, and arguments in languages like Archi and Avar are not part of the absolutive DP whose features they reflect, an analysis in terms of concord within DP is indeed ruled out. However, this leaves unaffected our hypothesis that we are dealing with concord in TP/VP, fed by agreement between V and the absolutive DP. The fact that the analysis relies on an agreement relation between V and the absolutive DP also answers Rudnev’s second argument against a concord analysis. This is that the phenomenon is case-sensitive: The features of absolutive DPs are reflected on other elements, but not those of ergative DPs, for example. Admittedly, such case sensitivity is typical of agreement relations

    

49

(Bobaljik, 2008), but that is not a problem, since concord involves the features on TP/VP that are licensed there through an agreement relation between a DP and the verb. It is this agreement relation that is sensitive to case. Rudnev’s third argument is that the morphological realization of features under what he considers concord (so within DP) differs from the morphological realization of the same features in TP/VP. Thus, the morphological realization of plural on an attributive adjective is -l, where as the realization of plural on an adverb and on the verb is -r. But such morphological contrasts can be dealt with by the spell-out system and do not depend on the way in which different terminals come to reflect those features. All that is required is that features can be realized differently in different contexts, something familiar from other types of allomorphy (for example,  is realized as -s on some Dutch nouns but is systematically realized as -n on verbs).

3.3.3 Multiple domains of concord: Archi and Gujarati The Archi data discussed in Section 3.3.2 involve a single domain for concord. However, when we considered concord in the DP (in Section 3.2), we saw that sometimes it is necessary to distinguish two separate concord domains. We expect this to be true for some cases of concord in the verbal domain as well, if the parallel is to go through. Indeed, in Archi there are constructions that are instances of this. These are constructions with a periphrastic verb form in which there are two absolutive arguments. Bond & Chumakina (2016) discuss which elements reflect the features of which argument in such structures. We cannot go into details here, but the general rule is that there is a smaller domain containing the main verb and the lower absolutive argument and a larger domain containing the auxiliary and the higher absolutive argument. Verbal agreement in each domain is with the local absolutive argument: The main verb agrees with the lower absolutive and the auxiliary with the higher absolutive. Concord follows the expected pattern: In each domain, it is for the features of the local verbal head. Thus, a high adverb indirectly reflects the features of the higher absolutive, while a low adverb indirectly reflects the features of the lower absolutive. Consider the examples in (36), which both contain the adverb ‘early’. If this adverb reflects the features of the object, it must have a low interpretation (inside the lower domain), and if it reflects the features of the subject, it must have a high interpretation (inside the higher domain).

50      (36) a. Pat’i dit:au qʕwib Pati(II)[.] early potato(III)[.] b-okɬin-ši d-i III.-dig.- II.-be. ‘Pati is digging the potatoes out early.’ (It is too early for the potatoes to be ready.) b. Pat’i dit:au qʕwib Pati(II)[.] early potato(III)[.] b-okɬin-ši d-i III.-dig.- II.-be. ‘Pati is digging the potatoes out early.’ (Pati got up early.) A similar pattern can be observed in Gujarati, albeit with a morphological twist. As described in Woolford (2006), verbal agreement in Gujarati is controled by nominative/absolutive DPs, or, in the absence of a such a DP in the relevant domain, by ‘objects with certain features such as specificity [that] are marked with what looks like the dative Case’ (Woolford: 311). As in Archi, a subset of adverbs have a morphological slot for φ-features. If there is only one possible controler of the verbal agreement, then, unsurprisingly, the adverbs will show the same features as the agreeing verb, on our analysis as a result of concord. Thus, in (37) (from Hook & Joshi, 1994) both the main verb and the auxiliary agree with the object ‘this job’ (as the subject is ergative and hence not accessible for agreement), while the temporal adverb reflects the relevant features through concord. (37) chokr-aa-e kyaar-n-i e nokri lidh-i boy-- when--. this job(. ) taken-. hat-i was-. ‘The boy had taken this job a long time (before).’ However, there are sentences that contain two possible controlers, in particular a nonergative subject and an object that is either absolutive/nominative or carries the dative associated with specificity. We will show that what happens in such cases can be explained if the clause in Gujarati is divided into two distinct concord domains (much as in Archi). That two domains must be distinguished to account for the Gujarati data is not, as such, an innovation of our account; within a Minimalist Probe-Goal model for agreement, Grosz &

    

51

Patel-Grosz (2014) argue in some detail that in Kutchi Gujarati there are two distinct probes in the clause, one in a high domain (TP) and one in a low domain (vP or perhaps AspectP). (The data in Kutchi Gujarati contrast in some details with those of Standard Gujarati discussed here; see Grosz & PatelGrosz for discussion.) At first sight, it may not be obvious that it is necessary to distinguish two agreement/concord domains in the Gujarati clause. In (37), both the higher verb (the auxiliary) and the lower one show the same agreement just because there is only one possible controler. But even in clauses that have two potential controlers the lower verb shows the same phi-features as the higher one, with the highest accessible DP (the nonergative subject) acting as the apparent controler. We contend, however, that the morphology on the lower verb is not the result of agreement with the subject, but rather of concord. After all, the lower domain (VP/vP) is contained within the higher domain (TP), so that its head is a potential host for realization of the features that TP acquires after agreement between T and subject. The lower verb does, in fact, agree with the DP in the lower domain, but this agreement has no morphological reflex on the verb itself. The verb has only one morphological slot for φ-features, and this is used for concord in Gujarati. Nevertheless, we can see that the lower verb must enter into a local agreement relation with the object, as this relation also feeds concord, but in the VP. Thus, low adverbs that can act as morphological host for φ-features reflect the features of the lower controler rather than the higher one. The result is a structure in which the lower verb reflects a different set of features than the adverbs in its domain (examples from Hook & Joshi, 1994): (38) a. e aa gito saar-AA he() these songs(. ) well-. che be(3) ‘He sings these songs well.’

gaay sing(3)

b. hU chokri-ne vahel-i jagaaD-t-o I() girl- early-. waken-ing-. hat-o was-. ‘I used to waken the girl early.’ We give a representation of example (38b) in (39).

52      (39)

AuxP [gnd] DP1 [gnd]

...

VP [gnd-fem] DP2 [gnd-fem] AdvP

Aux1 [gnd]

... V2 [gnd-fem]

Adv Note that in (38) the adverbs show concord for the features of VP. If there are high adverbs that can act as morphological host for φ-features, we would expect these to reflect the features of the higher controler. This is indeed what happens. Hook & Joshi (1994) provide the example in (40), which contains the same adverb paach twice, once with an interpretation compatible with high scope and once with an interpretation compatible with low scope. (40) te paach-o copaDio paach-i laav-vaa he again-. books(. ) back-. bring- maNDy-o began-. ‘He began again to bring the books back.’ The lower verb in (40) is an infinitive, which does not have a morphological slot for φ-features. Nevertheless, it must agree with the object: Given that the low adverb must acquire its morphological features under concord, the features must be present on VP. In conclusion, concord works the same way in all extended projections, whether verbal or nominal.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, Jessica Coon, and Justin Royer for useful comments that improved both the contents and presentation of the chapter. We thank Klaus Abels for intitial discussion of the German data. Early versions of the proposal were presented in the Current Issues in Morphology course at the University of Edinburgh (2016, 2018).

4 Bases, transformations, and competition in Hebrew niXYaZ Odelia Ahdout and Itamar Kastner

4.1 Introduction In this chapter we examine a set of interactions between syntax, morphological marking, and nominalization in Modern Hebrew, where one kind of morphological marking is associated with a number of distinct morpho-syntactic patterns. The phenomenon to be investigated looks as follows. In (1a), an unergative verb appears in the template niXYaZ, one of the seven verbal templates of Hebrew. This verb can be nominalized as in (1b). In (2a) we see that an unaccusative verb instantiating a different ‘root’ can appear in the same template, raising the question of what exactly this morphology is encoding. This verb can also be nominalized (2b), but another unaccusative verb in this template cannot (3). Finally, passive construals are also possible in this template (4a) but they cannot be nominalized (4b). (1) a. ha-asir nimlat me-ha-kele be-mejumanut the-prisoner escaped from-the-prison in-skill ‘The prisoner skilfully escaped from the prison.’ b. himaltut ha-asir me-ha-kele be-mejumanut the.escaping (of ) the-prisoner. from-the-prison in-skill hajta ʦfuja me-roʃ was..3 predicted from-head ‘The prisoner’s skilful escape from prison was predictable.’ (2) a. nexlaʃ l-i keev ha-roʃ me-atsmo weakened to-me ache (of ) the-head. by-itself ‘My headache weakened of its own accord.’

Odelia Ahdout and Itamar Kastner, Bases, transformations, and competition in Hebrew niXYaZ In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Odelia Ahdout and Itamar Kastner. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0004

54      b. hexalʃut keev ha-roʃ ʃeli the.getting.weaker (of ) ache. (of ) the-head. mine hajta mevorexet was..3 blessed..3 ‘The weakening of my headache was a blessed thing.’ (3) a. nifkex-u l-i ha-enaim me-aʦman opened-3 to-me the-eyes by-themselves ‘My eyes opened of their own accord.’ b. #hipakxut (int. ‘getting opened’). (4) a. ha-simla nitfer-a al-jedej savta ʃeli the-dress was.sewn-.3 by grandmother mine ‘The dress was sewn by my grandmother.’ b. #hitafrut (int. ‘being sewn (by)’). Our aim is to explain what exactly niXYaZ is tracking, and when nominalizations of this verbal form are possible. The chapter is structured as follows: In Section 4.2 we present the basic properties of the subject matter at hand: Complex Event Nominals (CENs). In Section 4.3 we introduce the classification of verbs in niXYaZ into two main groups: nonactive and active verbs, and the results of our survey regarding the nominalization patterns of these groups. We demonstrate that an asymmetry exists between the two groups, where active verbs are at an advantage relative to the nonactive group as far as nominalizing potential is concerned. In Section 4.4 we explore in detail the first group of verbs—nonactive verbs—and propose an analysis and an account of the nominalization patterns they exhibit, based on the notion of competition between forms. In Section 4.5 we move on to address the second group of verbs in niXYaZ—active/unergative verbs—and offer an analysis of their nominalization patterns. Section 4.6 concludes.

4.2 Complex Event Nominalizations In this study, we focus on nominals which denote events/processes (CENs; see Chapter 1).

, ,  

55

The nonobligatory status of the external argument in English CENs, together with the licensing of by-phrases in some nominal constructions (and the implied Agent interpretation in its absence), has led many to propose that nominalized verbs and passivized verbs are alike: 1. The two processes share the suppression of the external argument (Grimshaw, 1990; Alexiadou, 2001, 2017). 2. When not realized, the Agent is implicit, and has been claimed by some to be present in the semantics through existential closure (Alexiadou, 2017), while others take it to also be syntactically present, as a null pro subject (Roeper, 1987; Sichel, 2009, 2010; Bruening, 2012; Alexiadou et al., 2015); see (5) below. But see Borer (1993, 2013, Chapter 6) and van Hout, Masaaki, & Roeper (2013) for a review and a different perspective. The (simplified)¹ structure in (5) represents the nominalization of a transitive verb:

n

(5)

pro

n

n VoiceP -[at]ion Voice vP v √root

PP v

(After Bruening 2012: 31)

We adopt this structure, and treat the nominalization as resulting from an n head merged above VoiceP, without an external argument. In our exploration of intransitive verbs and nominals, we keep in mind the basic claims made by Grimshaw (1990) about the nominalizing potential

¹ Another unresolved issue is the presence vs. absence of Voice in deverbal nouns. See Lebeaux, 1986, Fu, 1994, Hazout, 1995, Kratzer, 1996, Engelhardt, 1998, 2000, Alexiadou, 2001, 2017c, Harley, 2009b, Borer, 2013, Chapter 6, and Bruening, 2012, for relevant discussions; and Ahdout (in preparation) for Voice in Hebrew nominalizations.

56      of intransitive verbs (as well as the association between nominalization and passivization): 1. Unaccusative verbs: lack an external argument, which makes them ineligible as an input to nominalization (1990: 112).² 2. Unergative verbs: cannot produce a nominalization, as they are simple events (activities). A verb must have a complex event structure to serve as a basis for nominalization (Grimshaw, 1990: 45ff.).³ The Hebrew clause parallel to English examples of CENs derived from a transitive verb is given in (7). As in English, the agentive by-phrase is optional, and in its absence, the Agent is implied, as diagnosed based on the possibility of control into a purpose clause and an agentive adverbial: (6) ha-ovdim jism-u et ha-ʃita the-workers implemented..-3  the-method ha-xadaʃ-a the-new-. ‘The workers implemented the method.’ (7) jisum ha-ʃita ha-xadaʃ-a the.implementation.. (of ) the-method. the-new-. (al-jedej ha-ovdim) be-mejumanut tox xodeʃ kedej by the-workers in-skill in a.month in.order le-ʃaper bitsuim to-improve performances ‘The skilful implementation of the method (by the workers) in a month in order to improve performance.’ In the following, we examine the Hebrew template niXYaZ, a form which upon a closer look, hosts several different verb groups, distinguished from ² Alexiadou (p.c.) proposes that under Grimshaw’s system, unaccusative predicates are in fact ‘complex’, as they have both a change and a result state subevent. In this sense, they should produce a CEN, which is what is reported in Alexiadou (2001) for several languages, see Section 4.4.3 and discussion in Alexiadou (2001: 56). ³ For unergative verbs as well, an opposite prediction is considered in Alexiadou (2001: 56), who suggests that under Grimshaw’s system, unergative verbs should in principle be able to produce CENs as they have an external argument, unlike unaccusative verbs.

, ,  

57

one another in their semantic and syntactic properties. We show that these distinctions are also meaningful in explaining inconsistencies in the derivation of CENs. In the next sections, we present the basic data, and follow with an in-depth inspection and analysis of the various groups we have identified. Each subgroup is also described with regards to its nominalization derivatives, attempting to reconsider several claims made in the literature on nominalization. The database used in this study consists of 3,272 Hebrew verbs, categorized according to the five (nonactive) morphological templates of Hebrew (Ahdout, in preparation). The original list of verbs was provided by Ehrenfeld (2012). Verbs were then coded for their argument structure (unaccusative, unergative, transitive, etc.). For intransitive verbs, unaccusativity and unergativity tests were applied (see Section 4.4.1). For each verb, it was checked whether a nominal derivative exists, and whether this nominal indeed has the CEN properties described in this section. For this purpose, speaker judgments, as well as corpora consultations were used (Itai & Wintner, 2008; He TenTen, Google⁴). This chapter focuses on the 415 verbs which appear in the niXYaZ template.

4.3 Three families under one roof: the template niXYaZ Verbs in Hebrew appear in one of seven verbal templates, a morphological trait typical of Semitic languages. Two of these templates are directly derived from other templates and host passive verbs only. Descriptively speaking, templates are morpho-phonological objects made up of consonant and vowel slots. The two templates in (8) will be notated XaYaZ and niXYaZ, where X, Y, and Z stand for the root consonants which combine with the template to create a verb. These two templates may reflect argument structure alternations, along with other pairings of templates in the language (Doron, 2003; Arad, 2005; Kastner, 2019b; among others). Examples for such alternations are found in (8).

⁴ He TenTen (Corpus of the Hebrew Web).

58      (8) Transitive (XaYaZ)—intransitive (niXYaZ) ʃavar—niʃbar ‘broke’. kara—nikra ‘tore’. matax—nimtax ‘stretched’. Alongside systematic alternations achieved through template pairs, such as in (8), there exist numerous gaps in the paradigms, as not every root combines with every template. The focus of this chapter lies with the so-called ‘middle’ template niXYaZ, traditionally viewed as a passive template. While it is true that many verbs in niXYaZ have passive readings, these verbs are often mediopassive, compatible with a passive or anticausative reading, while still other verbs are purely anticausative/unaccusative, but not passive. Furthermore, another group of verbs in niXYaZ has decidedly different syntactic and semantic behavior: They are active verbs, ‘figure reflexives’ in the terminology of Wood (2014). The classes of verbs and the diagnostics used to classify them are presented next. Their uniform morphology will receive a nonuniform syntactic analysis within our account. It is important to note that in Hebrew, nominalization is not purely affixal, but rather templatic. Verbal templates have nominal derivatives which are a variation of the verbal base, either via a vowel change, addition of affixes, or both. This allows us to easily identify the morphological class of a nominalization, as the nominal form in Hebrew is typically determined by the verbal template (e.g. Borer, 2013: 530). We next outline the different verb classes in niXYaZ and their different behavior with respect to nominalization.

4.3.1 niXZaY: main verb groups Most verbs in niXYaZ have passive readings in that they are the passive variant of an active verb in XaYaZ. This is the majority group of verbs in niXYaZ and probably the reason why the template is traditionally viewed as passive.⁵ ⁵ Note that alongside niXYaZ, Hebrew also uses designated passive templates to host passive verbs (e.g. (16a)). These templates categorically lack a nominalization—a corresponding nominal form does not exist. Unlike niXYaZ passives, these are analyzed with a passive head on top of the Voice projection. See Alexiadou & Doron (2012), Kastner (2019b), and Ahdout & Kastner (2019) for some differences between the designated passives and niXYaZ passives.

, ,  

59

(9) Passive verbs in niXYaZ Root

XaYaZ verb

niXYaZ passive

'mr

amar ‘said’

neemar ‘was said’

srg

sarag ‘knitted’

nisrag ‘was knitted’

bxn

baxan ‘examined’

nivxan ‘was examined’

rtsx

raʦax ‘murdered’

nirʦax ‘was murdered’

kb'

kava ‘set, decided’ nikba ‘was decided’

Another class of verbs in this template is on the right-hand side of (10), to be referred to here as unaccusatives. Intuitively, these are verbs which convey the (structurally) unaccusative variant of an existing active verb in XaYaZ. The English translations are labile, but Hebrew does not employ zero derivation in the same way (Borer, 1991; Kastner, 2019b):⁶ (10)

Unaccusative verbs in niXYaZ Root

XaYaZ transitive niXYaZ unaccusative

gmr

gamar ‘ended’

nigmar ‘ended’

plt

palat ‘eject’

niflat ‘got ejected’

tk'

taka ‘jammed’

nitka ‘got stuck’

Finally, we find in this template verbs like those on the right-hand side of (11). These verbs either are not an anticausative version of the transitive verb on the left-hand side of (11), or do not have a transitive alternant in XaYaZ to begin with. Importantly, verbs belonging to this group are active/agentive and take an obligatory PP complement. These verbs are named ‘Figure Reflexive’, and will be discussed in Section 4.5. (11)

Unergative verbs in niXYaZ Root

XaYaZ verb

niXYaZ Figure Reflexive

kns

—

nixnas *(le-) ‘entered (into)’

dxf

daxaf ‘pushed’

nidxaf *(derex/le-) ‘pushed his way through/into’

rʃm

raʃam ‘wrote, sketched’

nirʃam *(le-) ‘signed up for’

lxm

laxam ‘fought’

nilxam *(be-) ‘fought (with)’

‘xz

‘axaz be- ‘held on to’

neexaz *(be-) ‘held on to’

⁶ Some verbs falling under the category of ‘unaccusative’ do not have an active alternant in XaYaZ, e.g. neelam ‘disappeared’ and nirdam ‘fell asleep’, nimʃax ‘continued (intrans.)’.

60      Note finally that many verbs are ambiguous between (at least) two of the readings described above. Regarding ambiguous verbs, we will mainly address ambiguous nonactive verbs—verbs which may get both unaccusative and passive readings (‘mediopassive’). These are discussed further in Section 4.4.2 A smaller group of verbs exhibiting active/nonactive ambiguities exist as well, see (13). Based on our database (Ahdout, in preparation), out of 415 verbs in niXYaZ, 173 have only passive readings, ninety have only unaccusative readings, and seventy-four are figure reflexives (or ambiguous between a figure reflexive reading and a nonactive reading). Finally, seventy-eight verbs are ambiguous nonactive verbs (unaccusative or passive). In the next section, we report the results of our survey of verbs in niXYaZ, and show that there is a bias against a nominalization for certain verbs which is not random, but rather in correlation with the specific group a given verb is a member of. We provide a corresponding analysis for the verbal structure of each group, followed by an attempt to link the properties of the various groups to the patterns of nominalization the group exhibits.

4.3.2 niXYaZ: variation in rate of nominalization The table at (13) summarizes the results of our investigation of verbs in niXYaZ, based on the groups we have primarily identified: the nonactive group (unaccusative, passive), the active group (figure reflexives), and the ambiguous verbs. The generalization obtained is that, in Hebrew: (12) a. Nominalization is more likely to occur with unergatives (figure reflexives) than with nonactive verbs [in (13d–g)]. b. Among nonactive verbs, a CEN is found more often with the unaccusative verb. [(13c)] rather than with the passive [(13a), or passive readings, (13b)].

, ,  

61

The quantitative findings are summarized in (13): (13)

niXYaZ verbs and rate of nominalization

a

Basic Group structure

Pass Unacc Unerg Nominals/ % verbs per subgroup

Nonactive Passive

+

7/173

4

b

Unaccusative

+

25/90

28

c

Ambiguous + (‘Mediopassive’)7

+

11/78

14

+

19/31

61

+

12/18

67

+

12/15

80

+

10/10

100

d

Active

e

Active/ Ambiguous8 nonactive

f g

Figure Reflexive + + +

+

Examples are given in Section 4.4 for nonactive verbs, and in Section 4.5 for active verbs. To try and make sense of these results, we now turn to a closer inspection of our major groups in niXYaZ. In order to determine group membership, i.e. the syntactic structure of a given verb in context, we apply a number of diagnostics. These tests are standard for the literature on unaccusativity and argument structure alternations. They include the traditional Hebrew unaccusativity diagnostics: verb-subject order (Shlonsky, 1987) and the possessive dative (Borer & Grodzinsky, 1986), as well as compatibility with ‘by-itself ’. To establish that a verb is unergative, i.e has an external argument, we check for compatibility with Agent-oriented adverbs (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav, 1995, et seq.) and other tests for the existence of an external argument (e.g. Baker, Johnson, & Roberts, 1989). All of the tests are consistent with the claim that the verbs classified as unaccusative have no external argument, that the verbs classified as passives ⁷ Examples for ambiguous nonactive verbs are nisgar ‘got closed (from/by)’, nimax ‘got squished (from/by)’. See e.g. Alexiadou & Doron (2012) for the term ‘mediopassive’, and discussion in Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 in the context of nominalization. ⁸ Examples for ambiguous verbs for lines (13e–g) are (in accordance), e.g. niʦmad (le-) ‘attached to’, nitla ‘hung on to/be hanged (by)’, niftax ‘open up/get/be opened (by)’. Overall, for ambiguous verbs, it is usually either the unaccusative or (more often), the unergative reading that is attested in CENs—but never the passive one.

62      have an implicit Agent (or an explicit by-phrase Agent), and that verbs which are classified as figure reflexive have an external argument.

4.4 Verb groups under niYXaZ I: nonactive verbs The first and by far the largest group of verbs in niXYaZ, comprises nonactive verbs—verbs which lack an external argument in their derivation (unaccusatives), or where this argument is restricted to the semantics, and absent in the syntax (passives). Only a few diagnostics are given in each case for space considerations; see Kastner (2019b) for full details. The diagnostics suggest that some verbs in niXYaZ are nonactive, i.e. lack a syntactic Agent. We analyze these verbs using a framework in which nonactive verbs have a Voice head with a [-D] feature, a feature which bans the projection of a DP in Spec,Voice. Semantically, this Voice head may trigger both unaccusative (agentless) and passive (implicit Agent) readings. We begin by looking at nonactive verbs, and continue to discuss the nominalization patterns (Section 4.3.2).

4.4.1 Selected diagnostics: ‘by-itself ’, VS order, and the possessive dative A common assumption in studies of unaccusativity is that the existence of an Agent can be probed using adverbial modifiers such as adverbs and the phrase ‘by itself ’ (Levin & Rapapport-Hovav, 1995; Alexiadou & Agnostopoulou, 2004; Koontz-Garboden, 2009; Alexiadou & Doron 2012; Kastner, 2017). Hebrew me-aʦmo ‘by itself ’ diagnoses the nonexistence of an external argument, regardless of whether the external argument is explicit (as in transitive verbs) or implicit (as in passives). The test is appropriate with unaccusatives in niXYaZ, (14), but not with direct objects of transitive verbs, in XaYaZ, (15), or with passives verbs, (16). The examples are adapted from (Kastner, 2017). (14) ha-maxʃev nitka me-aʦmo the-computer jammed.. from-itself ‘The computer jammed (of its own accord).’ (15) *miri ʃavr-a et ha-maxʃev Miri broke..-.3  the-computer (int. ‘Miri broke the computer of its own accord.’)

me-aʦmo from-itself

, ,  

63

(16) a. *ha-kise porak me-aʦmo the-chair dismantled.. from-itself (int. ‘The chair was dismantled of its own accord.’) b. *ha-sveder nisrag me-aʦmo the-sweater knitted.. from-itself (int. ‘The sweater was knitted of its own accord.’) The syntactic literature on Hebrew has identified several unaccusativity diagnostics. Two of these diagnostics are Verb-Subject order and compatibility with the possessive dative, although it is important to acknowledge that their status as robust tests has been challenged in recent years (Borer, 2004; Gafter, 2014; Linzen, 2014; Kastner, 2017). Crucially for our purposes, the two classes of verbs behave differently with regards to these diagnostics. Modern Hebrew is typically SV(O), but promoted subjects may appear after the verb, resulting in VS order. This is true for both unaccusatives, (17), and passives, (18), presumably because the underlying object remains in its original VP-internal position. Unergatives do not allow VS, with the exception of a marked structure referred to as ‘stylistic inversion’, (19). For additional discussion, see Shlonsky (1987), to whom the test is attributed, as well as Shlonsky & Doron (1991), Borer (1995, 2004), and Preminger (2010). (17) nafl-u ʃaloʃ kosot be-ʃmone ba-boker fell..-3 three glasses in-eight in.the-morning ‘Three glasses fell at 8am.’ (18) ne’esr-u ʃloʃa asirim jail..-3 three prisioners ‘Three prisoners were jailed at 8am.’

be-ʃmone ba-boker in-eight in.the-morning

(19) #jilel-u ʃloʃa xatulim be-ʃmone whined..-3 three cats in-eight ba-boker in.the-morning ‘And thence whined three cats at 8am.’ (Marked variant) The second unaccusativity diagnostic is the possessive dative, a construction in which the possessor appears in a prepositional phrase in a separate constituent from the possessee (possessor raising). This construction is taken to be unique to internal arguments in the language (Borer & Grodzinsky, 1986). A transitive

64      construction is compatible with the possessive dative, (20), as is an unaccusative construction in niXYaZ, (21), whereas an unergative verb leads to an affected interpretation of the kind discussed by Ariel et al. (2015) and BarAsher Siegal & Boneh (2016). (20) miri ʃavr-a l-i et ha-maxʃev Miri broke..-.3 to-me  the-computer ‘Miri broke my computer.’ (21) nitka l-i ha-maxʃev fell..-3 to-me the-computer ‘My computer jammed at 8am.’

be-ʃmone ba-boker in-eight in.the-morning

(22) #ʃloʃa xatulim jilel-u l-i be-ʃmone three cats whined..-3 to-me in-eight ba-boker in.the-morning ‘And thence whined three cats at 8am.’ (Marked variant) Taken together, as well as showing negative results of the by-phrase and agentive adverbials diagnostics (which are compatible with unergatives, see Kastner, 2019b), these tests provide support for the common assumption that in addition to passives, at least some verbs in niXYaZ are unaccusative. A formal analysis follows next.

4.4.2 Analysis Our analysis is cast in Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993), in particular adopting the assumption that Voice is the functional head introducing the external argument (Kratzer, 1996; Pylkkänen, 2008). We also adopt the treatment of marked nonactive verbs in Hebrew and other languages proposed by Alexiadou & Doron (2012), Kastner (2017, 2019b), and others, in which nonactives are derived by merging a nonactive variant of Voice, namely Voice[-D]. The relevant distinction is between regular Voice and nonactive or ‘expletive’ Voice[-D], which does not project a specifier (see the works cited for more detailed discussion), implemented using the EPP feature [D] (Chomsky, 1995) on the head Voice.

, ,  

65

(23) Voice[-D] (Kastner, 2019b): A Voice head with a [-D] feature, prohibiting anything with a [D] feature from merging in its specifier. In the phonological component, the Vocabulary Items for the two variants differ: Voice is spelled out as XaYaZ and Voice[-D] is spelled out as niXYaZ. For simplification, the exponent corresponding to Voice[-D] is represented as the templatic prefix ni-. The phonological details (Kastner 2019a,b) do not matter for the current chapter. These functional heads work in the following way. Verb phrases (vPs) contain no reference to the external argument, since that role is licensed by Voice (Kratzer, 1996). What this means is that a vP is simply a predicate of events, potentially transitive ones. The verb gamar ‘ended, finished’ is made up of a vP, denoting a set of finishing events, and a Voice head introducing an additional external argument.⁹ (24) XaYaZ, gamar ‘ended, finished (trans.)’

VoiceP DP

Voice Voice

vP v

√gmr

DP v

Anticausative verbs differ minimally in that no external argument is introduced. In line with the claim that causatives and anticausatives are derived from a common core (Alexiadou et al., 2015), the grammar might build a transitive vP as above (verbalizer, root, and internal argument) and then merge Voice[-D]. This configuration gives us nigmar ‘ended’ in (25). Since no external argument can be merged in the specifier of Voice[-D], the structure in (25) is unaccusative.

⁹ Kastner (2016, 2019b) characterizes XaYaZ as underspecified for the D feature on Voice, which means that verbs hosted in this template may also lack an external argument—are unaccusative. In this chapter we are concerned with transitive XaYaZ verbs which have an intransitive (unaccusative) alternant in niXYaZ, i.e. have (active) Voice.

66      (25) niXYaZ, nigmar ‘ended, finished (intrans.)’

VoiceP –

Voice[-D] Voice ni√gmr

vP v

DP v

This basic distinction between Voice and Voice[-D] allows us to derive some typical argument structure alternations in the language, tracked by overt morphology. With unaccusative verbs in niXYaZ accounted for, we continue next to discuss passive verbs in niXYaZ, which we claim share their structure with the unaccusative verbs just described. Passives form the biggest subgroup among niXYaZ verbs; 173 out of 415 verbs in our database are passive only, and a hundred more are ambiguous between a passive reading and some other reading. Below we present an example of a passive verb in niXYaZ: (26) ha-poʃea nirʦax al-jedej the-criminal was.murdered.. by ‘The criminal was murdered by assassins.’

mitnakʃim assassins

An important observation is that some verbs in niXYaZ are ambiguous between nonactive readings (passive and unaccusative), a syntactic subclass referred to as the mediopassive (Alexiadou & Doron, 2012). One verb belonging to this class is the verb nisgar ‘close’: (27) Unaccusative reading: a. ha-delet nisger-a (me-ha-ruax ha-xazaka) the-door closed..-.3 from-the-wind the-strong.. ‘The door closed (from the strong wind).’

, ,  

67

Passive reading: b. delet ha-kita nisger-a al-jedej door (of) the-classroom. closed..-.3 by ha-more the-teacher ‘The classroom door was closed by the teacher.’ Moreover, passive verbs have been shown above to pattern with unaccusatives with regards to unaccusativity diagnostics, (18), which is in line with their subject DP being an underlying object. On the other hand, they pattern with unergatives (see also Section 4.5) in not passing the ‘by itself ’ diagnostic (16), suggesting that an Agent is semantically present. This leads us to suggest that the structure in (25) above, and repeated here in (28), derives the syntax of passives as well as unaccusatives (and necessarily of mediopassives which are ambiguous between the two).

VoiceP

(28)

_

Voice[-D] Voice ni√root

vP v

DP v

The representation associated here with the three different structures has been proposed for another language which shows a similar Voice syncretism, namely Greek (Alexiadou & Doron, 2012; Alexiadou et al., 2015). ‘Nonactive’ Voice in Greek includes the same three groups described here for Hebrew niXYaZ, albeit differing in the proportion each group holds overall (as well as other implementational details). Semantically, there are two approaches to the two possible interpretations associated with the Voice[-D] head: Thematic (agentive) vs. Expletive (no Agent) Voice as in Alexiadou et al. (2015), or contextual allosemy of Voice as in Kastner (2019b). Contextual allosemy is a case where a functional head has one interpretation in one context, and another in another context (e.g. Wood & Marantz, 2017). In the context of some roots, the relevant interpretation is (29a), where the Voice head is the identity function and takes an event

68      (e.g. of finishing) without modifying it. For many other roots, however, the relevant alloseme would be (29b), where an Agent is added, e.g. (9)/(26). Finally, for mediopassives, e.g. the roots of the verb in (27), both options are available. (29) ⟦Voice[-D]⟧ = a. λP.P / {√gmr ‘finish’, √dlk ‘to light’, √tk ‘to jam’, √sgr, . . . } = b. λPλe∃x.e & Agent(x,e) & Theme( . . . ) / {√rʦx ‘murder’, √amr ‘say’, √sgr, . . . } Thus, based on the same syntactic structure, we get the two different interpretations associated with nonactive Voice[-D]: passive (Agent is existentially closed over) and/or unaccusative (no external argument).

4.4.3 Nominalizations of nonactive verbs Under Grimshaw’s (1990) system, unaccusative structures cannot serve as a basis to nominalization, as a nominalization is required to have an external argument to suppress in the first place (1990: 112), something which unaccusatives lack. Generally, the literature identifies Catalan and Greek as languages reported to have unaccusative CENs, e.g. in Alexiadou (2001: 40–2, 82, 84–5; see Sichel, 2010, on English; and Insacco, 2017, on Italian): (30) a. la the b. i the

tornada dels turistes returning of.the tourists sihni ptosi frequent fall

durant during

ton timon the prices-

l’estiu (Catalan) the summer (Alexiadou, 2001: 82) (Greek) (Alexiadou, 2001: 41)

Before turning to the Hebrew data and generalizations, a comment must be made regarding unaccusative verbs in the language in general, i.e. those which are hosted in templates other than niXYaZ. We do not enter a detailed description here, but refer the reader to Ahdout (in preparation) and Ahdout & Kastner (2019). From an initial survey of nominalizations derived

, ,  

69

from unaccusative verbs, we find that these are typically grammatical in Hebrew. One example is in (31), derived in the hitXaY̯eZ template: (31) a. hitada l-i ha-aʦeton ba-ʃemeʃ vaporized..-3 to-me the-acetone in.the-sun ‘My acetone vaporized in the sun.’ b. ha-hitadut ha-mijadit the-vaporization.. the-immidiate.. ba-ʃemeʃ iʦben-a oti in.the-sun annoyed..-.3 me

ʃel ha-aʦeton of the-acetone

Hebrew then patterns with Greek and Catalan (30). More generally, the congruence of unaccusatives with nominalization shows that a verb does not require an external argument to undergo nominalization—contra Grimshaw (1990). According to the comprehensive survey in Ahdout (in preparation), the average rate of CEN is around 71% of all Hebrew verbs (excluding niXYaZ verbs). The investigation taken up here, and reported in (13), shows then that niXYaZ unaccusatives nominalize to a relatively low extent (27%), and that passives nominalize poorly (4%). For unaccusative predicates the results are mixed. Some nominalize, while others do not: (32) a. nolad l-i tinok etmol was.born.. to-me a.baby yesterday ‘I had a baby yesterday morning.’

ba-boker in.the-morning

b. hivaldut lifne ha-zman hi davar mesukan being.born.. before the-time is..3 a.thing dangerous ‘Being born prematurely is a dangerous thing.’ (33) a. nigmer-u l-i ha-xesxonot ekev bizbuz jeter ran.out..-3 to-me the-savings due.to spending excess ‘My savings ran out due to over-spending.’ b. #higamrut (int. ‘running out (of)’).

70      We did not find any systematic lexical semantic differences between niXYaZ unaccusative verbs which nominalize and those which do not (e.g. based on animacy of the argument). To better assess the inconsistent unaccusative class, the contrast with passives proves to be informative; unlike unaccusatives, passives reject nominalization almost sweepingly (96% of all passive verbs): (34) a. ha-taarix la-mesiba nikba al-jedej ha-meargenim the-date to.the-party was.set.. by the-organizers b. #hikabut (int. ‘being set (by)’). (35) a. roʃ ha-memʃala nisxat head (of) the-government was.blackmailed.. tajkunim tycoons ‘The prime minister was blackmailed by tycoons.’

al-jedej by

b. #hisaxtut (int. ‘being blackmailed by’). This contrast is neatly reflected in the nominalizations patterns of mediopassive verbs. Despite being ambiguous in the verbal domain, the nominalization of these verbs tends to preserve the unaccusative reading alone (Siloni & Preminger, 2009). This gap shows that although nominalizations of unaccusatives are overall relatively degraded, they are still preferable to nominalizations of passives. An example is the unaccusative/passive verb nim’ax ‘get/be squished (by)’, which loses the passive reading (i.e. with a byphrase Agent) in the nominal (37b), whereas the unaccusative reading is preserved (37a): (36) Unaccusative verb, OK: a. ha-uga nimex-a the-cake got.squished..-3. ‘The cake got squished in the bag.’ Passive verb, OK: b. ha-psolet nimex-a the-waste got.squashed..-3. ‘The waste was squished using a machine.’

b-a-tik in-the-bag

al-jedej ha-mexona by the-machine

, ,   (37) Unaccusative nominal, OK: a. himaaxut ha-uga the.squishing.. (of) the-cake. Passive nominal, #: b. #himaaxut ha-psolet the.squashing.. (of) the-waste.

71

b-a-tik in-the-bag al-jedej ha-mexona by the-machine

Based on the representation in (25), we propose the structure in (38) for unaccusative nominalizations in niXYaZ. As with transitive inputs, the n head in the case of nonactive verbs simply merges above VoiceP. Again, no DP is present in Spec,VoiceP. We set the phonological details aside, assuming they can be implemented in similar fashion to Kastner (2019a,b), where the stem vowels and other morpho-phonological reflexes are generated on Voice[-D] under allomorphy triggered by n. (38) himaaxut ‘squishing (intrans.)’ n

VoiceP

-ut _

Voice Voice[-D] hi-

v

vP v

DP √m’x

To summarize our results, we saw that within one and the same form, nominalization rates differ based on syntactic group membership, whereby nominalizations of unaccusative verbs are overall better than those derived from passive verbs (see Section 4.5 for unergative verbs). We have seen that passives fail to nominalize, although they share with unaccusatives the same structure, hinting at the possibility that the gap is not due to syntax. While the contrast between unaccusatives and passives is informative in the wider exploration of intransitives and nominalization, this very contrast confronts us with yet another puzzle: The two groups have an identical structure, but do not pattern identically when undergoing nominalization, one group faring better than the other. Borrowing some terminology from Remarks, the ‘bases’

72      are the same and the ‘transformations’ are the same, so why should there be a difference? We address this contrast next.

4.4.4 A competition account of niXYaZ passives We account for the scarcity of nominalized niXYaZ passives using a processingperformance view based on competition between forms (cf. Martin & Schäfer, 2014). As discussed in Section 4.3, Hebrew has a morpho-syntactic Voice alternation between active/transitive and nonactive (unaccusative or passive) forms. Importantly, this alternation is overtly marked in both verbs and nominals (see Ahdout, 2017, 2019, in preparation, to appear, for other implications): (39)

Voice alternation and nominal derivatives (for the ‘simple’ paradigm) Voice value

Templatic form: verb

Templatic form: nominal

Active (trans. reading)

XaYaZ jaʦar ‘create sth.’

X(e)YiZa jeʦira ‘creating, creation’

Middle (unacc/pass. reading)

niXYaZ noʦar ‘be created (from/ by)’

hiXaYZut hivaʦrut ‘being created (from/ #by)’

Here, we focus on the two readings available for niXYaZ verbs/nominals, passive (40b) and unaccusative (41b), which are at the focus of our interest. (40) a. oman ʃveʦari jaʦar et ha-pesel artist Swiss created..  the-sculpture ‘A Swiss artist created the sculpture.’ b. ha-pesel noʦar al-jedej oman ʃveʦari the-sculpture created.. by artist Swiss ‘The sculpture was created by a Swiss artist.’ (41) a. ha-joveʃ jaʦar et ha-sedek the-dryness created..  the-crack ‘The dryness created the crack .’

, ,  

73

b. ha-sedek noʦar (me-ha-joveʃ/me-aʦmo) the-crack formed.. from-the-dryness/by.itself ‘The crack formed due to dryness/by itself.’ (Adapted from Siloni & Preminger, 2009: 369) We claim that in the nominal domain, the active and the niXYaZ forms are in competition, under certain circumstances. We assume that the choice of reading (unaccusative or passive), as well as whether the speaker chooses to express it in a nominal form rather than a verbal form, lies at the discourse level and is not a matter of the grammar. For the passive reading, an Agent is either realized or implied, as is the case for a passive verb. We will show that only for this reading do the active (XaYaZ) and nonactive (niXYaZ) forms compete. For the unaccusative reading, no competition takes place. We begin with describing the latter case. 4.4.4.1 Unaccusative readings The active-marked nominalization is derived as follows. The input structure is the active-transitive XaYaZ verb jaʦar ‘create’, in (42a). The verb, naturally, cannot be interpreted as unaccusative. The nominalization derived from the active-transitive verb, in (42b), also differs from the nominalized unaccusative structure in (38); as is frequently discussed in the literature, nominalizations based on transitive verbs entail an Agent, even in the absence of the overt by-phrase Agent, exemplified below for English in (43b), corresponding to the tree in (16).¹⁰ This behavior has motivated the equation of nominalization to passivization, as discussed in Section 4.2. What we then get with the nominalization of the active alternant in XaYaZ (42a), is a ‘passive’ reading (42b) (to be discussed in Section 4.4.4.2). (42)

a. jaʦar (XaYaZ)

b. jeʦira ‘creating’ n

VoiceP DP

Voice

n -a

vP v

√jʦr

n

pro

Voice

DP

VoiceP Voice i-

vP v

PP

v √jʦr

v

¹⁰ See Marantz (1997), Harley & Noyer (2000a), and Sichel (2010) for exceptions in English; and Ahdout (2019b, to appear) for Hebrew active-marked unaccusative nominalizations.

74      (43) a. jeʦirat the.creation.. (of ) (be-mejumanut)/al-jedej in-skill/by

sedek be-xazit ha-binjan crack. in-front the-building ha-poalim/(*me-aʦmo) the-workers/by.itself

b. The (skilful) destruction of the city (*by itself)/(by the enemy). Now suppose the speaker wishes to express what we call an ‘unaccusative reading’, for example an event of creation without a volitional Agent. The nonactive form in niXYaZ is associated with an unaccusative structure which corresponds to a description of the event of creation without an Agent, (44):

n

(44)

-ut

VoiceP _

Voice Voice[-D] hi-

v

vP v

DP √jʦr

The nominalization derived from the nonactive verb (hivaʦrut) accordingly conveys the same unaccusative reading, where no Agent is implied (as diagnosed with ‘by itself ’). sedek be-xazit ha-binjan (45) hivaʦrut formation.. (of ) crack. in-front the-building (me-aʦmo) by.itself ‘The formation of a crack in the front part of the building (by itself ).’ Thus, if the speaker wishes to express an ‘agentless’ nominalization of the event, she will only be able to use the nominalization of the nonactive (niXYaX) form, as in (45).

, ,  

75

4.4.4.2 Passive readings For passive readings—those which obligatorily imply an Agent—we claim that competition between the active and nonactive nominal forms does exist, and derives the scarcity of passives in the nominal incarnation. In contrast with unaccusative readings, in the nominal domain, both active (46a) (in English, (46c)) and nonactive (46b) forms are, in principle, valid when the speaker wishes to convey the passive reading (the Agent realized with a by-phrase in both cases), and are thus interchangeable: (46) a. jeʦirat the.creation.. (of ) ʃveʦari) Swiss b. #hivaʦrut creation.. (of )

ha-pesel (al-jedej the-sculpture. by

ha-pesel the-sculpture

oman artist

al-jedej oman ʃveʦari by artist Swiss

c. The destruction of the city (by the enemy). What then makes the nonactive form degraded compared to the active form? We suggest that this has to do with on-line usage preferences of a simplex form over a complex one, and not with purely grammatical considerations. As claimed in the literature (Alexiadou et al., 2015), the nonactive verb, the anticausative/‘middle’, is cross-linguistically the marked alternant in a Voice alternation. In Hebrew, we can draw an analogy between this and the account in Kastner (2017, 2019b), where middle/nonactive Voice is always specified as to its D feature—it is always minus [-D] (47b). The active, in contrast, is underspecified (47a) (see Section 4.4.2). (47)

b. non-active Voice niXYaZ VoiceP

a. active Voice XaYaZ VoiceP DP

–

Voice Voice

vP v

√root

DP v

Voice [-D] Voice ni-

√root

vP DP

v v

76      In this sense, the spell-out of middle/nonactive Voice—in this case niXYaZ—is the marked form, a claim which translates into the contrast in (46). This preference is related to the differences in (syntactic and morpho-phonological) structures of the two forms at hand, but is not in itself ruled out because of incongruence between the nominalizer with the underlying structure of the nonactive verb. The choice of the nominalization of the active form is rather due to the markedness of the nonactive form: There is no need to choose the [-D] variant if the unmarked variant will do just as well. In this sense, the speakers’ preference of one form over the other belongs to the domain of performance.¹¹

4.4.5 Prediction Because our account is transderivational rather than structural, it predicts that niXYaZ can derive a nominalization if the meaning of this nominal is different from the meaning of the nominal derived from the active XaYaZ form (since in this case the two nominals will serve different discourse functions, simply by virtue of meaning different things). To test this, we turn to examine a few corpus examples of nominalizations derived from niXYaZ passives, showing that when the active and nonactive forms are not interchangeable due to lexical semantic/aspectual grounds, the nonactive form, typically degraded, is instead deemed acceptable. In examples (48)–(50), the use of the niXYaZ form allows a semantic contrast with the active form, such that in these cases the forms are not interchangeable, and thus the former is not blocked. In (48), there appears to be some lexical semantic contrast between using the active versus the nonactive nominals, e.g. that the latter is used in a fantastic context, where the former would be odd, as it is in fact already ruled out in the verbal clause, (48b)—hence, no competition with the active form exists: (48) a. axila ʃel tapuax be-jom moil-a la-briut eating.. of an.apple in-day helpful-. to.the-health ‘Eating an apple a day is beneficial for one’s health.’ ¹¹ See Ahdout (2019) for a similar competition between nominal forms in the domain of noneventive readings for the Hebrew ‘intensive’ active-middle paradigm.

, ,  

77

b. ha-mifleʦet axl-a oto (#ba-xaim) the-monster ate..-.3 him in.the-life c. #axila eating..

ba-xaim in.the-life

al-jedej mifleʦet by a.monster

b. heaxlut ba-xaim being.eaten.. in.the-life ‘Being eaten alive by a monster.’

al-jedej by

mifleʦet a.monster (Itai & Wintner, 2008)

In (49), using the active form in (49a) would sound odd, as the noun plita is associated with involuntary omission of gas or liquids (e.g. by babies) or the result of this omission (in the Grimshaw, 1990, sense of ‘result’), (49a), which is not the case in the event denoted in (49): (49) a. plita ʃel mezahamej avir emission.. of polluters (of ) air. mi-taxbura kviʃ-it from-transportation road-.. ‘Emission of air polluters from road transportation.’ b. #le-axar after al-jedej by

plita (ʃel ha-nosea) min ha-matos emission.. of the-passenger from the-plane manoa raketi engine rocket

c. le-axar hipaltut (ʃel ha-nosea) min ha-matos after being.emitted.. the-passenger from the-plane al-jedej manoa raketi by engine rocket ‘ . . . After being ejected from the plane by a rocket engine.’ (Itai & Wintner, 2008) A different kind of contrast can be found in (50), where the use of the different morphological forms seems to entail different values of telicity. The nonactive form is restricted to an atelic reading, a restriction which the active form does not show: (50) a. grirat ha-oto (l-a-musax) al-jedej the.towing.. (of) the-car. to-the-garage by masait (be-tox ʃaa)/be-meʃex ʃaa a.truck in an.hour/in-duration (of) an.hour

78      b. higarerut ha-oto (l-a-musax) the.being.towed.. (of) the-car. to-the-garage al-jedej masait (*be-tox ʃaa)/be-meʃex ʃaa by a.truck in an.hour /in-duration (of) an.hour ‘The towing of the car by a truck in an hour to the garage/for an hour.’ To sum up, we have compared the circumstances under which nonactive verbs in Hebrew produce a CEN. The most substantial novel proposal is that speakers, when wishing to express a ‘passive’ clause in a nominal environment, would opt for the less complex active nominal form over the nonactive nominal, thus rendering the latter form less acceptable. In the next section, we round off the picture by exploring the less-studied group found in the niXYaZ template, which challenges the view that this template is nonactive only. We outline a different analysis for this class, one which correlates their different syntax and semantics with different morphosyntactic configurations.

4.5 Verb groups under niYXaZ II: active verbs (figure reflexives) The previous section identified a class of verbs in niXYaZ which are nonactive. As noted earlier, it has been commonly assumed that all verbs in niXYaZ lack an external argument. However, we show that another class of verbs exists in this template, namely verbs that do have an external argument and which also take an obligatory prepositional phrase as their complement. Kastner (2016, 2019b) called them ‘figure reflexives’, a term coined by Wood (2014) for a similar phenomenon in Icelandic. The name itself is meant to invoke the figure-like, reflexive-like interpretation of a figure in a prepositional phrase when it is the complement of certain verbs. A few examples of figure reflexives are given in (51): (51) nirʃam *(le-) ‘signed up for’ nidxaf *(derex/le-) ‘pushed his way through/into’ nilxam *(be-) ‘fought (with)’ neexaz *(be-) ‘held on to’ Based on the diagnostics discussed here, we have found that seventy-four of the 415 verbs in niXYaZ are figure reflexive, or ambiguous between a

, ,  

79

nonactive and a figure reflexive reading. Some of these verbs are fairly recent (e.g. nirʃam le- ‘signed up for’), indicating that we are not dealing simply with a long list of lexicalized exceptions. In Section 4.3.2 we have already seen that verbs belonging to this group also undergo nominalization to the highest extent among the different groups (59%). We will next confirm that these verbs are active and then present a structure which involves an Agent in Spec,VoiceP and a prepositional phrase complement to the verb. In Section 4.5.1, we repeat the diagnostics from Section 4.4.1, showing that figure reflexives pattern the opposite way from nonactives. We then highlight the role of the complement to the verb and discuss the CEN findings.

4.5.1 Selected diagnostics: ‘by-itself’, VS order, and the possessive dative Unlike unaccusatives and like passives, ‘by itself ’ is not possible with figure reflexives, but an agentive adverbial is perfectly grammatical: (52) dana neexza ba-maake be-xavana/*me-aʦma Dana held.on..-.3 in.the-railing in-purpose/from-herself ‘Dana grasped the railing deliberately/(*of her own accord).’ Figure reflexives fail the accepted unaccusativity diagnostics: Unlike nonactive verbs, VS order (53) and the possessive dative (54) are unavailable, the former again being grammatical but resulting in ‘stylistic inversion’, in the same manner as with simple unergatives, and the latter lacking a true ‘possessive’ reading: (53) #neexz-u ʃaloʃ xajal-ot ba-maake held.on..-3 three soldiers-. in.the-rail (int. ‘The three soldiers grasped the railing.’) (54) #ʃaloʃ xajal-ot neexz-u three soldiers-. held.on..-3 (int. ‘My three soldiers grasped the railing.’)

l-i ba-maake to-me in.the-rail

This brief comparison with nonactives shows that figure reflexives pattern differently (see Kastner, 2019b, for additional argumentation). The first main

80      difference is the existence of an external argument, e.g. (52). The second is the complement of these verbs: Figure reflexives take an obligatory prepositional phrase, as in (51). The resulting generalization is that external arguments in niXYaZ are possible if and only if a prepositional phrase is required, a claim borne out by seventy-four verbs in our database. This generalization can be derived from the analysis in the next section.

4.5.2 Analysis In this section we adopt the analysis of Kastner (2016, 2019b), for which a number of assumptions are necessary. First, subjects of prepositional phrases are introduced by a separate functional head p (van Riemsdijk, 1990; Rooryck, 1996; Koopman, 1997; Den Dikken, 2003; Svenonius, 2003, 2007, 2010; Gehrke, 2008). Borrowing terminology from Talmy (1978) and related work, Wood (2014) is explicit in calling the DP in Spec,pP the ‘Figure’ and the complement of P the ‘Ground’. The dashed arrows in (55) show the assignment of semantic (thematic) roles in this system.

pP

(55)

DP The book FIGURE

p

PP P on

DP the table GROUND

(56) ⟦Voice⟧ = λxλe.Agent(x,e) ⟦p⟧ = λxλs.Figure(x,s) A concrete example of an ordinary prepositional phrase in Hebrew—a pP—is given in (57), for a verb in the ‘simple’ template XaYaZ which comprises minimal verbal structure, v, and Voice. (57) eliana sama sefer al ha-ʃulxan Eliana put a.book on the-table ‘Eliana put a book on the table.’

, ,  

81

VoiceP DP eliana Voice AGENT √sjm

pP

v

DP p sefer ‘book’ FIGURE

v

PP P al‘on’

DP ha-ſulxan ‘the table’ GROUND

Consider next the similarities between Voice and p, both of which introduce external arguments within their extended projection. We have assumed that a variant of Voice exists, Voice[-D], which prohibits the Merge of a DP in its specifier. Continuing this reasoning, and following Wood (2015), Kastner (2019b) postulates a variant of p, namely p[-D], which prohibits the Merge of a DP in Spec,pP. (58) p[-D]: a p head with a [-D] feature, prohibiting anything with a [D] feature from merging in its specifier. (59) ⟦p[-D]⟧ = ⟦p⟧ = λxλs.Figure(x,s) Voice[-D] and p[-D] are spelled out identically in Hebrew: a prefix (ni-) and stem vowels, resulting in niXYaZ. Since syntactic and semantic requirements of functional heads are separated, a given head might impose a semantic requirement which is fulfilled immediately. If the semantic predicate is saturated later on in the derivation, we have a case of delayed saturation (Wood, 2014, Myler, 2016, Wood & Marantz, 2017, Kastner, 2017, 2019b, Tyler, 2019; cf. Higginbotham, 1985, and Schäfer, 2012). Kastner (2019b) analyzes figure reflexives in Hebrew following Wood’s (2015) analysis of similar constructions in Icelandic. The intuition is that the role of Figure is not saturated within the pP, since no DP is possible in Spec,pP. Rather, an argument introduced later on (the Agent) saturates the predicate. The schematic in (60) shows the saturation of semantic roles.

82      (60) [Figure (Agent) oren Oren

verb neexaz held.on..

P-Ground] ba-maake in.the-railing

VoiceP DP AGENT FIGURE

Voice v

pP

p[-D]

PP P

DP GROUND

The two main consequences of this configuration are that an external argument may be merged in Spec,VoiceP and that the obligatory prepositional phrase does not have a subject of its own. Since p[-D] does not allow anything to be merged in its specifier, the preposition under p[-D] does not have an immediate subject. Instead, the predicate p[-D] ‘waits’ until the external argument is merged in Spec,VoiceP and this DP is then interpreted as the subject of the preposition. See Kastner (2019b) for full derivations. The generalization on figure reflexives now receives an explanation: External arguments in niXYaZ saturate the Figure role of an otherwise subjectless preposition. The fact that these constructions are active is key to understanding how their nominalization properties differ from those of the other verbs in niXYaZ, as we illustrate next.

4.5.3 Nominalizations of unergative verbs Grimshaw (1990) mentions simple unergative verbs like work in her discussion of event structure in verbs, and naturally she is not concerned with unergative verbs with properties as described above (nor have such verbs been discussed elsewhere in the context of nominalization). In light of our findings and analysis based on competition between forms in the nonactive

, ,  

83

realm, here we expect no competition by default, as no alternating verbs are available for figure reflexives (or when a transitive form does exist, it does not constitute a regular alternation with the niXYaZ figure reflexive). Accordingly, figure reflexive verbs (or readings) are the likeliest group in niXYaZ to undergo nominalization, for example in (61). (61) a. ha-koxvan nidxaf le-kol erua be-agresivij-ut the-starlet barged.. to-every event in-aggressive- ‘The starlet aggressively barged into every event.’ b. ha-hidaxfut ha-xozer-et ʃelo the-barging.. the-repeated-. his be-mejumanut in-skill

le-kol to-each

erua event

Based on the representation in (57), we propose the following structure for nominalizations derived from figure reflexives in niXYaZ: (62) hidaxfut ‘barging into’ nP

pro/PP

n VoiceP

-ut Voice hi-

pP

v √dxf

v p[-D] P le‘(in)to’

PP DP

The nominalization ‘process’ is identical to those we have seen earlier: The nominalizing head n merges with a VoiceP which does not project its usual external argument (if any). In the case of active verbs in niXYaZ, the figure reflexives, the syntax, and the semantics of this VoiceP are markedly different from those of the nonactive verbs in the same template.

84     

4.6 Conclusions Remarks on Nominalization showed what an investigation of nominalizations and the structures they are derived from can look like, in particular with regard to different analytical possibilities. In this chapter we looked into nominalizations of verbs comprising the template niXYaZ in Modern Hebrew, attempting to understand not only what they are derived from, but also how the derivational process might lead to different results. We reported a difference between the two main groups in the nominal domain, where the active verbs were preferred over nonactive verbs in producing a corresponding nominalization, despite the verb classes sharing the same morphological form. Whereas Remarks contrasted a Lexicalist analysis (different base structures) with a Transformationalist one (essentially different movement operations) for different constructions, we assumed that the nominalization process is syntactically uniform, investigating the possible inputs to nominalization. As a result—and to once again abuse the original terminology of Remarks—we asked how the same transformation interacts with different base structures. Our answer was given on two levels: the syntactic and the pragmatic. We hypothesized that nothing actually prevents active verbs in niXYaZ from nominalizing; if anything, the existence of an Agent and directed motion renders them similar to transitive verbs, which clearly produce CENs. Our treatment of nonactive verbs, however, was cast in extragrammatical terms building on specific syntactic structures. The incongruence of passives with a nominalized form is not syntactic, but has to do with their markedness when contrasted with the alternant active form. This markedness, we believe, translates to a dispreference of speakers toward using this form, opting instead for the active, nonmarked one. With regards to unaccusatives, we have shown that for this group, the nonactive is usually the only possible form one may use to convey the agentless reading, and as such competition does not play a role to the same extent as it does with passives—rendering unaccusatives more acceptable (albeit overall still rather degraded). Considering the account offered in this chapter as a whole, we have made precise how within one morphological class, different forces constrain a derivational process, influenced by general properties of the linguistic system.

, ,  

85

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, Edit Doron, Louise McNally, Malka Rappaport Hovav, and an anonymous reviewer, as well as the audiences at NELS49, LSA93, WAASAP4, and the Humboldt University RUESHeL group for helpful feedback. This work was funded by AL 554/8-1, DFG Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Preis 2014 awarded to Artemis Alexiadou.

5 D vs. n nominalizations within and across languages Artemis Alexiadou

5.1 Introduction The point of departure of this chapter is the general consensus in the morphosyntactic literature that derived nominals come in different guises within a language and across languages.¹ Building on Grimshaw (1990), there is substantial evidence from various languages and various types of nominalizations that these can be verbal to a varying degree. Some of this literature further acknowledges that derived nouns are derived from acategorial roots and can include some but not necessarily all the verbal layers found within verbal clauses. In particular, Borsley & Kornfilt (2000), Alexiadou (2001), Alexiadou et al. (2010), Alexiadou et al. (2013), and Kornfilt & Whitman (2011b), among others, have suggested that the internal structure of nominalizations differs across languages (and also within a language). The consensus is that there is variation as to the number of nominal and verbal projections involved. This is schematically illustrated in (1), where we see that this variation concerns both the nominal and verbal functional layers. (1) [(NF) [NF [NF [(VF) [VP]]]]] Building on this work, my first focus in this chapter will be on the cut-off points between nominal and verbal structure. I show that these are not random and do not necessarily correspond to phase heads, see Hiraiwa (2005; cf. Panagiotidis, 2014 and references therein). I will then offer a possible explanation thereof and discuss issues of extended projection, as mixed ¹ See Abney (1987), Picallo (1991), Borer (1993, 2013), Marantz (1997), Harley & Noyer (1998), van Hout & Roeper (1998), Borsley & Kornfilt (2000), Alexiadou (2001), Fu et al. (2001), Iordăchioaia & Soare (2008a,b), Alexiadou et al. (2010), Kornfilt & Whitman (2011a,b), Panagiotidis (2014), to mention a few. Artemis Alexiadou, D vs. n nominalizations within and across languages In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Artemis Alexiadou. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0005

88   extended projections of the type found in nominalizations across and within languages have been argued in Grimshaw (2005) not to be licit. Second, Borsley & Kornfilt (2000) show that the structure of nominalizations across languages is subject to an important constraint. While (1) is well formed, (2), where nominal functional categories are found below verbal functional categories, is not. In other words, a nominal layer can be inserted almost at every subpart of verbal structure in (1), while the reverse does not hold. The second question I will then address is why verbalization is so limited (Baker, 2000). (2) *[VF [VF [NF [NF [VP]]]]] The chapter is structured as follows. I will first offer the background for my discussion, by summarizing our current understanding of the internal structure of nominal and verbal clauses. In Section 5.3, I turn to mixed nominalizations across and within languages. I briefly discuss some diagnostics used in the literature to probe the internal structure of nominals that can be applied cross-linguistically (see also Alexiadou, 2001). Summarizing literature that has applied these criteria, I reiterate the empirical conclusion that nominalizations come in different sizes both within and across languages. In Section 5.4, I present the various nominal structures that can be assumed across and within languages. In Section 5.5, I scrutinize the cut-off points and argue that nominalization can apply to subparts of the functional hierarchy. The picture found is captured by following the Universal Spine Hypothesis (Wiltschko, 2014), according to which nominal and verbal functional layers have parallel functions, thus mixed embeddings are licit, see also Hiraiwa’s (2005) Supercategorial theory of DP/CP symmetry, cf. Iordăchioaia (2020). In this section, I also deal with two potential counterexamples to my proposal. In Section 5.6, I discuss the lack of verbalization. In Section 5.7, I conclude my discussion. While the empirical observations made in this contribution are not novel and go as far back as Remarks, the way to treat the variation within a language and across languages in terms of a universal and importantly acategorial functional hierarchy is. I will build on insights in Hiraiwa (2005) and Wiltschko (2014), which put forth a common structural skeleton in the nominal and verbal domain. This allows the formation of mixed categories which do not raise issues for extended projection. In particular, the cut-off points for nominalization suggest that layers that share a semantic basis can be interchanged. With respect to the second issue of this chapter, I will propose that verbalization is out, as licensing of case blocks it. Thus, whenever a nominal

 .  

89

substructure is built, it requires case licensing which blocks verbalization, unless we treat incorporation as a particularly interesting subcase thereof.

5.2 Background on the functional structure of DPs and clauses In this chapter, I assume that the core element is a root embedded under functional layers. This was already suggested in Remarks and adopted within current work in Distributed Morphology and the Exo-skeletal model (Borer, 2013). For the nominal domain, I will combine proposals in Borer (2005a) and Kramer (2015) and take the layers to be as in (3a), see also Alexiadou (2017a). I assume that roots combine with n, the nominalizer, which carries gender and inflection class information in languages that have such features, see also Lowenstamm (2008); and Iordăchioaia & Soare (2008a); among others. Plurality is realized under Div. The layer of quantity introduces the counting function and hosts numerals. The D layer is associated with the realization of definiteness. Adjectives can be introduced between DP and nP and at the nP level. For the verbal domain, I will follow standard assumptions about the layers above Voice (Cinque, 1999; Hiraiwa, 2005; Ramchand & Svenonius, 2014) and assume the structure in (3b). With respect to the lower layers of structure, I assume that Voice, following Kratzer (1996), introduces the external argument, while v is the verbalizer and introduces event implications (the lower clausal part builds on Alexiadou et al., 2015): (3) a. [DP [#P (quantity) [DivP plural marking [nP gender [Root b. [CP [TP [AspectP [VoiceP external argument [vP internal argument [Root The important issue here is that each layer is associated with particular properties and features, as just briefly discussed. I will turn to a more detailed discussion of this in Section 5.4. The realization of these features in nominalization will serve as our guide detecting the presence of the respective layer in the structure.

5.3 The structural complexity of AS nominalizations within and across languages A lot of recent work has shown that nominalizations come either with the verbal internal structure in (4a) or with the mixed internal structure in (4b).

90   A verbal internal structure is associated with verbal functional projections, while a mixed internal structure is associated with the additional presence of nominal layers, see also Borsley & Kornfilt (2000) and Kornfilt & Whitman (2011b). The structures in (4a) crucially differ with respect to the presence of n in (4b), which triggers the projection of higher functional layers of associated with nominal functions. This creates a mixed internal structure, while the one in (4a) is internally verbal: (4) a. [DP [verbal FP [vP . . . ]]]

(verbal internal structure)

b. [DP [nominal FP [nP [(verbal FP) [vP . . . ]]]] (mixed internal structure) Alexiadou et al. (2011) have argued that there are two ‘categorial’ scales that interact with one another: a verbal and a nominal one, see also Ackema & Neeleman (2004); Panagiotidis (2014); and references therein. Each scale contains a number of properties (cf. Sleeman, 2010). As we will see, not only do languages differ as to the cut-off points they choose within these scales, but also different types of nominalization within a language, cf. Alexiadou (2001); Ackema & Neeleman (2004); Panagiotidis (2014); and Iordăchioaia (2020). On this view, the distinction between Vs and Ns is not absolute, but gradual in nature: The V/N cut-off point of a nominalization can be located at various points in these scales. Examples (5) and (6) illustrate the properties associated with the two scales, based on Alexiadou et al. (2011): (5) The verbal scale Presence of a complementizer Subject with nominative case Occurrence of modal or auxiliary verbs Accusative case on objects Projection of outer Aspect: evidenced by aspect shift and aspectual adverbs (implicit external argument present) (6) The nominal scale Genitive/PP-subject Genitive/PP-object Gender features Availability of plural Possibility to combine with all types of determiners Adjectival modification

 .  

91

With this in mind, I will turn to some examples from the literature. The English, German, and Spanish data are drawn from Alexiadou et al. (2011), see also Iordăchioaia & Soare (2008b) for Spanish. The point Alexiadou et al. (2011) made was that the properties in these scales align with nominal and verbal layers respectively. For instance, the presence of gender suggests the presence of an n layer, the presence of plural number that of Div, and so on.

5.3.1 Some examples As already discussed in Chomsky (1970), the English verbal gerund (EVG) licenses accusative objects, while the nominal gerund (ENG, -ing of) takes PPobjects. Furthermore, VGs take adverbial modifiers and disallow adjectival ones, while NGs display the opposite behavior. (7) a. Pat disapproved of John’s quietly leaving the room b. *The carefully restoring of the painting took months (8) a. His/John’s prompt answering of the question b. *His prompt answering the question Some English NGs allow plurals, if there is no competition with other affixes (see Borer, 2005b; Alexiadou et al., 2010), but VGs do not (10): (10) a. the repeated killings of unarmed civilians b. *Emma’s readings the poem Overt determiners are out in English VGs, while NGs allow all kinds of determiners, (11). (11) a. *That/*the/*a criticizing the book annoyed us b. The/that/a reading of the manuscript pleased us That VGs contain more verbal layers is suggested also by the fact that they may include auxiliaries, while these are not possible in NGs: (12) His having read War and Peace

92   Alexiadou et al. (2010) point out that the English VG is also grammatical with most verbs (13) (Borer, 2005b) and contributes imperfective/[-b] outer aspect, see Pustejovsky (1995). The projection of AspP English VGs is further supported by the availability of aspectual adverbs (Borer, 1993; Alexiadou, 1997; Cinque, 1999). (13) a. b. c. d. e.

John’s arriving at 5 pm is unlikely. John’s eating breakfast Mary’s blinking is annoying John’s knowing the answer John’s constantly reading the morning newspaper

The authors note that English NGs are incompatible with aspectual adverbs, which indicates the unavailability of AspectP, but see Fu et al. (2001) for a discussion. (14) John’s constant omitting of details/*constantly English derived nominals are similar to NGs, but less verbal, as discussed in Alexiadou (2001) and Alexiadou et al. (2007). Kratzer showed that the -ing of gerund patterns with the verbal passive in excluding a self-action interpretation, the diagnostic adopted for the presence of VoiceP in Kratzer (1996). By contrast, derived nominals allow a self-action interpretation indicating the lack of VoiceP.² (15) a. The children were being registered *Th = Ag: The children registered themselves Th ≠ Ag: The children were registered by someone b. The report mentioned the painfully slow registering of the children Th ≠ Ag / *Th = Ag c. The report mentioned the painfully slow registration of the children Th ≠ Ag / Th = Ag Beyond English, Alexiadou et al. (2011) show that German verbal infinitives (GVI) license accusative case and can be modified by adverbs. Nominal infinitives (GNI) take genitive (or PP-)objects and are modified by adjectives.

² By this, I do not mean that they always lack VoiceP, but that they can lack VoiceP.

 .   die Sterne (16) [häufig frequently the. stars (17) [das the

93

Beobachten] macht Spass observe. makes fun

häufige Beobachten der Sterne] frequent observe. the. stars

macht Spass makes fun

A difference between German VIs and English VGs that the authors mention is that the former cannot realize an overt subject, as (18) illustrates.³ (18) (*Peters) die Peters. the.

Sterne Beobachten stars observe.

As shown in (19), modals may be included within GVIs: (19) [Dauernd permanently

Kuchen Essen Wollen] cake eat. want.

nervt is-annoying

Genitive subjects are licit in GNIs, (20), but not in GVIs, (21): (20) (Toms) Tom.

Beobachten des Kindes (durch Tom) observe. the. child by Tom

(21) *Toms Tom.

häufig das Kind Beobachten frequently the. child observe.

Furthermore, in German, dieses is an anaphor for nouns only, while das/dies are anaphors for both nouns and CPs. (22) a. Daß that das/ it/ b. Hans Hans Das/ it/

Maria bereits angekommen ist, Mary already arrived is dies/ *dieses weiß ich genau this/ this know I well hat ein rotes Buch. has a red book Dies/ Dieses war sehr teuer this/ this was very expensive

³ In this sense, the authors suggest that the German VIs seem similar to PRO-ing gerunds, Siegel (1998): (i) PRO smoking cigars is fun.

94   German NIs can be referred to by dieses (23a), but VIs cannot (23b). This suggests to Alexiadou et al. (2011) that German NIs are neuter, while VIs are genderless, i.e. bear default gender. This property also correlates with the case defectiveness of VIs (24b), i.e. the VIs do not receive case in NP positions. (23) a. Nächtliches Beobachten der Sterne at-night.Adj observe. the. stars Dies/Dieses/Das entspannt ihn. this/this/it relaxes him b. Nachts die Sterne at-night.Adv the. stars *Dies/*Dieses/Das entspannt *this/*this/it relaxes

gefällt ihm. pleases him

Beobachten gefällt ihm. observe. pleases him ihn. him

(24) a. wegen des Lesens eines Buches because-of the. read. a. book b. *wegen ein Buch because-of a. book

Lesens read..

When it comes to the availability of plural marking, Alexiadou et al. (2011) show that both German nominalizations do not pluralize. With respect to possibility to combine with all types of determiners, it has been noted that German VIs allow definite determiners. The nominal counterpart allows all kinds of determiners, suggesting the presence of a nominal core. (25) a. Das/dieses/*ein/*kein/jedes the/this/a/no/every b. Das/dieses/ein/kein/jedes the/this/a/no/every

die Marseillaise Singen the. Marseillaise sing. Singen der Marseillaise sing. the. Marseillaise

Both German infinitives bring about imperfectivity (Ehrich, 1991); this is shown by the fact that even NIs of telic verbs do not tolerate resultative VPs but allow atelic process-VPs. (26)

Das Abholzen des Waldes The deforest. the. forest

 .   a. *muss bis must till

morgen früh tomorrow morning

b. wird zwei is two

Jahre years

erreicht achieved

95

sein be

lang fortgesetzt long continued

Turning to Spanish, Alexiadou et al. (2011) observe that the language has two types of nominalized infinitives, verbal infinitives and nominal infinitives (SVI vs. SNI). Miguel (1996) takes the distribution of the nominative vs. PP-subject in (27) to be the main distinction between them. (27) a. el the b. el the

murmurar la gente murmur. the people. murmurar de murmur. of

las the

fuentes fountains

Only VIs license accusative case and their subject can bear nominative: (28) a. [El cantar yo la Traviata] the sing. . the. Traviata b. [*El cantar the sing. c. [El the (29) el the

estas coplas these. songs

cantar coplas de sing. songs. of

de Lola] of Lola

Lola] nos Lola us

escribir constantemente novelas write. constantly novels

nos us

emociona moves

emociona. moves

(*de) (of )

ella she

Spanish VIs allow adverbial modification, while NIs can only be modified by adjectives, see Miguel (1996) and Ramirez (2003): (30) a. El andar errabundamente/* errabundo the go-about. aimlessly/ aimless b. El (*constante) escribir the constant write.

Juan Juan

ella novelas constantemente she novels constantly

c. El andar errabundo/ *errabundamente de the go-about. aimless/ aimlessly of d. El constante temer (*constantamente) de the constant fear. constantly of

Juan Juan

Juan Juan

96   Spanish NIs carry gender features which—although not visible in the suffix -r—become obvious in anaphoric contexts, where an NI can be referred to only by the masculine pronoun él and not by the default neuter pronoun ello usually employed with CPs (see Miguel (1996). (31) Accostumbrado al dulce mirar de su amada, used-to the sweet gaze. of his beloved, ya no podía vivir sin él/*ello. now not could live without him/it ‘Used to the sweet gaze of his loved one, he could no longer live without it.’ Neither nominalization can pluralize. GEN/PP on object is possible with NIs only. By contrast, auxiliaries are possible only with VIs: (32) [El the

haber él have. he

escrito novelas] explica written novels explains

su fama his fame

The NI freely combines with all determiners, while this is not the case with the VI: (33) a. Aquel/ese/este/un/el lamentar (*desesperadamente) de dos pastores that/this/a/the lament. (desperately) of two shepherds b. *Ese/*aquel/el haber él escrito esa carta this/that/the have. he. written that letter Turning now to nominalizations of higher clausal layers, Japanese and Turkish (and Quechua, see Lefebvre & Muysken, 1988) constitute examples of nominalization of TPs, Kornfilt & Whitman (2012); see also Harley (Chapter 9) and Moulton (Chapter 11) for further languages. Similar observations have been made for Jingpo in Zu (2009). Such nominalizations are illustrated in (34) with examples from Japanese and Turkish. (34) a. Haruo ga [[zyotyuu no soozisi-ta] heya] o mi-ta. Haruo  maid- clean- room  see- ‘Haruo saw the room that the maid cleaned.’

(Japanese)

b. Hasan [uşağ -ın oda-yı temizle-diğ -in] -i söyle-di. (Turkish) Hasan servant- room-  clean --3.- say - (null 3.) (: Factive Nominalization) ‘Hasan said that the servant cleaned the room.’

 .  

97

As Kornfilt & Whitman (2012) show, while in both languages we find genitive subjects, there are important differences between the two nominalization types. The most important one is perhaps the fact that in Turkish genitive subjects are argued to be in Spec,TP, while in Japanese they occur in a lower position. A further difference is the fact that, according to Kornfilt & Whitman, in Turkish a C with nominal features embeds a defective T, while in Japanese a D head embeds a T with deficient or maybe no features. Finally, Greek is a language that, next to deverbal nouns similar to English -ing of gerunds, has nominalization of CPs, ( Roussou 1991; see also Borsley & Kornfilt, 2000, Zu, 2009, Harley, Chapter 9, Moulton, Chapter 11, for other languages). This is clearly shown by the fact that the determiner takes a CP as its complement, (35). Objects of transitive verbs bear accusative and their subjects nominative case: (35) to oti o Nikes the that the Nikos- ‘That he left upset me.’

efige left

me stenahorise. me- upsetted

In fact, the only nominal property of (35) is the presence of the definite D, which is invariable, i.e. it is the default neuter form.

5.3.2 Summary As already alluded to in the introduction to this section, nominal and verbal properties are layered. There are core nominal and verbal properties and, for example, peripheral nominal properties. This distribution aligns with the functional hierarchy: Importantly, the most nominal properties involve gender and plural marking. These are properties shared with underived nouns and are clearly excluded in verbal nominalizations, i.e. those that allow accusative case. The fact that this is so leads us to think that the common source in both cases must be the n layer. By contrast, the presence of genitive subjects does not seem to be a core nominal property, as it is sometimes also shared by verbal nominalizations (e.g. the possessive subject in the English VG). In principle, there are two possible licensers for genitive subjects: nP and DP. The question that arises is why some verbal nominalizations contain at least DP. Moreover, the presence of the nominative case seems to be a crucial verbal property and as we saw, only Spanish VIs and Greek nominalized clauses license the

98   nominative case for subjects. In the next section, I will turn to a more detailed discussion of the layers involved and the properties they bring about.

5.4 Nominal structures across and within languages Following Alexiadou et al. (2011), if we map properties and features to functional layers, the empirical picture leads us to propose different sizes of internal nominal and verbal structure within as well as across languages. Example (36), (3) repeated, illustrates the layers of nominal and verbal functional structure that build nominal and verbal extended projections: (36) a. [DP [#P (quantity) [DivP plural marking [nP gender [Root b. [CP [TP [AspectP [VoiceP external argument [vP internal argument [Root As we have just seen in the previous section, the most verbal nominalization types are the Greek nominalized clause and Spanish VIs. The licensing of the nominative case indicates that Tense is projected. Alexiadou et al. (2011) note that the presence of Tense is evidenced by the presence of reflexive clitics in Spanish VIs (Pesetsky & Torrego, 2001), assuming that clitics in Romance attach to T . (37) a. [DP [CP . . . b. [DP [TP [Aspect [VoiceP [vP . . . (38) a. el the

(Greek nominalized CPs) (Spanish VIs)

afeitar-se la barba Juan shaving-clitic the beard Juan

b. *el afeitar-se de la barba English VGs and German VIs have been argued to have the structure in (39). The difference between them only concerns the features under Aspect⁰, which are distributed as in (40).⁴ These nominalizations are genderless, thus no n layer is included: (39) [DP [AspectP [VoiceP [vP [ . . . ⁴ One could argue that different Aspect projections are involved in each case, following Cinque (1999).

 .   (40) English verbal gerund German verbal infinitives

99

→ imperfectivity → genericity

According to Alexiadou et al. (2011), (41) represents the constructions which have a rich nominal internal structure in addition to the verbal layers. German NIs have the structure in (41a), Spanish NIs the one in (41b), English NGs the one in (41c). These all have gender thus, n is projected (Kramer, 2015; Alexiadou, 2017a; Lowenstamm, 2008; respectively; and others), but n embeds different sizes of verbal structure: (41) a. [DP [nP [Aspect [VoiceP [vP . . . b. [DP [nP [VoiceP [vP . . . c. [DP [(#P) [DivP [nP [VoiceP [vP . . .

(German NIs) (Spanish NIs) (English NGs)

Importantly, adjectival modification and genitive case assignment on the internal argument are related to the presence of an nP. Plural is available under DivP, which may be included. Low adverbs will be licit if AspectP is present (Borer, 1993; Alexiadou, 2001). This means that German NIs will license both adjectives and adverbs, as in (42): (42) Das the

dauernde laut Singen der Marseillaise constant loudly sing. the. Marseillaise

English derived nominals seem to have the least verbal internal projections, shown in (43): (43) [DP [(#P) [DivP [nP -ation [vP/VoiceP . . . The varied distribution of nominal and verbal layers explains the gradual properties in nominalizations across languages (cf. Ross, 1972). Importantly, however, as this discussion shows, the verbal functional hierarchy can be stopped/nominalized at any point. Patterns that are not expected under any definition of extended projection are found, i.e. D can embed TP, CP, or AspectP. Following Borer (2013), parts of the extended projection are optional, but their presence of absence has interpretational consequences. But why is this possible and why cannot we not also verbalize the same way, i.e. create a verb out of a not fully projected nominal structure?

100  

5.5 Scrutinizing the cut-off points 5.5.1 The proposal The above picture, partially established in Alexiadou Iordăchioaia, & Soare (2010) and Alexiadou Iordăchioaia & Schäfer (2011), leads to the general conclusion that there are two nominalization strategies within and across languages, see also Iordăchioaia & Soare (2008a,b), Soare (2019), and Iordăchioaia (2020)): D-based (where D is the nominalizer) and n-based (where n is the nominalizer). On the basis of this distinction, English VGs, Greek nominalized clauses, Spanish VIs, and German VIs are D-based, while English NGs, English derived nominals, and Spanish and German NIs are nbased. Let us look at our structures in some detail. The structures discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 can be schematically represented as in (44) and (45), and lead to the generalizations in (46) and (47) respectively: (44) a. [DP [CP . . . b. [DP [TP . . . c. [DP [AspectP . . . (45) a. [nP [AspectP . . . b. [nP [VoiceP . . . c. [nP [vP . . . (46) a. If a nominalization is n-based, then gender is present in languages that have gender. b. If a nominalization is n-based, DivP may also be included. c. If a nominalization is n-based, then all types of determiners and adjectives are licensed. d. If a nominalization is n-based, the internal argument surfaces with genitive. By-phrases are possible. (47) a. If a nominalization is D-based, external argument may surface with genitive or nominative (depending on the presence of and features on TP). b. If a nominalization is D-based, determiners may be present, but are invariable. By contrast, n-based nominalizations show variability of determiners due to the presence of a nominal core (due to D-n agreement; Iordăchioaia, 2014).

 .  

101

Crucially then, the verbal extended projection can be interrupted at any point, the nominal one cannot be interrupted. In other words, once n is inserted, the projections higher than n will all be nominal, if present. While n-based nominalizations are well formed in terms of extended projection, D-based ones seem, at first sight, problematic. If we, however, look closer at the types of embedding in (44) and (45), we observe that these are not random but seem to correspond to subparts of the functional hierarchy, see in particular Hiraiwa (2005), Wiltschko (2014), Ramchand & Svenonius (2014), Panagiotidis (2014); cf. Alexiadou (1997), Cinque (1999), Ernst (2004), Haider (2004), for earlier discussions. Let us focus on the hierarchies in (48) and (49): (48) Wiltschko (2014): discourse linking CP -

anchoring point of view TPAspectP-

classification VP

(49) Ramchand & Svenonius (2014): proposition situation event CP TPVP Ramchand & Svenonius (2014) argue that the C-T-V tripartition is semantically grounded. In their model, propositions, situations, and events are primitives and correspond to the layers CP-TP and VP respectively. Situations have a time parameter and could be conceived in terms of anchoring as in Wiltschko (2014). Propositions are elaborations of situations. Importantly, they argue that Aspect enables a transition from events to propositions but is not directly included in their core layers. Wiltschko’s system explicitly includes a projection of Aspect as a primitive, corresponding to point of view, and uses labels such as ‘discourse linking’ for the CP layer and as mentioned ‘anchoring’ for T. An important insight of Wiltschko’s model is that the primitive concepts are category neutral. In the verbal domain, CP-TP-AspectP and vP are candidates for realizing discourse linking, anchoring, point of view, and classification respectively, (50). In the nominal domain, other categories represent good candidates for such a realization, as suggested in (50): (50) discourse linking CP DP

anchoring TP QuantityP

point of view classification AspectP vP DivP nP

102   Hiraiwa (2005: 24) proposes a similar parallelism, according to which DPs and CPs are variants of a common syntactic structure. This is labeled Supercategorial theory of DP/CP symmetry and relies on (51) for categorial determination: (51) The categorial status of the complement of each phase head c is determined by the phase head c via categorial feature insertion at Transfer. Hiraiwa’s theory enables each head that is not a phase head to be category neutral and phase heads to determine the categorial nature of their complements. Crucially, in Hiraiwa’s approach, there are not two different structures, but one unique structure, which naturally gives rise to mixed structures, and heads, such as T, Asp, and Num, are category neutral, which means they are not phase heads. We can now revisit our cut-off points from this perspective: The combinations possible seem to make a good case for the parallelism hypothesis between verbal and nominal layers, as summarized in Alexiadou, Haegeman, & Stavrou (2007), and concretely elaborated upon in Hiraiwa (2005) and Wiltschko (2014). If primitives such as anchoring, point of view, and classification are involved, these can be realized by both nominal and verbal categories, and (46a) and (36b) present concrete realizations thereof. Assuming this model then, I argue that the cut-off points do not really correspond to phase heads in the strict sense, unless we allow for every verbal functional category to be a phase. Rather they correspond to particular semantic domains that can be nominalized. It appears to be the case that n cannot nominalize anchoring or discourse linking, but point of view and classification, at least in our sample.⁵ Both n and D are compatible with nominalizations of point of view (which lead to a recategorization). By contrast, D cannot nominalize event classifications directly and requires point of view. In other words, if a vP is present it has to be recategorized by n so that D can embed a nominal core. Hiraiwa’s and Wiltschko’s systems provides a natural explanation for this, since the semantic primitives are not category specific but cf. Iordăchioaia (2020) for a different approach. This in turn means that the functional hierarchy makes reference to more abstract features than N and V; functional projections contain more abstract semantic features or uF in the sense of Pesetsky & Torrego (2001), see Hiraiwa ⁵ A controversial issue is whether n ever takes clausal complements. Strings such as the claim that, the idea that have been analyzed as involving modification in e.g. Grimshaw (1990).

 .  

103

(2005) and Panagiotidis (2014). Because of this, sharing makes reference to these abstract features, e.g. D can embed T (quantity) and Aspect (Division). These features follow directly from versions of the functional hierarchy such as Wiltschko’s that assume a more semantic basis, which is universal and category neutral (see also Hiraiwa, 2005). The ways these features can be realized across language show further interesting patterns of parameterization. For instance, DPs are like CPs in some languages, while they are like TPs in others (Alexiadou, 2001). In English, where DP is similar to TP, as argued in detail by Abney (1987), it can nominalize point of view. In Greek, where DP is similar to CP, see Horrocks & Stavrou (1987) and Alexiadou (2001), this is not possible. Furthermore, D-based nominalizations preserve verbal Case patterns (nominative on the external argument and accusative on the internal argument) in Spanish VIs and Greek nominalized clauses, where TP (anchoring) is not defective. However, this is not the case in English verbal gerunds, where there is no Tense and thus no nominative. By contrast, in Japanese and Turkish, subjects bear genitive, as T is defective, and presumably not able to provide anchoring. Internal arguments bear accusative as this is not an n-based nominalization that triggers a nominal pattern on the internal argument. Internal arguments in D-based nominalization receive dependent accusative, as there is a higher argument in D (Baker, 2015, building on Marantz, 1991, and Alexiadou, 2001, 2017b). In the presence of a D layer and in the absence of TP or presence of a defective T, D assigns genitive to the external argument. By contrast, on the basis of the structures we have seen, whenever the nominalization is n-based the internal argument bears genitive case. This means that n-based nominalizations do not preserve verbal patterns (they are ergative/passive structures; Alexiadou, 2001, 2017b). In turn, this points to an analysis of nominalization as akin to passivization, see Grimshaw (1990), Bruening (2013), and Alexiadou (2019); cf. Borer (2013, Chapter 6). n is a phase head and its presence in the structure introduces nominal case properties, genitive on the internal argument as default (Alexiadou, 2001; Baker, 2015; Alexiadou, 2017b). In other words, n is a phase head that creates its own case domain, see also Salanova & Tallman (Chapter 15). In this domain genitive is assigned as a default. In the absence of n the case domain is different, as it includes the layer that introduces the external argument, which the introduction of n blocks for the reasons discussed in Bruening (2013). However, we observe variation as to whether a second genitive assigned by D is possible, related to the status of DP. This is possible in English (John’s destruction of the manuscript, ’s genitive is a possessor not a raised external

104   argument), but not in Greek, where DP is similar to CP. A further point of variation concerning D will be discussed in Section 5.5.2.

5.5.2 Two potential counterexamples Two counterexamples were pointed out by two reviewers of this chapter. The first one involves nominalization in Jingpo. In her discussion of nominalization in Jingpo from the perspective of Hiraiwa’s (2005) theory, Zu (2009) points out that this theory allows for eight logical possibilities: (52) a. [DemP [DP [nP]]] b. [DemP [DP [vP]]] c. [DemP [FinP [nP]]] d. [DemP [FinP [vP]]] e. [ForceP [DP [nP]]] f. [ForceP [DP [vP]]] g. [ForceP [FinP [nP]]] h. [ForceP [FinP [vP]]] (52a) and (52h) are homogeneous DPs and CPs, while the rest are mixed strictures. Zu takes (52b) to be the case of English gerunds, but as has been argued in this chapter, citing earlier literature, the structure of English gerunds contains AspectP. Zu leaves it open as to whether (52e–g) can be attested in natural languages or not, thus I will have nothing to say about that. Importantly, however, from this perspective of my analysis, (52c) is an illicit structure, which Zu claims is instantiated in Jingpo. However, in none of Zu’s structures does Fin (finiteness) directly embed nP. It can embed PossP, which in turn takes takes nP as its complement. Nevertheless, FinP, the locus of the particle -ai- in (53) seems to be able to intervene between DemP and PossP, as well as DemP and TP: (53) Anhte go tinang a shakut ai hpe machyu ga ai. we  self- hardworking   rely -1.. ‘we rely on the hardworking of our own’ Zu’s description of -ai- raises the question of whether it is possible to analyze this element as related to a deficient TP projection, similarly to what we have seen in Japanese and Turkish. If that is the case, then this does challenge the main claims in this chapter.

 .  

105

The second potential counterexample is Romanian supine, illustrated in (54): (54) cititul (constant) al ziarelor (constant) read--the constantly newspapers- constantly ‘constantly reading newspapers’ Iordăchioaia & Soare (2008a), Alexiadou et al. (2010), and Alexiadou et al. (2011) argue that the supine is a D-based nominalization. It crucially lacks an n layer, as it is genderless, has not case, and cannot be modified by adjectives. It contains aspect, as can be also witnessed by the availability of aspectual adverbs in (54). While the structure of the supine is similar to that of the English VG, the case internal argument bears genitive. The subject bears genitive as is the in verbal gerunds. This seems to contradict the claim in Section 5.5.1 that D-based nominalizations preserve verbal case patterns to some extent, as they embed projections that contain an overt external argument. Alexiadou et al. (2011) discuss this and propose the following: The Romanian supine is the only structure discussed that is introduced by a suffixed determiner. This suffixed article is responsible for the genitive case on the internal argument in this nominalization. The authors follow Giusti (2002), who extensively argued that the Romanian article is nothing more than a grammatical morpheme responsible for realizing nominal features (cf. Abney, 1987). Giusti shows that it lacks semantic import, as the co-occurrence of two definite articles in one DP does not produce a two-referent interpretation effect. This is certainly not the case for the English or the German determiners. This points to a situation, according to which D-based nominalizations in languages where D is basically an exponent of nominal features will have similar case patterns with n-based nominalization. This variation boils down to the different properties of determiners across languages, as suggested in Section 5.5.1.

5.6 Lack of verbalization In this section, I turn to the second point made by Borsley & Kornfilt and labeled in Baker (2000) as the lack of verbalization. Specifically, we do not seem to find cases where a verbal head attaches to a nominal head leading to partial verbalization, as in (55), discussed in Baker (2000), we only have full verbalization: (55) *That solution will become John’s best crystalize.

106   Baker (2000) explains this by proposing that n introduces a referential index and that no syntactic node can have both a referential index and thematic grid. At first sight, English denominal verbs would provide a counterargument to this, but as Baker states, we see complete lack of nominal properties. In particular no reference can be made to a nominal core, as there are no gender and no number features. Naturally, the verb is not marked for definiteness either. That leads us to conclude that we never have verbalization of n, i.e. v always combines with an acategorial root. However, Arad (2005), building on Kiparsky (1997), provided arguments from noun derived verbs. The examples in (56) suggest that the verb tape must include the noun tape, as one can only tape something with a tape: (56) a. I hammered the nail in (with my sandal). (root derived verb) b. I painted the wall (with lacquer). c. I taped the picture (*/#with pushpins). (noun derived verb) d. I lacquered the wall (*/#with paint). Harley & Haugen (2007) and Borer (2013) show, however, that the judgments appear to result from a certain misclassification of the canonical content of e.g. tape, lacquer, and screw, respectively, and discuss data such as (57), which show that it is indeed possible to use something other than a tape in order to tape. Borer’s proposal is then that English simply does not have zero categorizers, i.e. n and v heads are never realized via zero, contra Embick (2010) and others. (57) a. Lola taped the poster to the wall with band aids/mailing labels. b. Screw the fixture on the wall with nails. But if verbs and nouns are all root derived, this then means that there is no n to v derivation, there is only v to n derivation. See also Rimell (2012), who has shown that denominal verbs in English are root derived.⁶ Consider now the asymmetry between n/D and v:

⁶ Note that Borer (2013: 325) uses (i)–(ii) to argue that English lacks null nominalizers. (i) *an acidify to acidify (ii) a salutation *to salutation (ii) can be accounted for if there is never n to v derivation. With respect to (i), the generalization Borer makes is that in English affixed verbs required overt nominalizers. Embick (2010) argues that there is a special list giving rise to obligatorily overt nominalizers, z-nominals; Fábregas (2014) proposes a linearization in terms of spans, i.e. zero forms spell-out the n-v-Root complex; once a

 .  

107

(58) a. *[v [[DP [#P [DivP [nP b. *[v [#P [DivP [nP c. *[v [DivP [nP d. ??[v [nP The structures in (58) could be instances of complementation, where v takes nominal objects of different sizes as complements. This means that v cannot interrupt the extended projection of an n, while n and D behave differently in this respect and can surface within the hierarchy, (59). Thus, the parallelism discussed in the previous section applies only in one direction. (59) a. D [CP D [TP D [AspectP [VoiceP [vP b. [CP [TP n [AspectP n [VoiceP n [vP This now raises the question why n is different from v. I argued in Section 5.5 that nominalization is akin to passivization/ergative structure formation. v does not have this property; it is just a categorizer (see Salanova & Tallman, Chapter 15, for discussion on domains). That is, in Bruening’s (2013) system, n is similar to a PASS head in that it blocks the projection of an external argument, when it applies to a verbal source, but importantly v is not PASS. It only verbalizes roots. The contrast between (58) and (59) suggests that once a subpart of nominal structure is built, case becomes an issue. This is what makes n very different from v: case must somehow be licensed. If nouns have case, case blocks verbalization. In the complementation pattern, some version of Agree or dependent case will take care of case on nP/DP. A further option is incorporation of subparts of nominal structure to v (Baker, 1988). Noun incorporation was thought as involving head movement (NI), which would perhaps yield a verbalization structure. Interestingly, the structures in (58) have been recently analyzed as cases of phrasal movement.⁷ This movement can target various layers of the nominal structure and it is particular affix realizes v, an overt affix has to realize n. David Embick (p.c.) points out, however, that formation can in principle have a structure with a zero v, thus the overt vs. covert realization of v does not seem to play a role. -ing nominals are also not sensitive to the form of v. Arguably these contain Voice and thus the realization of v is contextually determined by the Voice head. Note here that Borer’s view runs into problems by the fact that there are zero nominals that have AS (iii), see, Alexiadou & Grimshaw (2008); Newmeyer (2009); Lieber (2016); and Iordăchioaia (Chapter 10): (iii) my constant change of mentors Note that most of the pairs of the type in (i) include verbs with Romance verbal affixes, so it is expected that they undergo Romance type nominalization with an overt affix. ⁷ Many thanks to Coppe van Urk for pointing this out to me.

108   crucially not head movement, see Barrie & Mathieu (2016) for discussion. These authors show that incorporated nominals can be much larger than bare roots with a structure incompatible with head movement. The empirical foundation for the phrasal movement claim comes primarily from Onondaga (for Northern Iroquoian) and Ojibwe (for Algonquian), illustrated in (60) from Barrie & Mathieu (2016: 13). In these languages, incorporated nouns appear with nominalizers and inflectional morphemes. (60) ngii-bengwhinaagane mii dash taaswin n- gii- bengw -h -i -naag -an -e 1- - dry - - -dish - - mii dash taas-win n- gii- atoon -an and then cupboard- 1- - place -3 ‘I dried the dishes, and then I put them away.’ Barrie & Mathieu (2016) argue that the target of NI can in principle be any phrasal projection in the nominal domain as in a version of (3a): nP (categorized/nominalized stems), dP (modified N-stem), DP (possessor DPs, demonstratives), KP (case-marked nominals), and CP (relative clauses). This ‘verbalization’ pattern involves precisely the cut-off points we would expect from our discussion on nominalization, the difference being that this type of ‘verbalization’ is found in polysynthetic languages. Importantly, it does not involve head movement and category change but phrasal movement for case reasons, supporting my hypothesis that verbalization is out, as licensing of case blocks it. We can thus restate our generalization as follows: The contrast between (58) and (59) is one between polysynthetic and non-polysynthetic languages. The structures in (58) are licit if there is NI (= phrasal movement) for case reasons.⁸ Why should that be so? Presumably this is related to how wordhood is parametrized. Word-hood in polysynthetic languages is seen in Barrie & Mathieu (2016) as an epiphenomenon, actually a phonological phenomenon. On their view, words in polysynthetic languages correspond to phonological phrases rather than prosodic words, while this is not the case in e.g. English.

⁸ In e.g. English, this happens only in synthetic compounds (Iordăchioaia et al., 2017). The question that arises is why this is only limited to compounds. If indeed phrasal movement of this type is somehow associated with phonological considerations, this leads us to reevaluate Harley’s (2009a) claim that the English verbal domain does not allow complex phrases for phonological reasons.

 .  

109

5.7 Conclusions In this chapter, I discussed the view that the distinction between Vs and Ns is not absolute, but gradual in nature. Based on cross-linguistic and inner language variation, I discussed two types of nominalizations: D-based vs. n-based. n-based nominalizations create ergative/passive structures. D-based ones do not. Building on Hiraiwa (2005) and Wiltschko (2014), I assumed a common skeleton in the nominal and verbal domain. This allows then the formation of mixed categories and the inclusion of layers of the same semantic basis, which can be interchanged. With respect to verbalization, I proposed that it is not possible in languages such as English, as licensing of case blocks it. Thus, whenever a nominal substructure is built, it requires case licensing, which can be done via Agree or incorporation. I discussed recent analyses of incorporation which treat it as involving phrasal movement. This in turn means that verbalization is literally cross-linguistically impossible. In the spirit of Remarks, it was shown that not all noninalizations are equally verbal, although they have a verbal core. Importantly, however, nominalizations are not derived transformationally from clauses, rather both verbal and nominal clauses are assembled in the syntax, share functional layers, and thus show similar properties.

Acknowledgments Earlier versions of this chapter were presented at a colloquium in Cornell University in September 2016; at the What’s in a Label workshop in Arezzo in September 2016; at the linguistics seminar in Queen Mary University, London, in May 2017; and at the workshop on Linguistic Variation at the Interfaces, in Madrid, November 2017. Many thanks to these audiences for their input. Special thanks to Hagit Borer, Coppe van Urk, and two anonymous reviewers for comments and discussion. AL 554/8-1 is hereby acknowledged.

6 Nominalizing verbal passive PROs and cons Hagit Borer

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 General Argument Structure Nominals (ASNs), Grimshaw’s (1990) Complex Event Nominals (CENs), come in two varieties—one in which the external argument is prenominal and is marked as genitive, henceforth Long Argument Structure Nominals (LASN), and the other in which it is not, henceforth Short Argument Structure Nominals (SASN). The Short variety comes, itself, in two flavors— one in which the external argument is expressed as a by-phrase, and the other, in which it goes unmarked, overtly. These varieties are in (1)–(2):¹ (1) LASNs: The dean’s formation/forming of the committee (2) SASNs, optional by-phrase: a. the formation/forming of the committee (by the new dean) Relative to the diagnostics originally proposed in Grimshaw (1990 et seq.) to distinguish ASNs from derived nominals without argument structure (RNs), we note that SASNs, as in (3)–(4), are definitely ASNs (and in fact, some of

¹ A third option for SASN involves the logical object occupying the prenominal position, with or without a by-phrase, as in (i). As is well known, that variant is excluded with -ing nominals. i.

a. the committee’s formation (by the dean) b. *the committee’s forming (by the dean)

The contrast in (i) is largely tangential to the narrative about to unfold. For some discussion, see Borer (2013). Hagit Borer, Nominalizing verbal passive: PROs and cons In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Hagit Borer. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0006

112   Grimshaw’s tests such as implicit argument properties and the availability of an argumental by-phrase single out the short variety): (3) a. The (organized) reaction to the Muslim Ban (by the courts / in few hours) b. The (deliberate) refusal to pass the bill (by the Republicans / for 10 months) (4) The forming/formation of the committee in order to improve facultystudent contact This chapter focuses on SASNs. In particular, I will provide evidence that they embed passive structure, with the latter showing most of the syntactic properties of clausal verbal passive, including the promotion of the internal argument. Nominalization, in turn, emerges as an operation which can combine a passivized verbal extended projection (ExP[V]) with a higher nominal head. The logic, once articulated, mandates that LASNs are nominalizations which bring together a nominalizer with an active ExP[V], complete with all its arguments, including the external. There are two take-home messages here. The first, in (5), concerns derived nominals. The second, in (6), concerns the modeling of the syntax-word formation interface: (5) Derived Nominals: a. ASNs (deverbal/de-adjectival) must contain a verbal/adjectival ExP. b. The argument array in ASNs is that which is associated with ExP[V] and ExP[A] respectively, and not with the noun. c. Passive, specifically, may apply within the ExP[V] embedded under the nominalizing affix. d. LASNs are nominalizations of ‘active’ verbal projections. e. SASNs are nominalizations of ‘passive’ verbal projections. (6) Morphosyntax: a. The morphological operation Nominalization, which brings together a verbal/adjectival stem with a nominalizing affix, may apply to the output of syntactic operations which involve complex syntactic phrases, including passive and movement. b. Therefore Nominalization, and by extension many other morphological processes, must be syntactic.

  

113

6.1.2 The issues Relative to the distinction between SASNs and LASNs, the most common theoretical claims made in the literature are summarized in (7)–(8). (Boxed letters refer to the positions I will endorse.) (7) a.

The prenominal possessor in ASNs is never a true event argument, i.e. it never corresponds to a Grammatical Subject (GS), whether external or internal. ‘Agent’ prenominal DPs are, rather, free interpretation possessors with an agentive construal.2

b.

The prenominal position in ASNs is a GS, and even more strongly, it is the logical (‘external’) subject. When null, as in SASNs, the prenominal position, as GS, is occupied by a silent nominal of some kind.3

c .☞ The prenominal position in ASNs is GS when it is overt and thus an argument. In LASNs it corresponds to the external argument. SASNs, in turn, are cases of passive in which the internal argument is the GS, but has failed to be promoted to the prenominal position, and where the external argument, on a par with external argument in clausal verbal passives, is a null indefinite pronoun (or, possibly, optionally expressible through a by-phrase).4 (8) a.

Passive, in SASNs, involves the arguments of the noun itself (possibly lexically inherited from an embedded verb)

b .☞ Passive, in SASNs, involves arguments which are licensed within a syntactic ExP[V] that is embedded under N (see fn. 4 for references). The organization of this chapter is as follows. In Section 6.2, I provide an argument for (7c), showing that the silent external argument (SEA) in SASNs has properties which differ from those of both PRO and pro when they occur as GSs. This argument is based on what I term the Lebeaux Effect. Section 6.3

² Chomsky (1970); Williams (1987); Grimshaw (1990); Marantz (1997); Alexiadou (2001, 2017a); Harley (2009b); i.a By extension, expressions such as the city’s destruction cannot be ASNs, a position explicitly endorsed in Grimshaw (1990). For some criticism, see Doron & Rappaport Hovav (1991); Borer (1991); i.a. ³ Roeper (1987); Safir (1987); Sichel (2009); i.a. ⁴ Borer (1991, 1999, 2003, 2013); with some differences, Bruening (2013); i.a.

114   strengthens (7c) by providing evidence that the properties of SEA in SASNs correspond directly to those of SEAs in short (clausal) passives, thereby further supporting (8b). In Section 6.4, I provide a direct argument for a passivized ExP[V] within SASNs (i.e. (8b)), by contrasting deverbal ASNs with de-adjectival ASNs. That very same argument supports the existence of a full adjectival ExP within deadjectival ASNs (ExP[A]). A further argument for (8b) is provided in Section 6.5, based on the scope effects reported in van Hout, Kamiya, & Roeper (2013). That argument serves not only to bolster (8b), but to also strongly support the displacement of the internal argument, within the passivized ExP[V], to the position of the GS, thereby refuting (7b). Section 6.6 provides schematic syntactic structures for ASNs, both verbal and adjectival, and for verbal passive, such that it can occur identically within sentences and within SASNs. Finally, in Section 6.7, I turn to cases of de-adjectival and deverbal ASNs which do allow a silent nominal as a GS. In these cases, I will show, the behavior of these silent nominals mirrors exactly their behavior in gerunds and infinitives, but differs from the behavior of SEAs in passives and in SASN, thereby lending further support to the absence of a silent GS in SASNs. Section 6.8 provides a conclusion, focusing on the consequences for the investigation of derived nominals, and for morphosyntax in general.

6.2 SEA is not PRO The argument in this section centers on the fact that SEA, regardless of its presumed syntactic position, does not exhibit the Lebeaux Effect, given in (9): (9) The Lebeaux Effect: Within an appropriately defined local domain, all occurrences of uncontrolled silent subject need to have a universal interpretation (=PRO-arb), and are hence identified. (Lebeaux, 1984) The Lebeaux Effect as originally proposed targets cases in which the relevant silent subjects do not co-command each other, nor is there an obvious antecedent that could control both of them. To exemplify, consider (10)– (11), with gerunds and infinitives. These examples were chosen to favor a distinct construal for the silent subjects, and, yet, such distinct construal is not possible, in spite of being, by far, the most plausible one:

  

115

(10) ✗DS (Distinct Subject construal excluded) a. [PRO to unionize the labor force] entails/is [PRO to fire workers] b. [PRO to unionize the labor force] entails/means [PRO firing workers] (11) ✗DS a. [PRO unioizing the labor force] entails/means [PRO firing workers] b. [PRO destroying the work environment] entailed/meant/was [PRO reorganizing the labor force] c. #[PRO beating the bicycle rider] while [PRO filming him] made the headlines (and compare with replacing while with after, where Same-Subject construal is plausible) In contrast, distinct subject construal is entirely licit for SASNs, at times contrasting directly with the correlating gerunds:⁵ (12) ✓DS a. The unioizing of the labor force entails the raising of salaries. b. The destruction of the work environment entailed the reorganization of the labor force. At the very least, then, proponents of SEA as GS would need to provide reasons for why the Lebeaux Effect is inert in such cases. In particular, if gerunds are DPs which share with nominals the syntactic position in which genitive is assigned, say [Spec,DP], defining the relevant domain for the applicability of the Lebeaux Effect while maintaining the claim that SEA is a GS in SASNs may be a tricky matter.

6.3 SEA in SASNs behaves like SEA in short passives On a par with the SEA in SASNs and as already observed in Borer (1998), the Lebeaux Effect does not apply to the SEA of verbal passives, aka the implicit external argument, as shown in (13a–b): ⁵ The arguments advanced here exclude PRO as the GS of SASN regardless of its putative position, or, indeed, the presence of an embedded ExP[V] within it. For the explicit structures proposed, see Section 6.6.

116   (13) ✓DS a. That the workers were unionized meant that salaries were raised. b. The bicycle rider was beaten while he was filmed Nor does it hold for SEA in passivized infinitives or gerunds, as shown in (10)–(11): (14) a. The workers being unionized meant that salaries were being cut b. The bicycle rider being beaten while the documentary was being filmed The Lebeaux Effect does not hold in (14) between the GSs of the two infinitival clauses, which are not SEAs, but rather are the (overt) promoted logical objects. It does, of course, hold for the subjects in (15). These GSs are not external, but the distribution of PRO is not sensitive to argumental roles, but rather to grammatical functions, and in (15) we have GSs, by assumption PROs, which adhere to the Lebeaux Effect as expected: (15) To be organized entails/means to be fired/hired Note, finally, that the implicit argument in verbal passive may receive both existential and generic construal, depending on context: (16) a. It was decided this morning that Dina should travel to New York on her own →by some b. Committee work was successfully avoided →by some (17) a. In the Middle Ages it was believed that if you travel west you would get to India →by all b. Committee work is despised →(possibly) by all (18) a. Old people were once appreciated →by all; (by some) b. In some countries, girls are still excluded from school →by all; by some In its generic construal, the implicit argument does entail a Same-Subject construal, which is to be expected. In its existential construal, however, such construal is strongly dis-preferred: (19) Mail was collected before tea was prepared (favors distinct perpetrators)

  

117

(20) Committee work is despised while administrative titles are adored (→by all) The very same properties are attested in SASNs, with Same-Subject construal attested when genericity is implicated, but strongly disfavored where existential interpretation is contextually more plausible: (21) a. the appreciation of old people →by all; (by some) b. the exclusion of girls from school (→by all; by some) entails the denial of education (→by all; by some) (22) a. The decision that Dina should travel to New York →by some b. the exclusion of girls from school entails the imposition of the new law → distinct perpetrators Example (23) summarizes the conclusions of Sections 6.2–3 (23)

Gerunds, Infinitives (uncontroled contexts):

SASN, Passive

Exhibits the Lebeaux Effect

Do not exhibit the Lebeaux Effect

SEA is universal only (PRO);

SEA normally existential, but could have generic force in specific syntactico-semantic contexts

This identity of interpretational properties between implicit arguments in verbal passive and the properties of SEA in SASNs finds a natural explanation in the claim that the latter are nominalizations of verbal passive structure. It also has a couple of other consequences. First, it means that contrary to much discussion in the literature (and beginning with Chomsky, 1970), external arguments are no more optional in ASNs than they are in (clausal) passives. The syntactic parallel for SASNs is thus not (24a), as is sometimes claimed, but (24b):⁶

⁶ See, i.a. Hazout (1991, 1995); Borer (1991, 2003, 2013); Engelhardt (2000); Alexiadou (2009); van Hout, Kamiya, & Roeper (2013); and Bruening (2013) for positions for and against passive analyses for SASNs.

118   (24) a. *organized the union b. The union (was) organized. Second, if a unified account is available for the properties of SEA in ASNs and in verbal passive, SEA must be equally syntactically (and semantically) (un)real in both. In turn, the context-dependent ambiguity between generic and indefinite readings attested for the SEA in both clausal passives and ASNs is difficult to reconcile with an existentially closed semantic argument devoid of syntactic realization (e.g. as in Bruening, 2013). Rather, it suggests the presence of a silent syntactic element, call it proindef, possibly with the properties of German man or those of indefinite plural null subjects in Italian, Spanish, and Hebrew (Jaeggli, 1986; Cinque, 1988; Borer, 1998,), and which at the very least in verbal passives and SASNs must occupy a position which is distinct from that of the GS.⁷,⁸ This latter conclusion might suggest another potential analysis. Could it be that GS in SASNs is proindef with PRO, in turn, excluded for some reasons that hold for ASNs, but not for gerunds and infinitives (cf. Sichel, 2009)? But as we shall see in the following sections, there is direct evidence for passive in SASNs that goes well beyond the properties of SEAs. Furthermore, in Section 6.7, I show that in well-defined contexts, SEA can be a GS even in (apparent) SASNs, but when that is the case, it exhibits the Lebeaux Effect, thereby supporting the claim that when it does not, SEA is not GS.

⁷ To exemplify from Italian: i. a. Prima, hanno telefonato: mi pareva tua sorella earlier, have- telephoned: me seems your sister ‘There was a phone call earlier. I think it was your sister’ b. Lo hanno cercato: era un signore anziano him have- searched: was a man old ‘Somebody was looking for him. It was an old man’ ii.

a. Li, odiano gli stranieri there, hate-- strangers ‘They hate strangers there’ b. Qui, lavorano anche di sabato ‘Here, they work even on Saturday’

(Cinque, 1988)

In Borer (1998) I show that where c-command relations hold, Same-Subject construals with existential meaning are entirely excluded, e.g. as in (i), due to the impossibility of binding/coreference between two (existentially closed) instances of proindef. As such, that account lends additional support to the syntactic existence of proindef (but see Sichel, 2009, for some refinements): i.

it was announced that the city was bombed (announcer ≠ bomber)

⁸ See Condoravdi (1989) and Borer (1998) for the claim that proindef is the null equivalent of the English bare plural.

  

119

6.4 Passivized clauses within ASNs 1: de-adjectival vs. deverbal nominals In line with Roy (2010) I assume the existence of adjectival ASNs, with the properties in (25): (25) De-adjectival ASNs, AASNs (Roy’s S-Nominals) a. stative reading b. subjects are obligatory c. constant, rapide (and English equivalents) are possible modifiers d. de-phrase in French is an argument; of-phrase in English is an argument e. aspectual modification (duration) possible within the nominal f. affect only predicational adjectives Note, in particular, (25f). As is well known, a wide range of adjectives which are available in attributive positions are not possible predicates (former, alleged among others) and others which are ambiguous in attributive contexts between an intersective and a subsective reading are only available with an intersective reading in predicative position. As Roy (2010) shows, the availability of AASNs tallies exactly with that of predicative adjectives, and not with that of attributive adjectives: (26) a. nasal voice b. nasal cavity c. close friend (ambiguous) (27) a. his voice is nasal b. #this cavity is nasal c. this friend is close (intersective only) (28) a. the nasality of his voice b. #the nasality of this cavity c. the closeness of this friend (intersective only) (29) a. une peinture abstraite a painting abstract ‘an abstract painting’

120   b. un peintre abstraite a painter abstract ‘an abstract painter’ (30) a. cette peinture this painting b. *ce peintre this painter

est abstraite is abstract est abstraite is abstract

(31) a. l’abstraction de the abstractness of b. *l’abstraction the abstractness

cette peinture this painting

de ce peintre of this painter

While an account for the difference between attributive and predicative adjectives is clearly outside the scope of this chapter the correlation between the distribution of predicative adjectives and AASNs strongly supports the derivation of AASNs not from bare adjectives, but rather from a predicative adjectival structure, complete with arguments and eventuality information. If we assume that such predicative structures include the subject of the adjective, deriving AASNs from predicative adjectival structures yields not only their obligatory intersectivity, but also the obligatoriness of the subject, Roy’s diagnostic (25b). While the thrust of Roy’s discussion concerns nominalized intransitive adjectives, adjectives with complements do nominalize to give rise to the long variants in (32): (32) a. the court’s (constant) awareness of the problem b. Pat’s (frequent) consciousness of my presence The external argument may occur postnominally as well, providing the internal argument is not itself marked with of:⁹

⁹ A. McIntyre (p.c.) notes his acceptance of (i) and similar: i. The awareness of the court of the problem Given the acceptability of e.g. (33b) with a postnominal subject, the obvious move would be to assume that in some dialects of English, of is homophonous between a ‘structural’ marker available in some nominal specifier, and a preposition available to complements.

   (33) a. Robin’s readiness to leave b. the courtier’s closeness to the throne c. the house’s proximity to the road d. the party’s eagerness for change

121

, the readiness of Robin to leave , the closeness of the courtier to the king , the proximity of the house to the road , the eagerness of the party for change

What is striking now is that the AASN equivalents of SASNs are ungrammatical:¹⁰ (34) a. b. c. d. e. f.

*The awareness of the constitutional problem (by the court) *The consciousness of my presence (by Pat) *The fondness of/for classical music (by Jill)11 *The readiness to leave (by Robin) *The proximity to the road (by the house/Kim) *The eagerness for change (by the party)

The ungrammaticality of (34a–f), now, would be extremely puzzling if the GSs in deverbal SASNs were SEA. However, if SASNs embed a passivized ExP[V], the ungrammaticality of (34a–f) reduces directly to the fact that adjectives do not passivize. The ungrammaticality of (34a–f), therefore, is exactly on a par with that of (35a–d) and similar: (35) a. b. c. d.

*The problem is aware (of) (by the court) *My presence is conscious (of) (by Pat) *Classical music is fond (of/for) (by Jill) *The change is eager for (by the leadership)

The conclusion here is straightforward enough: Deverbal ASNs contain an ExP[V], while AASNs contain an ExP[A]. In consequence, deverbal LASNs are nominalization of active verbal structures, in which all arguments must be realized. On the other hand, deverbal SASNs (with or without by-phrases) are nominalizations of passivized ExP[V], which, in the standard manner, allow

¹⁰ (34a–f) are much improved if the definite article is omitted. I address the contrast at some length in Section 6.7. ¹¹ While fondness for is preferred (approximately 4.5 million Google hits), fondness of is licit (approximately 0.5 million Google hits). I will take the optional occurrence of for to be a spell-out effect.

122   for an implicit external argument which is not the GS. Short versions are excluded for AASNs quite simply because adjectives do not passivize. If this conclusion is correct, it follows that in LASNs as well as in AASNs the prenominal DP must be the external verbal or adjectival argument. Such an external argument merges below the N, and in the very same position that it would merge in the clausal correlates of ExP[V] or ExP[A]. Its occurrence prenominally, in turn, is the result of movement to some nominal functional specifier (say [Spec,DP]), triggered by Case considerations. In Section 6.6, I return to this matter in the context of more fully articulated structures for ASNs, both verbal and adjectival, and for passive. Adjectival structures are not the only syntactic constructions which prohibit passivization. Unaccusatives as well bar passivization even in languages which do allow monadic predicates to passivize. We thus predict that ASNs corresponding to unaccusatives would pattern with (34) in barring a silent GS, giving rise to an obligatory overt subjects. This prediction is borne out, as the rather surprising contrasts between (36) and (37) show:¹² (36) a. b. c. d.

the departure of the guests in three hours (is/was unrealistic) the arrival of the guests in three minutes the disappearance of the symptom in three hours the emergence of the magician in three seconds

(37) a. b. c. d.

*the departure in three hours *the arrival in three minutes *the disappearance in three hours *the emergence in three seconds

Crucially, no such effects are attested in RNs, as shown in (38), thus indicating that the ungrammaticality of (37a–d) is linked to the obligatoriness of an argument and cannot be attributed to any anomaly of the derived nominals themselves: (38) a. the departure b. the arrival

(was delayed)

c. the disappearance

¹² Here, as well, bare nominals (e.g. ‘departure in three hours’) show improvement. See Section 6.7 for treatment.

  

123

Note again that the ungrammaticality of (37a–d) cannot be accounted for if the GS, either prenominally or postnominally, can be occupied by a silent referring expression. Such a putative silent expression, were it allowed in (37a–d), would be interpreted as an internal argument, but infinitives and gerunds most certainly allow null GS for unaccusatives, thereby showing that there is no independent restrictions on such occurrence: (39) [PRO departing / to depart before dawn] is our best option [PRO disappearing / to disappear so suddenly] is rude That such an option is not available in (37a–d) thus clearly indicates that the GS in ASNs cannot be silent, regardless of its interpretation, and that the only cases in which an argument can be silent are cases of passive. As passive is not available for unaccusatives, (37a–d) are ungrammatical. By way of final evidence for the claims in this section, consider the contrast between the ungrammaticality of (34a–f) and the grammaticality of the AASNs in (40a–b): (40) a. the likelihood that Roger will be on time b. the possibility/probability that the boat would be released In the absence of passive in adjectival constructions, I argued, (34a–f) are ungrammatical because the external argument of the embedded adjectives cannot be silent. In contrast, the nominals in (40) are derived from ‘ergative adjectives’ in the sense of Cinque (1990) and most importantly, they lack an external argument altogether. Here, we find, the absence of an overt GS is licit, precisely because such GS would not correspond to an argument.¹³

¹³ Most ergative adjectives, including tough adjectives, do not have licit nominalized forms, regardless of Raising or Tough movement. Whatever the reason, it may go some way toward accounting for the absence/scarcity of both Raising and Tough in derived nominals observed in Chomsky (1970) (and contrast with the nonergative instantiations, at times of the same adjectives, in (iii)): i. *the obviousness/clarity that Roger will be late (it is obvious/clear that . . . ) ii. a. *the easiness/difficulty/toughness/niceness/attractiveness to settle the conflict b. *the easiness/difficulty/toughness/niceness of settling the conflict iii. a. the clarity of the water b. the toughness/attractiveness of the leather c. the difficulty of the problem

124   Before moving on, note that deverbal SASNs are attested not only with ‘objects’, but with PP and CP complements as well, as the small sample in (41) shows: (41) a. the objection to gun control (in order to gain NRA support) b. the decision/proposal to bomb the hospitals (in order to demoralized the civil population) c. the (desperate) grasping for power (in order to gain control) I return to these cases in Section 6.6, where I suggest that these are cases of impersonal passive.

6.5 Passivized VP within ASNs 2—scope and movement The contrast in (42) is discussed in some detail in Roeper & van Hout (2009) and van Hout, Kamiya, & Roeper (2013): (42) The electability of nobody surprised me a. ??I am surprised that nobody was electable (??narrow scope) b. Nobody is such that his electability surprised me (√wide scope) As van Hout, Kamiya, & Roeper (2013) note, nobody in (42) must receive a matrix scope, and cannot scope under surprise. The same effect holds for LASNs and for unergative ASNs. In all these cases, GS is an external argument: (43) Nobody’s rejection of the offer surprised me

(✗narrow /√wide)

(44) The disobedience/rebellion of nobody surprised me

(✗narrow/√wide)

The converse effects hold for objects in LASNs. Here, only narrow scope is licit: (45) The council’s election/electing of nobody surprised me (√narrow/✗wide) Strikingly, in SASNs, and in these constructions alone, we get an ambiguity: (46) The election/electing of nobody surprised me

(√narrow/√wide)

As noted in van Hout, Kamiya, & Roeper (2013), the ambiguity of (46) follows directly if we assume that the sole overt argument in (46) has moved from

  

125

the object position to the GS position. The wide scope reading is computed on the basis of its postmovement position, while the narrow scope reading results from reconstruction. Otherwise put, this scope configuration emerges if, and only if, we assume a passive-like movement of the object to a higher position, presumed GS. We now predict, correctly, that unaccusative ASNs behave like (46), displaying scope ambiguity, thereby providing further support for the passive/movement analysis of SASNs: (47) The arrival of nobody surprised me

(√narrow/√wide)

The account is finally directly supported by two additional observations. Note, first, that only narrow scope is available in PRO-gerunds, as in (48a), and in the context of prenominal expressions such as yesterday’s in (48b): (48) Electing nobody surprises me

(√narrow/✗wide)

(49) Yesterday’s election of nobody surprised me

(√narrow/✗wide)

If, indeed, [Spec,DP] is occupied by PRO in gerunds, and yesterday’s occupies the [Spec,DP] position in the SASN in (49) where it effectively functions as GS, the availability of exclusively narrow scope follows immediately for both. In turn, it follows that there could not be a silent external GS in [Spec,DP] of SASN where wide scope is available for the (logical) object.¹⁴

¹⁴ I am particularly grateful to the reviewer for pointing out the cases in (48)–(49). On the flip side, the reviewer also points out a number of cases where narrow scope is available for –ability nominals: i. a. The electability of only two candidates surprised anyone / me too. (wide/narrow) b. The {visibility of no stars / availability of no good candidates} worried me too. (narrow only) The reviewer further postulates wide scope only for the SASN in (ii), thereby contrasting few with nobody in the same context, but the judgments in this case appear less clear cut: ii. The election of few candidates surprised anyone/*me too. (wide only) A better understanding of scope within ASN is thus clearly required, a matter not pursued here. Note, however, that (i–ii) have little impact on the main claims made. What appears to be at stake for (i) is the external status of the arguments of –able adjectives. Regarding (ii), the judgment as indicated in fact requires movement of the internal argument, but shows that reconstruction construal for some NPI is blocked.

126  

6.6 Architecture The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide evidence for the presence of a passivized ExP[V] within SASNs, and by extension, for an adjectival or verbal ExP in all ASNs. This result, I believe, holds regardless of the precise set of functional labels that are proposed for verbal, adjectival, and nominal ExPs. It does, however, require a particular architecture. To ensure an appropriate architectural focus, suffice it to grant that the external argument merges as the specifier of some member of ExP[V] call it F1[V], and that the complement merges as the specifier of some lower member of ExP[V], call it F2[V]. For similar reasons, functional nodes within the nominal sequence remain unlabeled.¹⁵ Finally, I set aside here the ongoing debate on the existence, or lack thereof, of head movement. With these considerations in mind, (50) is the proposed (schematic) structure of LASNs: (50) a. Kim’s formation/forming of the team Dmax

b. Kim

’s

F1[N] Kim F1[N]

Nmax

Kim N F1[V] -ation -ing Kim F1[V]

F2[V]

[of] the team F2[V]

[v √form ]

¹⁵ By extension, the external argument of ExP[A] is the specifier of F1[A], while the complement is the specifier of F2[A]. As the focus here is on passive, the structure in (50) centers on ExP[V]. The translation to ExP[A] should be straightforward. For some comments on the distribution of of in AASN, see fn. 9. For the author’s position on what the actual labels might be, see Borer (2005a, b, 2013).

  

127

I assume that (among its other roles) of spells out Case assigned to DP in some nominal specifier which is below the ultimate realization site for N (e.g. [Spec, NP] or some higher [Spec,F[N]]). In (51), the external argument of form has moved to [Spec,NP] from [Spec,F1[V]]. That very same nominal specifier is available for of complements of underived nominals, such as (52a), with the structure in (52b) (N displacement set aside): (51) a. the repeated objection of the candidates to the proposed bill b. [DP the [F1[N] F1[N] [NP of the candidates N [F1[V] the candidates . . . ]]]]] (52) a. the name/dress of the girl b. [DP the [F1[N] F1[N] [NP of the girl N ]]] Finally, in (50), where Kim has moved to [Spec,DP] through [Spec,NP], the ‘of ’ associated with the object, the team, represents the realization of objective Case in the absence of T, making ‘accusative’ in English contingent on propositional structure in a manner somewhat reminiscent of Pesetsky & Torrego (2004). Turning now to SASNs, it would be prudent to start by proposing a (schematic) structure for verbal passive, such that it can be embedded under nominalization. Concretely, I propose that the analytic form of passive in English and similar signifies the existence of an embedded, dependent (sub) event. If we take F1[V] in (50) to stand for the embedding event, the embedded subevent, call it f1[v], may be implicated not only in the emergence of passive, but possibly in the emergence of other participial constructions. According to this approach, there exists, at the core of passive constructions, an active subevent, which is further embedded under some operator π (for passive). π C-commands and locally binds the external argument of f1[v], thus barring it from moving. The emerging structure is as in (53):

(53) [t be [f1[V]…[π π

[f1[V]

DP1 f1[v] ext. arg

[f2-v

DP2 f2[v] [v … √XYZ … ]]]]] int. arg

As Case is not available in f1[v], the external argument in (53) may only be realized as Caseless proindef. In turn, the object, if present, must enter Agree relations with T, thereby (potentially) undergoing movement to receive nominative Case. Finally, proindef is interpreted either through existential

128   closure, or through the existence of a generic operator as discussed in Section 6.3.¹⁶ Analyticity in passive now emerges because f1[v] and F1[V] are realized separately. As a result, an auxiliary is required to support T, and the main verb itself is realized in whatever morphological form is required in the context of an auxiliary. From this perspective, neither be nor participial marking are, in and of themselves, markers of ‘passive’ as such, but are collateral effects of the presence of π and f1[v]. Severing both be and participial morphology from the passive function receives independent support from the existence of passive constructions without dedicated morphology. At least one case frequently discussed is Romance causatives, where a clause embedded under a causative verb may display the diagnostics of passive, but is missing both auxiliary and participial morphology, as is illustrated in (54) (see Kayne, 1975; and Postal, 1992; i.a.): (54) a. Marie fera laver le chien à Marie make. wash the dog to ‘Marie will cause Jean to wash the dog.’

Jean. Jean

(French)

b. Marie fera laver le chien (par Jean). Marie make. wash the dog (by Jean) ‘Marie will cause the dog to be washed (by Jean).’ That faire-par constructions are passives is strongly supported by their interaction with nonpassivizable idioms, possible in (active) faire-à constructions, but not in faire-par constructions (Kayne, 1975): (55) a. Sa famille a cassé la his family has broken the ‘His family had a snack.’

crôute. crust

b. Jean a fait cassé la croute à sa famille Jean has made break the crust to his family ‘Jean made his family have a snack.’ ¹⁶ The execution broadly follows the version of Agree and a view of dependent Case/Nominative obligatoriness articulated in Borer (1986). Other executions which achieve the same end are easy to imagine. I side-step here the question of why existential closure/generic interpretation should be available for proindef in [Spec,f1[v]], but not for a proindef merging in some lower position, or the specific nature of π as an operator which may give rise to both generic and existential interpretation. These puzzles, note, extend well beyond passive, at the very least to the cases of indefinite pro subjects briefly touched upon in Section 6.3, and possibly to bare plurals and German-type man as well.

   (56) a. *La the

crôute a été crust has been

b. *Jean a fait casser

129

cassé (par sa famille). broken by his family

la crôute (par

sa famille).

Note finally that the passive structure in (53) accounts for impersonal passives straightforwardly, and in fact, impersonal passives emerge from it as simpler, structurally, than canonical passive, in requiring no additional object movement. Transitive passive such as (57) has postphrasal movement, the structure in (59a), while impersonal passives (58a–b) have the structures in (59b), with expletives inserted in [Spec,TP] for EPP reasons, or due to the obligatoriness of nominative Case in finite contexts. For reasons of expediency, PP and CP complements are assumed to merge in [Spec,f2[v]], but not to require Case: (57) The window was shuttered (to bring in the piano) (58) a. Er wordt (door de jongens) gefloten expl. become (by the boys) whistled ‘There is whistling (by the boys’) b. Xe expl.

stà tełefonà was telephoned

a Marco. to Marco

(Dutch)

(Venetian, Schoof, 2003)

(59) pffiffi a. [T DP2 aux[F1[V] . . . [π DP2π [f1[v] proindef f1[v][f2[v] DP2 f2[v][V ]]]]]  ext. arg int. arg pffiffi b. [T [there] aux[F1-V . . . [π π [f1[v] proindef f1[v] ([f2[v] PP/CPf2[v])[V . . . ]]]]  ext.arg complement Armed now with an approach to passive which requires neither participial morphology nor an auxiliary, we return to SASNs, which are derived by embedding π in (59a–b) under a nominalizer. The result is as in (60). Examples (61a–b) now emerge as a result of movement for Case (to [Spec, NP] or [Spec,DP]). When no movement for Case is required, (62a–c) emerge:

130   (60)

Dmax

{the/’s} ( )

F1[N]

F1[N]

Nmax

(of )N

π

π

f1[v] proindef f1[v]

f2[v]

[the team] [to gun control] f2[v]

[v √form] [v √object]

(61) a. the formation/forming of the team (in order to win the race) b. the team’s formation (in order to win the race) (62) a. the objection to gun control (in order to gain NRA support) b. the decision to bomb the hospitals (in order to demoralized the population) c. the frequent sleeping in unmade beds (by tired adolescents) A final comment is in order concerning the cases in (41) and (62c). Given the structures in (59)–(60), these now emerge as cases of embedded impersonal passive, i.e. cases in which the external argument is realized as proindef in the context of π, but the complement fails to move, as it does not require structural Case (or is possibly altogether missing). While decide, announce, believe, and a few others do, arguably, allow impersonal passive in English (cf. (16a)), the reader may, at this point, object on the grounds that many of the specific verbs which underlie SASNs without a direct object, as in (41) and (62c), do not otherwise allow sentential impersonal passive in English. While that is certainly correct, note that the problem could not reside with the

  

131

structures in (59)–(60), as these do allow impersonal passive in a straightforward way, and along a derivational route that is minimally different from that of direct passive. (This, in fact, is the case for most passive accounts within Generative Grammar in the past thirty years, all of which require a particular stipulation to block impersonal passive in English.) Nor could it reside with the verbs under consideration, as most of them do allow pseudo-passive, suggesting that little which is either semantic or morphological could block impersonal passive: (63) a. Gun control was objected to (in order to gain NRA support) b. Unmade beds are all too frequently slept in (by tired adolescents) The mystery, then, is not why SASNs allow an impersonal passive derivation, but why impersonal passive should be otherwise so limited in English. From our perspective, then, it is SASNs which are straightforward, and the scarcity of propositional (impersonal) passives, which remain, at present, unexplained.

6.7 PRO, after All Sections 6.2 and 6.3 were devoted to arguments against the existence of a silent external argument (SEA), as the grammatical subject (GS) of SASNs. Specifically, I showed that a putative GS-SEA in such nominals does not behave like the definite GS-SEAs in infinitives and gerunds, call it PRO. The empirical conclusion is compelling, but the account for it is not obvious. Why should PRO be barred in SASNs? The puzzle is enhanced if we assume, following Abney (1987) and much subsequent literature, that both gerunds and nominals are DPs, and that PRO is in [Spec,DP] in gerunds. The purpose of this section is to convince the reader that PRO (or some other species of null pronominal with the properties of uncontroled PRO) is, in principle, licit as the GS of nominals, but is excluded, nonetheless, in the SASNs in (2) and (34), as a filled [Spec,DP], or indeed [Spec,DP] itself, is incompatible with the English definite article.¹⁷

¹⁷ See Roeper (1987) for this claim in the context of cases such as (i) (attributed to D. Charney, p.c.): i. a. John2 is in [PRO2 control of the ship] b. John is in [the control of the ship] (no control construal)

132   To observe the crucial role played by the definite article, note the contrast between the ungrammatical cases in (34a–f) and their minimal licit correlates without the definite article: (64) a. b. c. d. e.

awareness of the constitutional problem consciousness of my presence fondness of/for classical music readiness to leave eagerness for change

Let us suppose, then, that (64a–e), but not (34a–f), allow GS-SEA. But if that is, indeed, the case, we expect these cases to exhibit the Lebeaux Effect. Specifically, recall, the Lebeaux Effect is suspended in SASNs (65) (cf. (12)), which, as such, contrast with e.g. verbal gerunds (66) (cf. 11): (65) ✓Different Subject (DS) a. The unionizing of the labor force entails the raising of salaries. b. The destruction of the work environment entailed the reorganization of the labor force. (66) ✓DS a. [PRO unionizing the labor force] entails/means [PRO firing workers] b. [PRO destroying the work environment] entailed/meant/was [PRO reorganizing the labor force] This prediction, as it turns out, is directly borne out by the impossibility of DS-construal for (67a–b). Once again, examples were chosen to encourage DS-construal thus creating an anomalous reading precisely because such a construal is barred. For completeness sake, note no such anomaly when the subjects are overt and distinct, as in (68): (67) ✗DS a. #openness to liberal ideas entails eagerness to suppress them b. #closeness to mafia figures entails willingness to condemn them in public (68) ✓DS a. The Democrats’ openness to liberal ideas entailed the Republicans’ eagerness to suppress them. b. The president’s closeness to mafia figures entailed our willingness to condemn them in public.

  

133

The Lebeaux Effect is further attested when the nominal is preceded by an indefinite article (where otherwise licit), some, little/much, or no: (69) ✗DS a. #an openness to liberal ideas entailed much eagerness to suppress them b. #no/little fondness of/for classical music entails some readiness to attend concerts The direct conclusion, now, is that in the absence of a definite article, AASNs may contain PRO-GS. This conclusion, in turn, immediately raises the possibility that the very same must hold for deverbal ASNs, a matter to which I turn shortly, exploring first the incompatibility of PRO and the definite article. Recall that in principle the GS in ASNs could occupy either the prenominal position, which it shares with possessors and the GS of gerunds, or, absent of complement, GS in both deverbal and de-adjectival ASNs can occupy a position below the final realization site of the head N. I will assume without further discussion that the latter position, for structural reasons, cannot host PRO. The former position, plausibly [Spec,DP], clearly does allow PRO, e.g. in gerunds. Gerunds, however, independently do not occur in the context of a definite article, thus providing an unsuitable environment for corroborating the incompatibility of PRO and the. A suitable corroboration is, however, available from Saxon Genitives, where prenominal possessors are in complementary distribution with the [Dthe] of the possessum: (70) a. *[the boy]’s the hat b. *the [boy’s hat] c. [the boy]’s hat Setting aside the precise explanation for the effects in (70) (but see Borer, 2005a: 38–43, for a suggestion), note that the very same restriction applies to derived nominals, ruling out cases such as (71a–b) and similar: (71) a. *the court’s the awareness of the problem b. *Melisa’s the proximity to British royals

134   If indeed PRO is in [Spec,DP], we can now proceed to derive the grammaticality of (72a) but the ungrammaticality of (72b), thereby yielding the contrast between (64a–f) and (34a–g):¹⁸ (72) a. [DP-1[DP-2 PRO/Melisa’s] b. *[DP-1[DP-2 PRO/Melisa]

eD . . . [NP (awareness) ]] THED . . . [NP (awareness) ]]

With this in mind, suppose we consider again the ungrammaticality of (34a–f). These derivations, we now claim, are not ruled out because SEA can never be a GS within ASNs, nor are they ungrammatical due to the fact that passive is somehow obligatory. To the contrary, GS can, and sometimes must be SEA (=PRO) in ASNs (e.g. in (64)). Examples (34a–f) are ruled out, rather, because of a complementarity between DEF in D and a filled [Spec,DP], whether overt or covert. Because AASNs do not have recourse to a passive derivation as an alternative way to licence the external argument, ungrammaticality results. In other words, in AASNs the external argument is obligatorily GS, whether overt or covert. When blocked in [Spec,DP] by the presence of the, it might still occur, overtly, postnominally, if otherwise licit, as in (73), but if such occurrence is blocked, e.g. in the presence of an independent of complement, ungrammaticality results, again, regardless of whether GS is overt or covert (but see fn. 9): (73) a. the readiness of Robin to leave immediately b. the proximity of the house to the road c. the happiness of the party with the polls (74) a. *the awareness of the court of the problems b. *the fondness of Kim of classical music Consider, however, SASNs. Here, even with a definite article, the derivation can be saved if it incorporates a passivized structure, thereby allowing SEA to occupy a position which is not [Spec,DP]. This SEA, crucially, is neither PRO nor GS, but proindef, and as noted already, subject to distinct interpretational and structural conditions.

¹⁸ As is clear from (69), at least some AASNs are felicitous with the indefinite article as well as with some, much/little, or no. If the complementarity observed here between PRO and the is to be extended to all filled instances of D (with the exception of ’s), the logic here dictates that a, some, much/little, or no must be lower than D, thereby allowing PRO to be in [Spec,DP]. See Borer (2005a, chapter 6) for the placement of at least some determiners in #P (NumP).

  

135

It now emerges that when a deverbal ASNs is missing both an overt subject and a definite article, as in (75), the derivation is, in principle, ambiguous. It could be a case of nominalized passive, as outlined in some detail in sections 6.4–6 (cf. (76a)), or alternatively, it could involve the presence of a SEA-PRO in [Spec,DP], as in (76b). (75) (ongoing) deprivation of entire populations (76) a. [D b. [D PRO

N N

...

[π [F1[V]

π . . . [f1[v] proindef . . . PRO [

... ...

deprive]]] deprive]]]

Recall now that the implicit argument of passives, proindef corresponding broadly to the English bare plural, may receive either an existential or a generic interpretation. Uncontroled PRO, on the other hand, is always universal or generic. As a consequence, the range of interpretations for PRO is a subset of the range of interpretations available for proindef, and we expect these nominals, as is indeed the case, to freely allow both Same-Subject and DifferentSubject construals: (77) ✓DS; ✓SS a. Destruction/construction of nature reserves entailed enacting of progressive legislation. b. (Organized) reaction to the austerity measures entailed harassment/ empowerment of political activists. Recall, however, that not all deverbal ASNs are amenable to a passive derivation—specifically, for the unaccusative nominalizations in (37), repeated here as (78), the derivation in (76a), with π and proindef, is not available. However, the derivation in (76b), where no passive took place and the definite article is absent, should be licit with PRO-GS. The predicted contrast, rather surprising in itself, is directly verified by the full grammaticality of (79): (78) a. *the departure/arrival in three minutes (was/is unrealistic) b. *the emergence/disappearance in three seconds (79) a. departure/arrival in three minutes (is unrealistic) b. disappearance/emergence in three seconds (is doable)

136   Finally, and precisely because prodef is not available in (79), but PRO-GS is, we expect the cases in (79) to exhibit the Lebeaux Effect. They do (and compare again with the DS-construal available with overt subjects): (80) PRO-GS in unaccusative ASN → ✗DS: a. #Departure in an hour entails/means arrival in ten minutes b. #Reappearance in three seconds entailed/meant disappearance in seven hours (81) And compare with a. Departure of (the) guests in an hour entails arrival of (the) cabbies in ten minutes b. My reappearance in three seconds entailed your/my disappearance in seven hours

6.8 Conclusion At the core of Constructivist approaches there lies the conviction that contrary to Chomsky (1970), there is only one computational component that gives rise both to classical constituent structure, and to word-internal hierarchies. Within such approaches it goes without saying that e.g. destruction and formation are syntactically derived, but on the other hand, so are the verbs destroy and form, each consisting, at the very least, of some acategorial root and some syntactic structure which is responsible for the emergence of the verbal category. It is rather ironic, therefore, that within many Constructivist approaches the refusal to allow for the syntactic derivational relationship between e.g. [V form] and [N formation] does persist, in the guise of the claim, harking back directly to Chomsky (1970), that while [V form] and [N formation] are derived, per force syntactically, from the same root √form, nonetheless, and very much in line with the nonsyntactic views in Chomsky (1970), there is no direct derivational relationship between [V form] and [N formation]. As a consequence, [V form] and [N formation] are equally complex and event arguments of formation, when they occur, are effectively arguments of the noun (Marantz, 1997; Harley, 2009b; i.a.). To be sure, the claim that a verbal constituent of variable complexity is syntactically embedded within all derived nominals has been made repeatedly and amply supported during the past thirty or so years, with many of the

  

137

central protagonists noted in the previous pages.¹⁹ The original Remarks tenet, denying syntactic derivational relationship between verbs and deverbal nominals, remains, nonetheless, the default hypothesis, recently reinforced by Lieber (2016), and with burden of proof lying entirely with the ‘syntactic’ camp. To the extent that the present chapter establishes, I believe conclusively, that deverbal SASNs emerge from the nominalization of a specifically verbal syntactic passive structure, and AASN from syntactic adjectival structure, it contributes additional building blocks to what is presently an already impressive body of evidence necessitating, at the very least, a re-evaluation of where, exactly, the burden of proof lies at present. Beyond the specific properties of deverbal and de-adjectival nominals outlined here, the significance of the analysis proposed resides in establishing that what is realized as a single phonological word, e.g. bombardment or awareness, at times corresponds to a considerably larger constituent containing syntactic phrases, which in themselves may have undergone some syntactic operations, including phrasal movement. A nonsyntactic account for the piecing together of the verb and the nominalizer, so as to give rise to an SASN with all its pertinent properties, is extremely hard to imagine. Complex words, then, are per force syntactic constituents, formed and manipulated by the very same combinatorial mechanism that gives us phrasal syntax.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank audiences in São Paulo, Leiden, Newcastle, and Solang for valuable comments. Special thanks go to Andrew McIntyre for his extensive input.

¹⁹ Noteworthy (post-Remarks) early claims are Roeper (1987) and subsequent work; Hazout (1991, 1995); Valois (1991); Borer (1991/3), et seq.) Rozwadowska (1997, et seq.; Engelhardt (2000); Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001); & Alexiadou (2001 et seq).

7 Nominalization and selection in two Mayan languages Jessica Coon and Justin Royer

7.1 Introduction This chapter investigates the pervasive use of nominalization in Ch’ol and Chuj, languages from two different branches of the Mayan language family. Building on the discussion of different types of nominalization in Chomsky (1970), we investigate the relationship between semantic requirements of roots, and the functional structure available to license arguments. As we demonstrate below, Mayan languages are particularly illuminating in this area due to (i) the presence of clear and definable classes of roots; and (ii) rich systems of derivational and inflectional morphology which provide overt clues to functional structure. Like other Mayan languages, Ch’ol and Chuj show a basic ergative system of alignment, visible in the two sets of agreeing morphemes on the predicate: Set A (ergative and possessive) and Set B (absolutive). In the sentences in (1) and (2), we find transitive subjects in both languages cross-referenced via the Set A prefix immediately preceding the verb root.¹ Transitive objects and intransitive subjects are marked with Set B; Set B appears stem-finally in Ch’ol, and following the TAM marker in Chuj.

¹ Ch’ol is a language of the Tseltalan branch spoken by around 200,000 people in Chiapas, Mexico. Chuj is a Q’anjob’alan language spoken by around 70,000 people in Huehuetenango, Guatemala, and Chiapas, Mexico (Piedrasanta, 2009; Buenrostro, 2013). Further details about Ch’ol and Chuj grammar can be found in Vázquez Álvarez (2011) Buenrostro (2013), and works cited there. Unless otherwise attributed, examples in this chapter come from the authors’ elicitation with speakers. —‘Set A’ (ergative/possessive); —Agent Focus; —voice suffix, described below; —‘Set B’ (absolutive); —derived intransitive suffix; —epenthesis; —nominal suffix; —plural; —singular; —status suffix. Glosses in examples from other sources have in some cases been modified for consistency; translations from Spanish are our own.

Jessica Coon and Justin Royer, Nominalization and selection in two Mayan languages In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Jessica Coon and Justin Royer. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0007

140      (1) Ch’ol (Tseltalan) a. Tyi k-mek’-e-y-ety.  1-hug---2 ‘I hugged you.’ b. Tyi wäy-i-y-ety.  sleep---2 ‘You slept.’

(2) Chuj (Q’anjob’alan) a. Ix-ach-ko-chel-a’. -2s-1-hug- ‘We hugged you.’ b. Ix-ach-way-i. -2s-sleep- ‘You slept.’

Ch’ol and Chuj show a pattern of aspect-based split ergativity. In both languages, the ergative pattern disappears in the progressive aspect, and is replaced by what is known as an ‘extended ergative’ pattern (Dixon, 1979): Set A is extended to mark not only transitive subjects, but intransitive subjects as well. (3) Ch’ol a. Choñkol [NP k -mek’-ety].  1-hug-2 ‘I’m hugging you.’ b. Choñkol [NP k -wäy-el].  1-sleep- ‘I’m sleeping.’ (4) Chuj a. Lan [NP hach ko -chel-an-i].  2 1-hug-- ‘We’re hugging you.’ b. Lan [NP ko -way-i].  1-sleep- ‘We’re sleeping.’ This is where nominalization comes in. In addition to marking transitive subjects, Set A marking also cross-references possessors in Mayan languages, and work going back to at least Larsen & Norman (1979) has attributed the ‘split’ pattern in examples like (3) and (4) to the use of (i) an aspectual matrix predicate (i.e. choñkol and lan) which combines with (ii) a possessed nominalized verb form (in brackets). These nominalizations are shown to be Complex Event Nominals (CENs) (Grimshaw, 1990), discussed further below. The proposal, spelled out in more detail in Section 7.2, is thus that while the Set A markers in (1) and (2) reflect ergative agreement, the Set

  

141

A markers (boxed) in (3) and (4) mark possessor agreement. Because both transitive and intransitive subjects are realized as possessors in these nominalized constructions, the appearance of a nominative pattern arises (Coon, 2013a; Coon & Carolan, 2017). The similarities and differences between CENs in Ch’ol and Chuj discussed in Section 7.2, combined with requirements of smaller Result Nominals and argument nominalizations discussed in Section 7.3, lead us to conclude that transitive and unaccusative roots in both languages require semantic saturation of an internal argument slot. The fact that this requirement is seen not just in verbal forms, but in nominalizations of different sizes, lends support to the proposal that this is a semantic requirement of roots, independent of the amount and type of higher functional structure (on variation in functional structure in nominalizations, see, among others, Abney, 1987; Alexiadou, 2001, Chapter 5; and Harley, Chapter 9). While we follow the larger body of work which takes argument structure to be at least partly determined during the course of the derivation (see e.g. Halle and Marantz, 1993; Arad, 2003; Borer, 2005a; Alexiadou et al., 2006; Harley, 2017), we also provide evidence that Chuj internal arguments are selected directly by roots. This proposal falls in line with work which takes roots to directly compose with arguments (in line with Harley, 2014, and contra Borer, 2005a; Acquaviva, 2009) and to belong to classes which may be at least partially distinguished based on their semantic types (Levinson, 2007, 2014; see also discussion in Alexiadou et al., 2014). Finally, in Section 7.4, we discuss how variation in the inventory of functional heads between Ch’ol and Chuj accounts for differences in the behavior of unergatives, leading to Ch’ol’s ‘Split-S’ alignment.

7.2 Complex Event Nominals and nominative alignment Coon (2010, 2013a) and Coon & Carolan (2017) have argued for Ch’ol and Chuj, respectively, that the split alignment pattern exemplified by the progressives in (3)–(4) above is due to the fact that the progressive morphemes are one-place stative predicates, which select for nominalized clauses as their single arguments (for related analyses of split alignment patterns in other languages, see e.g. Laka, 2006; Salanova, 2007; and Salanova & Tallman, Chapter 15). (5) PRED [nP i [vP PROi Verb (Object)]]

142      Thematic subjects of both transitive and intransitive nominalizations are controled by the possessor internal to the nominalization, resulting in the nominative pattern characteristic of split ergativity. We briefly review some of this evidence for the basic progressive structure in (5) in Section 7.2.1, and then turn to the structure of the nominalization itself—which is shown to contain verbal structure—in Section 7.2.2.

7.2.1 Progressives as predicates with nominalized complements In both languages, the progressive aspect markers are stative predicates which combine with a single nominal(ized) internal argument. In both Ch’ol and Chuj, the stem forms which appear under the progressive morphemes choñkol and lan are identical to those found under clear embedding verbs like tyech ‘start’ in Ch’ol and lajw ‘finish’ in Chuj (and distinct from stem forms appearing in the nonsplit aspects, like the perfective in (1) and (2) above). This is consistent with the claim that choñkol and lan are predicates. (6) a. Choñkol [i-chuk-oñ-la].  3-catch-1-. ‘It’s catching us.’ b. Mi ke i-tyech   3-start ‘It starts to catch us.’

[i-chuk-oñ-la]. 3-catch-1-. (Ch’ol; Vázquez Álvarez, 2011: 206)

(7) a. Lan [ko-b’o’-an ko-kape].  1-make- 1-coffee ‘We’re making our coffee.’ b. Ix-lajw-i [ko-b’o’-an ko-kape]. -finish-ss 1-make- 1-coffee ‘We finished making our coffee.’ (Chuj; Buenrostro, 2004: 256) Space prevents us from reviewing arguments in favor of the predicative status of the aspect marker in detail, but see Coon (2010, 2013a) and Coon & Carolan (2017). Note that the progressive predicate is not a raising or control verb; rather it is a one-place stative predicate which combines with a single nominal argument. The fact that the progressive aspect markers combine not only with nominalized verb stems, but also with underived event-denoting nominals,

  

143

like k’iñijel ‘party’ in the Ch’ol example in (8), lends support to the proposal that the progressive predicates select for stems that are nominal, not simply nonfinite.² (8) Choñkol k’iñijel tyi aw-otyoty.  party  2-house ‘There’s a party at your house.’ The relevant nominalized stem forms for both languages are schematized in (10) and (12), contrasted with the verbal forms in (9) and (11). Note that eventive verbal stems in both languages appear with ‘status suffixes’ (-e’, -i, -V, and -V’), which encode information about verb class membership, such as transitivity and derivational status; these are dropped in certain environments in Chuj, indicated with square brackets. Turning to the nominal stems, we see that nominalized clauses in both languages—(10) and (12)—consistently mark their subjects via Set A (possessive) morphology, in boxes. Ch’ol shows special suffixes in nominalized forms, of which -el is transparently nominal, appearing on nouns and nominalizations elsewhere in the language (see Section 7.3.1), and cognate with a Proto-Mayan nominalizing suffix (Bricker, 1981; Law & Stuart, 2017). Chuj nominalizations both appear with the suffix -i, and transitives additionally require the suffix -an, discussed below.³ (9) Ch’ol verbal stems; see (1) a. S A – Verb – V – S B b. Verb – i – S B

(10)

Ch’ol nominalized stems; see (3) a. S A – Verb – [e’] – S B b. S A – Verb – el

(11) Chuj verbal stems; see (2) a. S B – S A – Verb – [V’] b. S B – Verb – [i] (12) Chuj nominalized stems; see (4) a. S B – S A – Verb – an – [i] b. S A – Verb – [i] ² Predicate nominal constructions in these languages—along with stative and ‘non verbal’ predicates more generally—may not appear with aspectual morphology, ruling out the possibility that k’iñijel is a predicate in (8). The equivalent of (8) with the perfective aspect marker tyi is ungrammatical. This is expected under an account in which the progressive aspect marker is a predicate which takes k’iñijel as its argument, while the perfective aspect marker is a particle occupying finite Infl⁰. ³ Note that in Chuj, there is no change in stem form between intransitive verbal forms and what we take to be intransitive nominal forms: both appear simply with -i. See Coon & Carolan (2017) for further discussion.

144      The nominalized stems in (10) and (12) are shown in Coon (2010, 2013a) and Coon & Carolan (2017), respectively, to (i) occupy canonical argument positions; (ii) trigger third person agreement; and (iii) appear with nominal morphology, including possessors and (depending on transitivity) nominalizing morphology. They may not appear preceded by determiners, in keeping with cross-linguistic patterns found in Complex Event Nominals, described in the next section (see e.g. Grimshaw, 1990; Borsley & Kornfilt, 2000). The verbal stems in (9) and (11) share none of these properties, appearing only in matrix predicate positions. For examples, additional evidence, and more detailed discussion, see the works cited above. We now turn to the internal structure of these nominalizations.

7.2.2 Progressive stems are nominalized We propose that the nominalized stem forms in the progressive aspects are nominalized above the functional head which introduces the external argument, but below finite Infl⁰. Initial evidence for this structure comes from the licensing of internal arguments. Though both Ch’ol and Chuj progressives share the general characteristics discussed thus far, we find a difference in transitives between the two languages: all transitive stems in Chuj progressives appear with the obligatory addition of the suffix -an (compare (10) and (12) above). Examples (3) and (4) are repeated in (13) and (14). (13) Ch’ol a. Choñkol [k-mek’-ety].  1-hug-2 ‘I’m hugging you.’ b. Choñkol [k-wäy-el].  1-sleep- ‘I’m sleeping.’ (14) Chuj a. Lan [hach ko-chel-an-i.]  2 1-hug-- ‘We’re hugging you.’ b. Lan [ko-way-i.]  1-sleep- ‘We’re sleeping.’

  

145

In both languages, we take absolutive/Set B morphemes to be pronominal clitics, generated via an Agree relationship between a functional head and the argument DP (see Preminger, 2019, and references there). We propose that this difference between transitives connects to differences in the source of absolutive/Set B morphology for objects in the two languages: transitive v⁰ in Ch’ol and finite Infl⁰ in Chuj (see Coon et al., 2014, on Mayan, building on Legate, 2008).⁴ In Chuj nominalizations, finite Infl⁰ is absent and -an must be inserted to license the internal argument. In Ch’ol, transitive v⁰ licenses objects, and since nominalization occurs above v⁰, no additional morphology is required (as in the English equivalents). This difference between Ch’ol and Chuj connects to independently motivated differences among morphologically ergative languages. 7.2.2.1 Agent Focus and absolutive licensing Transitive progressive stems in Chuj (and in related Q’anjob’alan languages) require the addition of the morpheme -an, also found in another environment: the Agent Focus (AF) construction (Kaufman, 1990; Quesada, 1997; Pascual, 2007). The AF stem is required in many Mayan languages in clauses in which a  transitive subject undergoes A-extraction for focus, wh-questions, or relativization (Smith-Stark, 1978; Stiebels, 2006; Aissen, 2017). A baseline transitive clause in the perfective is shown in (15), and the asymmetry between transitive subject and object extraction for Chuj is shown in (16). Extracting the object in (16a) requires no other changes to verbal morphology. However, extracting the transitive subject requires the special AF construction, as in (16b). Because only transitive (i.e. ergative) subjects require this special construction, this falls in the domain of syntactic ergativity (see Deal, 2016; Polinsky, 2017). (15) Ix-ach-s-chel ix ix. -2-3-hug  woman ‘The woman hugged you.’ (16) a. Mach ix-s-chel ix ix? who -3-hug  woman ‘Who did the woman hug?’

⁴ Here we assume that v⁰ and Voice⁰ are bundled into a single head, following Harley (2017); see discussion in Coon (2019). We represent the head which introduces the external argument and which may license the internal argument as v⁰, though nothing crucial hinges on this assumption here.

146      b. Mach ix-ach-chel-an-i? who -2-hug-- ‘Who hugged you?’  Given that Chuj and its close relatives use the same verb form in (i) Aextraction of transitive subjects, and (ii) nominalized transitives, the question becomes: What do these two environments have in common? Building on Ordóñez (1995) on related Popti’, Coon et al. (2014) argue for a unified account of Q’anjob’al’s cognate suffix -on in embedded nominalized transitives like (14a) and AF contexts like (16b). Mayan languages with ergative extraction restrictions, they propose, are languages in which finite Infl⁰ is responsible for licensing absolutive clitics (see also Campana, 1992, Murasugi, 1992, Bittner & Hale, 1996, Legate, 2008, for nominative-as-absolutive approaches to ergativity). In a regular transitive clause, the object must raise to a position above the subject to be cliticized by Infl⁰. We adopt this analysis for Chuj, shown in (17). (17) Chuj transitive clause [InflP Infl0 . . . [ vP object [ subject [VP V object ]]]]

Set B As a side effect of this object raising, the ergative subject is trapped in its base position, as shown in (18). See Deal (2016) for an overview of this approach to syntactic ergativity, as well as Coon, Mateo Pedro, & Preminger (2014), Baier, & Levin (2020) and Assmann et al. (2015) for different formalizations of this blocking in Mayan, not directly relevant here. (18)

Chuj ergative extraction restriction [CP . . . [vP object [subject [VP V object ]]]]

As foreshadowed above, we adopt the proposal of Coon et al. (2014) that the AF morpheme is a v⁰/Voice⁰ head which provides a low source of absolutive or Set B marking—effectively it is an accusative assigner. In an AF clause like (16b), the -an head permits the object to be licensed low, avoiding the problem for ergative extraction, as schematized in (19).

  

147

. . . [vP subject vaf [VP V object ]]]

(19) [CP

Set B In a nominalized clause like (14a), finite Infl⁰ is absent altogether, and -an must appear to permit the internal argument to be licensed. This provides a unified account of the appearance of -an in both (i) ergative extraction contexts, and (ii) transitive nominalizations (schematized below). Ch’ol, on the other hand, shows no ergative extraction restriction. In (20), the ergative subject freely extracts with no change to verbal morphology (cf. Chuj (16b)). (20) Majchki tyi i-mek’-e-y-ety? who  3-hug---2 ‘Who hugged you?’ The free availability of absolutive morphology in Ch’ol transitive nominalized clauses like (13a), coupled with the absence of an ergative extraction restriction, as in (20), lead Coon et al. (2014) to conclude that absolutive has a low source in Ch’ol transitives: transitive v⁰. So long as a nominalization contains vP, absolutive morphology is predicted to be available. Furthermore, since the Ch’ol object need not raise in order to be licensed, ergative extraction is not blocked (cf. (18)). This approach is in line with Legate’s (2008) proposal for a division in the locus of absolutive across ergative languages. 7.2.2.2 The internal structure of progressive nominalizations Proposed structures for transitive and intransitive nominalizations in the two languages are shown in (21) and (22). (21)

(22)

nP DPi

n’

possessor n Set A

nP DPi

vP

n’

possessor n Set A

v’

PROi v Chuj: -an Ch’ol: -Ø

VP V Set B

vP VP

v V

DP

PROi

148      We take these nominalizations to involve verbal structure up to the functional heads responsible for introducing the external argument, here represented as vP. Because these forms license arguments, we follow Grimshaw (1990) in caling these CENs (see also Coon & Carolan, 2017). Subjects are generated as PROs obligatorily controled by the Set A-marked possessor.⁵ Crucially, the fact that PRO consistently tracks the subject accounts for the fact that subjects pattern alike in nominalizations, deriving the ‘split’ alignment pattern. The fact that control is subject-oriented is typologically unsurprising. Morphologically ergative languages vary in whether ergativity has a syntactic effect. While a number of ergative languages are like Chuj in restricting the extraction of ergative subjects, even these typically show a nominative pattern of control; see discussion in Legate (2012); Deal (2015). As shown in these diagrams, we take Set A to be the realization of an Agree relationship between the functional head which introduces the possessor, and the in situ possessor itself (on par with the assignment of Set A by v⁰ to external arguments in the verbal domain). The transitive object is absolutive (Set B). In Ch’ol, absolutive is always assigned by v⁰ in transitives, and no additional morphology is required. In Chuj, -an must be used to achieve the same pattern. Further evidence that these nominalizations contain verbal structure comes from the availability of the full repertoire of voice- and valence-adjusting morphology internal to the nominal stems. This is shown for the Ch’ol passive and Chuj causative forms in (23) and (24). (23) Choñkol [i-mejl-el crus].  3-make.- cross ‘They’re making the cross.’ (Ch’ol; Vázquez Álvarez, 2002: 345) (24) Lan [ko-k’ib’-tz-it-an heb’ k-unin].  1-grow---  1-child ‘We are raising our children.’

(Chuj)

Similarly, these CEN forms can appear with verbal modifiers, shown for example with the adverbial lu’ ‘all; to completion’ in the Ch’ol example in (25).

⁵ Note that there is no evidence for A-movement internal to the grammars of these languages. We thus represent the pattern as one of possessors controling subject PROs, though nothing in the analysis below would change if this were instead a case of raising to possessor position. See Coon (2013a) for further discussion.

   (25) Choñkol [ i-lu’ k’ux  3-completely eat ‘He ate all the corn.’

149

jiñi ixim].  corn

7.3 Nominalizations and the nature of roots The CENs above not only provide an explanation of the appearance of aspectbased split ergativity in the progressive aspect, they also illustrate an important difference between the two languages in terms of the licensing of absolutive objects: While Ch’ol transitives have a low source for licensing objects (transitive v⁰), Chuj transitive objects are licensed by finite Infl⁰. In a nominalized clause—nominalized above vP but lacking finite Infl⁰—we correctly predict that nothing additional will be necessary to license an object in Ch’ol. Chuj, on the other hand, requires the addition of a special v⁰ head, -an (Section 7.2.2.1). In previous work focusing on Ch’ol, Coon (2013a) proposed not only that v⁰ may license absolutive internal arguments in Ch’ol, but rather, it must. This biconditional requirement of v⁰ was intended to capture the empirical generalization found in Ch’ol that while transitive and unaccusative stems surface as verbs, as in (1) above (or CENs, nominalized above v⁰, as in (3)), unergative and antipassive stems surface as nominal. Unergative and antipassive stems in Ch’ol require a light verb in order to predicate, as in (26). According to Coon (2013a), this can be captured by a biconditional property of v⁰: because unergative and antipassive constructions lack a syntactic internal argument, and because v⁰ must assign absolutive, v⁰ may not merge in unergative and antipassive (‘complementless’) stems. (26) Ch’ol unergative and antipassive stems are nominal a. Tyi k-cha’l-e [N soñ].  1-do- dance ‘I danced.’ b. Tyi i-cha’l-e [N wuts’-oñ-el].  3-do- wash-- ‘She washed (something).’ In this section we argue that the requirement for certain verbs to appear with internal arguments must extend beyond Ch’ol v⁰, and is instead best captured as a semantic requirement of roots. We provide evidence for the semantic requirement of roots from two domains: (i) a comparison with Chuj

150      (Section 7.3.1), which has the same requirement but a different source for absolutive (i.e. Infl⁰ not v⁰); and (ii) from smaller Result Nominals and derived nominals in both languages (Section 7.3.2), which lack v⁰ but also require that objects either be realized or overtly suppressed. The semantic requirement is formalized in Section 7.3.3. Section 7.4 returns to the question of Ch’ol’s nominal unergative and antipassives. First, a note about roots in Mayan languages is in order. As in other Mayan languages, Ch’ol and Chuj roots may be classed by the types of stems they produce, and by the morphology required to produce these stems (see e.g. Haviland, 1994). Roots which directly form verbal stems can generally be pffi pffi classed as either transitive ( TV) or intransitive ( ITV). For example, the cognate roots choñ/chonh ‘sell’ are classed as transitive (annotated with subscript ) because they form transitive stems in (27a) and (28a) directly, without the addition of any derivational morphology. Transitive stems are characterized by the appearance of transitive status suffixes (harmonic -V in Ch’ol and -V’ in Chuj; Chuj status suffixes are conditioned by prosodic factors and are sometimes omitted (Royer, to appear), as seen in (28)), and by the ability to combine with two DPs showing Set A and Set B cross-referencing morphology (third person Set B is null). Intransitive roots like chäm/cham ‘die’, on the other hand, surface directly in intransitive stems, as in (27b) and (28b); intransitive stems appear with the intransitive status suffix -i and take only a single DP argument (marked with Set B in nonsplit aspects). (27) Ch’ol a. Tyi k-choñTV-o k-wakax.  1-sell- 1-cow ‘I sold my cow.’ b. Tyi chämITV-i  die- ‘My cow died.’

k-wakax. 1-

(28) Chuj a. Ix-in-chonhTV nok’ -1-sell  I sold my cow.’ b. Ix-chamITV nok’ -die  ‘My cow died.’

hin-wakax. 1s-cow hin-wakax. 1s-cow

  

151

pffi Non- TV roots—i.e. intransitive, nominal, adjectival, and ‘positional’ roots—may form transitive stems, but they require derivational morphology pffi (e.g. causative) in order to do so. Similarly, while roots from non- ITV classes may form intransitive stems, they require derivational morphology (e.g. passive, antipassive). While a number of roots show overlap between more than one class, we only focus on those which clearly follow the diagnostics pffi pffi pffi for TV and ITV.⁶ The class of ITV roots in each language is relatively small and consists largely (or perhaps entirely, but see fn. 9) of unaccusatives, as in (27b) and (28b). Constructions which correspond to unergatives—i.e. have a single, external argument—are typically built from nominal and positional roots, discussed further in Section 7.4. pffi In the remainder of this section we propose that TV and pffi ITVð¼ unaccusativeÞ roots require semantic saturation of an (internal) argument slot; we focus primarily on transitives since this is where we find the clearest alternations in how the internal argument is realized. The semantic pffi requirement of TV roots can be achieved either by merging a DP complement, or by overt morphology which we suggest indicates existential binding of an implicit argument. Different types of nominalization provide evidence that this is a requirement imposed by the root itself, rather than by higher functional structure.

7.3.1 Ch’ol and Chuj transitives require objects When transitive roots appear in transitive stem forms in both Ch’ol and Chuj, a syntactically present internal argument is required. Illustrative examples from Ch’ol are shown in (29). The transitive stem in (29a)— formed directly from the transitive root wuts’ ‘wash’—appears with an overt object. Like many Mayan languages, Ch’ol is robustly pro-drop, and the object is realized as null pro in the appropriate anaphoric context, as in the question/ answer pair in (29b). (29) a. Tyi k-wuts’-u jiñi pisil.  1-wash-  clothes. ‘I washed the clothes.’

(Ch’ol)

⁶ See Haviland (1994) for more on root classes and stem forms in Mayan, and Coon (2019) on Chuj specifically. The class of positional roots is not discussed further here (see Henderson, 2019), though the behavior of positionals under nominalization is an interesting topic for future work.

152      b. Q: What did you do with the clothes? A: Tyi k-wuts’-u pro.  1-wash- them ‘I washed them.’ Crucially the transitive stem form in (29b) must be interpreted as having a referential object. In order to refer to the activity of washing in general, the antipassive from (26b) is required. The requirement for objects extends to the CENs from Section 7.2. A Ch’ol progressive transitive with a full syntactic object is shown in (30a). As above, the object may be pro-dropped, but in the absence of a syntactic object, an antipassive is required, as in (30b). In (30b), the root wuts’ appears with antipassive and nominalizing morphology as the complement to the preposition tyi; the thematic subject combines directly with the progressive predicate. We return to antipassives in Sections 7.3.3.3 and 7.4. (30) a. Choñkol [k-wuts’ {jiñi pisil / pro].  1-wash  clothes them ‘I’m washing {the clothes/them}.’

(Ch’ol)

b. Choñkol-oñ tyi [wuts’-oñ-el]. -1  wash-- ‘I’m doing some washing.’ (lit.: ‘I’m at washing.’) If the requirement that verbal forms have objects in Ch’ol were specifically connected to a property of v⁰, we might expect it to be absent in Chuj. Recall from Section 7.2.2 that while transitive objects in Ch’ol are licensed by v⁰, transitive objects in Chuj are licensed by finite Infl⁰ (see (17)). All else being equal, Ch’ol’s little-v⁰ requirement is predicted not to apply, and so we might expect Chuj objects to be omittable. However, transitive verbs in Chuj also require an internal argument. As shown in (31a), the transitive verb appears with an overt object, introduced by the noun classifier anh, used with nominals that denote plants and plantderived entities.⁷ Noun classifiers are used to mark (weak) definiteness in Chuj (see Buenrostro et al., 1989; Royer, 2019). However, they can also appear ⁷ The variant of Chuj under study has sixteen noun classifiers, which vary according to physical or social properties of the nominal referent. See Craig (1986), Buenrostro et al. (1989), Zavala (2000), and Hopkins (2012b) for more on noun classifiers across Q’anjob’alan languages.

  

153

without an overt nominal, in which case they function as third person pronouns, henceforth ‘classifier pronouns’ (see Craig, 1986, on related Popti’). This is shown in example (31b) where the verb’s internal argument is satisfied by the classifier pronoun alone. In this context, the classifier pronoun is obligatory, and used to refer back to the beans. (31) a. Ix-ko-man anh tut. -1-buy  beans ‘We bought the beans.’

(Chuj)

b. Q: Did y’all buy the beans? A: Hi, ix-ko-man *(anh). yes -1-buy  ‘Yes, we bought them (the beans).’ Unlike Ch’ol and most other Mayan languages, which are robustly pro-drop, Chuj is not pro-drop: Classifier pronouns must appear wherever possible. If full DP objects are required in transitive clauses, as in (31a), then the obligatory presence of the classifier pronoun in (31b), and by extension of the null pro in Ch’ol (29b), is unsurprising.⁸ Paralleling the Ch’ol facts again, the only way to omit the object and refer to the activity of grinding in general is to derive the transitive root with the absolutive antipassive suffix -waj, which we return to in Section 7.3.3. While in Ch’ol antipassive stems must be nominalized (see (30b)), such stems in Chuj are verbal: (32) Ix-onh-man-waj-i. -1-buy-- ‘We did some buying.’ We just saw that underived transitive verbs in Chuj, unless further derived as in (32), require an internal argument. The Ch’ol v⁰-biconditional discussed above does not naturally extend to Chuj, since transitive objects are licensed by finite Infl⁰. Porting the generalization to Infl⁰ in Chuj will also not work since

⁸ Note that transitive verb stems in Chuj sometimes appear without an overt classifier pronoun in a highly circumscribed set of environments, but we nevertheless contend that such clauses contain a null pronominal object (as in Ch’ol). Crucially, such examples only arise when the internal argument cannot be pronominalized with one of Chuj’s classifiers. This is possible because not all Chuj nouns are classifiable, including nominals that denote body parts, abstract nouns, and some recently introduced nouns.

154      CENs lack Infl⁰ but nevertheless require an internal argument, as shown in (33a) and (33b). This is not expected if the obligatoriness of the internal argument is determined by a requirement on Infl⁰. (33) a. Lan [NP ko-man-an anh  1-buy-  ‘We’re buying beans.’

tut]. beans

b. Q: Are y’all buying the beans? A: Hi, lan [NP ko-man-an *(anh)]. yes  1-buy-  ‘Yes, we’re buying them (the beans).’ c. Lan [NP ko-man-waj-i].  1-buy--ss ‘We’re doing some buying.’ Unlike the transitive verbs inflected with perfective aspect in (31), which have their internal argument licensed by Infl⁰, the CENs (bracketed) in (33a) and (33b) lack finite Infl⁰. As discussed in Section 7.2.2, this means that -an must surface to allow the licensing of the obligatory internal argument. The only way for transitive CENs to appear without their internal argument is for the root to be derived with antipassive morphology, as in (33c). The internal argument requirement found in Chuj thus cannot be attributed to properties of the absolutive case-assigning head, as proposed in Coon (2013a) for Ch’ol.

7.3.2 Derived nominals and agentive nominalizations Further evidence that the internal argument requirement is one imposed by roots in both languages, not by higher functional heads, comes from nominalizations which lack a vP layer. Specifically, if the requirement on the appearance of internal arguments follows from semantic properties of the verbal root, as proposed above, then we expect this requirement to remain across all nominalization sizes. We examine Result Nominals in Section 7.3.2.1, and turn to agentive argument nominalizations in Section 7.3.2.2.

  

155

7.3.2.1 Result Nominals Here we discuss nominalizations which we propose contain no verbal structure, and are instead nominalized directly from a root. We adopt Grimshaw’s (1990) terminology of ‘Result Nominal’ (RN) since, like the English RNs she examines, these nominalizations in Mayan lack the functional structure to license full arguments. Note, however, that we depart from analyses which take derived nominals to (necessarily) contain verbal functional structure, instead claiming that these are nominalized directly from a (verbal) root (for related discussion, see Grimshaw, 1990; Alexiadou, 2001, Chapter 5; Alexiadou & Schäfer, 2010; Borer, 2013; Iordăchioaia, Chapter 10; and Roy & Soare, 2014, Chapter 13; among others). Nonetheless, we argue that certain roots—i.e. pffi pffi TV and ITV roots—are semantically specified to combine with an internal argument. In the absence of the functional structure to syntactically license a full DP complement, RNs resort to alternatives described below. Chuj RNs are shown in (34), and discussed in Buenrostro (2013). Coon & Carolan (2017) contrast these with the CENs of Section 7.2. While the progressive predicate requires a CEN-type complement, some predicates like yamoch ‘begin’ may appear with either RNs (34) or CENs (35). (34) Chuj Result Nominals a. Ix-a-yamoch [RN mol-oj -2-begin gather- ‘You began coffee-gathering.’

kape]. coffee

b. Ix-a-yamoch [RN munlaj-el]. -2-begin work- ‘You began working.’ (35) Chuj Complex Event Nominals a. Ix-a-yamoch [CEN ha-mol-an -2-begin 2-gather- ‘You began to gather the coffee.’

te’ 

kape]. coffee

b. Ix-a-yamoch [CEN ha-munlaj-i]. -2-begin 2-work- ‘You began to work.’ Coon & Carolan (2017) propose that while the Complex Event Nominalizations are nominalized above vP and contain PRO subjects (see (21) and (22)), the Result Nominals in (34) are nominalized directly from the root and

156      contain no verbal structure. Transitive roots appear with -oj and intransitive roots appear with -el; no voice or valence morphology is possible internal to these forms, compatible with the proposed absence of verbal structure (cf. (24)). Similarly, while CENs in Chuj may be modified by adverbial elements (as in Ch’ol in (25)), the RNs may not. The -el suffix in (34b) is not productive, appearing only on a small class of what appear to be unspecified-object transitives.⁹ The -oj suffix in (34a) is more productive, appearing on transitives but requiring the presence of a bare nonreferential NP object, illustrated in (36). (36) Chuj derived nominal nP

n -oj √TV

√P NP object

Crucially, the bare object kape ‘coffee’ in (34a) cannot be omitted.¹⁰ Moreover, the object cannot appear with higher DP-level material such as classifiers or possessors, as shown in (37).

⁹ Unergative verb stems in Chuj are typically derived from nominal and positional roots via one of several suffixes, discussed further in Section 7.4. These derived unergative stems may not appear with -el, compatible with the proposal that -el combines directly with roots. Besides munlaj above, roots which may appear with -el include lolon ‘speak’, wa’ ‘eat’, and uk’ ‘drink’ (Buenrostro, 2013). The first, like munlaj in (34), appears to be historically derived (by virtue of being larger than CVC), but is not synchronically decomposable. The latter two have transitive equivalents but are unlike regular transitive roots in their ability to appear with and without internal arguments— i.e. these appear to be true unergatives. Both wa’ and uk’ are listed in the Hopkins (2012a) dictionary as both transitive and intransitive roots, attesting to their unusual status among transitive forms. ¹⁰ There appear to be at least some transitive roots which exceptionally permit the total absence of an object NP in -oj nominals, including jach’-oj ‘the act of harvesting’ from the transitive jach’ ‘harvest’ (Hopkins, 2012a), and aw-oj ‘planting’, given in Buenrostro (2013) without an object. Initial investigation suggests that these forms pffi correspond to  very common activities, and may be grammaticalized. TVoj þ OBJ forms appear to have specialized meanings, unattested Also note that at least some with the CENs. Hopkins (2012a) gives, for example, k’an-oj ix (‘ask.for woman’) as a particular form of marriage. This is compatible with proposals that the domain of specialized meaning is low in the structure (e.g. Arad, 2003).

   (37) *Ix-a-yamoch

[mol-oj te’/ ha-2-begin gather- / 2 intended: ‘You began to gather the/your coffee.’

kape]. coffee

157

(Chuj)

In order to omit the internal argument and refer to the act of buying, the root must be derived with the suffix -wal, which we decompose as the antipassive suffix -w (see Section 7.3.3.3), and a nominalizing suffix -al, as in (38a). Suffixes of the form -Vl are present in nominal and nominalized forms both in Chuj and throughout the Mayan family (Hopkins, 1967; Bricker, 1981; Law & Stuart, 2017). In (38b) we observe that theme NPs are ungrammatical with -wal nominals. (38) a. Ix-ko-yamoch [RN man-w-al]. -1-begin buy-- ‘We began buying.’

(Chuj)

b. *Ix-ko-yamoch [RN man-w-al tut]. -1-begin buy-- beans intended: ‘We began bean-buying.’ In Ch’ol, RNs show a similar pattern, discussed in greater detail in Gutiérrez Sánchez, 2004, Vázquez Álvarez (2011) and Coon (2013a). RNs in Ch’ol frequently appear as complements to the preposition tyi, as in (39a). As in pffi Chuj, RNs formed from TV roots require an object; determiners, possessors, and other D⁰-level elements are impossible with these objects, as shown pffi in (39b). Finally, just as in Chuj, a TV may appear without a theme NP in the presence of an antipassive morpheme, as shown in (39c). This pattern holds across the class of transitive roots in Ch’ol. (39) a. Tyi ujty-i-y-oñ tyi  finish---1  ‘I finished clothes-washing.’

[RN wuts’ pisil]. wash clothes

b. *Tyi ujty-i-y-oñ tyi [RN wuts’ jiñi  finish---1  wash  intended: ‘I washed the clothes.’ c. Tyi ujty-i-y-oñ  finish---1 ‘I finished washing.’

tyi 

[RN wuts’-oñ-el]. wash--

pisil]. clothes

(Ch’ol)

158      7.3.2.2 Agentive nominalizations A similar pattern is found with transitive roots in argument nominalizations. pffi Agentive nominalizations in Chuj are derived with the suffix -um. TV roots may either appear with a bare NP internal argument, as in (40a), or in the absence of an object, further derived with the antipassive suffix -waj, as in (40b).¹¹ (40) Agent nominalizations in Chuj a. Ix-w-il [DP ix chonh-um *(wa’il/ ixim/ k’apak)]. -1-see  sell-. tortilla/ corn/ clothes ‘I saw the tortilla-/corn-/clothes-seller.’ b. Ix-w-il [DP ix chonh-waj-um (*wa’il/ *ixim/ *k’apak)]. -1-see  sell--. tortilla/ corn/ clothes ‘I saw the saleswoman.’ When the agentive morpheme -um suffixes directly to the transitive root chonh ‘sell’, as in (40a), a bare NP corresponding to the internal argument cannot be omitted. To make reference to ‘salespeople’ more generally, the transitive root must be further derived with the absolutive antipassive suffix waj, also required to eliminate the requirement on internal arguments with pffi regular transitives, as in (32) above. A TV root suffixed with -waj-um may not appear with an internal argument, as in (40b). Just like the derived event nominals seen in Section 7.3.2.1, the internal argument in examples like (40a) must be a bare NP; classifiers and possessors are impossible inside the nominalization, as demonstrated in (41). (41) Ix-w-il [DP ix chonh-um (*ixim/ *s- ) wa’il]. -1-see  sell-.  3 tortilla ‘I saw the tortilla-seller.’ This pattern is replicated in Ch’ol in (42). To form an agent nominalization, the transitive root choñ may either combine with a bare NP object, as in (42a), or with the antipassive suffix -oñ followed by the nominalizing suffix -el and no object, as in (42b). Again, the object in forms like (42a) must be a bare NP.

¹¹ Even though -um and waj-um nominalizations are highly productive for transitive roots, specialized meanings sometimes arise (see also fn. 9 for similar facts on -oj). For example, the form joy-um lu’um, with the transitive root joy ‘to dig’ and the nominal lu’um ‘land’ translates to ‘grave-digger’; and the form il-waj-um, with the transitive root il ‘to see’ translates as ‘guardian’.

  

159

(42) Agentive nominalizations in Ch’ol a. Tyi k-il-ä [DP aj-choñ*(waj/ ixim/ pisil)].  1-see- .-selltortilla/ corn/ clothes ‘I saw the tortilla-/corn-/clothes-seller.’ b. Tyi k-il-ä [DP aj-choñ-oñ-el (*waj/ *ixim/ *pisil)].  1-see- .-sell-- tortilla/ corn/ clothes ‘I saw the salesperson.’

7.3.2.3 Summary of small nominalizations To summarize, we have observed the pattern summarized in (43): Transitive roots in the smaller RNs and agent nominalizations seen so far either require the presence of an NP object, or appear with overt antipassivizing morphology—the suffix -oñ in Ch’ol and -w(aj) in Chuj. (43) Nominalizations in Ch’ol and Chuj Chuj pffi Result Nominal ‐oj ðNPÞ pffi ‐w‐al pffi agent ‐um ðNPÞ pffi nominalization ‐waj‐um

Ch’ol pffi  ðNPÞ pffi ‐on͂‐el pffi aj‐  ðNPÞ pffi aj‐ ‐on͂‐el

pffi The patterns illustrated here are highly productive across the class of TV roots in both languages, and we propose they offer support for the proposal that the internal argument requirement is a semantic requirement of roots. Because these structures do not contain the functional structure to license a full DP argument, the semantic requirement must be met either by (i) a bare NP complement or (ii) an implicit argument, existentially bound by the antipassive morpheme, detailed in the following section.

7.3.3 Obligatory internal arguments: A semantic requirement Here we develop the proposal in Coon (2019) for Chuj that the internal pffi argument requirement follows from semantic properties of TV and pffi ITV (unaccusative) roots (i.e. verbal eventive roots). The way in which these arguments may be realized—as full DPs, bare NPs, or as existentiallybound implicit arguments—follows from the presence of absence of functional

160      structure available to license arguments. Specifically, we argue that transitive and intransitive roots in Chuj and Ch’ol are semantic type 〈e, 〈v, t〉〉 (functions from entities to functions from eventualities to truth values), where v is used as the type for eventualities. The requirement for internal arguments is explained by independent compositional facts: Hardwired into the semantics of Ch’ol and Chuj verbal roots is the necessity to express a relation between individuals (the internal argument) and events, as illustrated by the Chuj root denotations in (44). (44) a. [[b’at]]= λx.λe.(x)(e) b. [[man]] = λx.λe.(x)(e) We assume following Kratzer (1996) and subsequent work that agents are not directly arguments of the root, but are added by higher functional structure. pffi For our purposes here, we suggest that TV roots are those roots that are directly compatible with external causation by an agent (Levin & Rappaport pffi Hovav, 1995); ITV roots require derivational morphology to add an agent. Crucially, we do not assume that Ch’ol or Chuj behave differently from other languages in requiring verbs to take internal arguments. Previous work has proposed that what is special about the class of verbs in any given language is that they must combine with arguments (see Baker, 2003, and discussion there). What is special about Ch’ol and Chuj is the robust morphology illustrating the different processes by which this requirement is satisfied. In what follows, we demonstrate that there are different strategies for the root’s internal argument requirement to be satisfied, and that syntactic and morphological differences in the structure of nominalizations make these different pffi pffi strategies apparent. Specifically, TV and ITV roots may combine with (i) DPs via Functional Application (Section 7.3.3.1); (ii) bare NPs via Restrict and Existential Closure (Section 7.3.3.2); and (iii) an implicit internal argument, existentially bound by a higher antipassive head (Section 7.3.3.3). 7.3.3.1 Functional Application The most basic strategy to saturate the root’s internal argument requirement is to compose it with an internal argument of type e via Functional Application. Consider (45), with the transitive root il ‘to see’: (45) Ix-y-il winh winak ix -3-see  winak  ‘Malin saw the man.’

Malin. Malin

(Chuj)

  

161

pffi Assuming a Davidsonian event semantics (Davidson, 1967), the TV root’s internal argument requirement is successfully saturated via Functional Application by the full DP expression winh winak ‘the man’ (type e), as illustrated in (46). (We assume that the unsaturated event argument undergoes existential closure later in the derivation, and we ignore the contribution of perfective aspect marking.) For transitive roots, we also assume that the external argument is added via Kratzer’s (1996) Event Identification by v⁰/ Voice⁰. (46) [[vP yil winh winak Malin]] = λe. ([ιx. (x)])(e) & A = Malin Crucially, arguments of type e must also be licensed in the derivation by an appropriate functional head, as discussed in detail for each language in Section 7.2. In the domain of verbs, Infl⁰ licenses absolutive (internal) arguments in Chuj, while v⁰ licenses absolutives in Ch’ol. CENs contain at least a vP layer below the layer of nominalization; as a result, no additional licensing morphology is required in Ch’ol, and the morpheme -an is obligatorily inserted in Chuj. A Chuj example is shown in (47). (47) Lan hin-man-an ch’anh  1-buy-  ‘I’m buying the book’ (48)

libro. book

(Chuj)

[[vP hin-man-an ch’anh libro]] = λe. ([ιx. (x)])(e) & A = S

7.3.3.2 Restrict and Existential Closure The smaller nominalizations examined in Section 7.3.2 do not contain the functional heads required to license arguments of type e and must use other strategies to satisfy the root’s internal argument requirement. This is evidenced by the fact that such nominalizations must combine with bare nouns, disallowing all material indicative of D⁰-level structure, such as noun classifiers and possessive marking (see Section 7.3.2). Since full nominal arguments of type e must be licensed by v⁰ or finite Infl⁰, the absence of verbal structure with such nominalizations prevents full DPs from occupying the internal argument position. However, as illustrated in examples like the agentive nominalizations in Chuj (40a) and Ch’ol (42a), an overt bare noun, which we take to be a function of semantic type 〈e,t〉, is

162      nevertheless required. Since Functional Application requires semantic composition with an argument of type e, the internal argument requirement in such cases must be satisfied by means of another mechanism. Coon (2019) argues that such a mechanism independently exists to derive a construction known as the incorporation antipassive in Chuj, and that this mechanism corresponds to Chung & Ladusaw’s (2004) operations of Restrict and Existential Closure (EC).¹² In the interest of space, readers are referred to Coon (2019) for a detailed account of how these operations proceed (also see Maxwell, 1976, and Coon, 2019, for further details on the incorporation antipassive). The crucial point here is the use of the antipassive morpheme, indicative of Restrict+Existential Closure, offers an alternative route to satisfy the root’s internal argument requirement, by allowing it to compose with an argument of type 〈e,t〉. Unlike full DP arguments, the bare NP complement does not require licensing by a functional head. 7.3.3.3 Derivational morphology: -w(aj) and -oñ Finally, recall that for all three types of nominalizations examined above— CENs, RNs, and agentive argument nominalizations—the requirement on a syntactically-present internal argument appears to be lifted with the addition of specific antipassive derivational morphology. As was schematized in table (43), Ch’ol consistently uses the suffix -oñ in both derived and agentive nominalizations which lack syntactic internal arguments. Chuj, on the other hand, uses either -w or -waj, as shown in examples (33c), (38), and (40b). We suggest that -w and -waj are variants of the same morpheme when appearing internal to nominalizations, which we represent as -w(aj) in the remainder of the chapter; see section 7.4 on -w(aj) in the verbal domain.¹³ Building on Coon’s (2019) analysis of the absolutive antipassive in Chuj, we argue that -w(aj) in Chuj and -oñ in Ch’ol can be construed as overt reflexes of existential closure (Diesing, 1992), used to bind a variable—i.e. an implicit pffi object.¹⁴ For instance, in the case of the antipassive CEN in (33c), the TV ¹² Restrict and Existential Closure are defined as follows. (i) Restrict = λP. λQ. λx. λe. [P(x)(e) ∧ Q(x)]; (ii) Existential Closure = λP λe. ∃x[P(x)(e)]. ¹³ Note that both -w and -waj are also found in the verbal domain, in the context of antipassive constructions. Specifically, in the verbal domain, -w appears with incorporation antipassives, while -waj appears with antipassives which lack a theme, as in (32) above; Coon (2019) decomposes this into -w-aj. If these heads can be analyzed as having the same function in both nominal and verbal domains, we might expect the derived event nominals to end in -waj-Vl. One possibility is that -waj-Vl collapsed into -al, accounting for the difference in vowels between -al here and -el in nominals like (34b) above. ¹⁴ In Coon (2019), the morpheme that is argued to be an overt reflex of existential binding in the verbal domain is -aj; -w introduces the agent in verbal antipassives. The use of -aj is shown to extend beyond absolutive antipassives, as it can appear in passive constructions where the author argues that it binds an implicit external argument. We leave open the question of whether -waj should be decomposed in this way in the context of smaller nominals, which do not contain an external argument.

  

163

root’s semantic requirement is semantically satisfied by a covert variable, repesented as x∃, which combines with the root via Functional Application. The role of the antipassive morpheme is to existentially close (EC) this variable. This is schematized in example (49). We use ‘∃P’ to label the projection headed by -w(aj), and ignore for the purposes of this diagram progressive marking, agreement marking, and the suffix -i. (49) Existential closure of internal argument in CEN; (33c)

[nP DPposs [n [∃P -waj [vP PRO [v [VP ROOT x∃ ]]]]]] EC A similar analysis can be extended to cases of smaller RNs and agentive nominalizations, with the minimal difference that they lack verbal structure, as schematized for an RN in (50): (50) Existential closure of internal argument in RN; (38)

[nP [n -al [∃P -w [√P √TV x∃ ]]]] EC

7.3.4 Summary In sum, we argued in this section that the requirement on internal arguments of verbal roots in Ch’ol and Chuj follows from a semantic requirement pffi pffi associated with TV and ITV roots, namely that they must compose with an internal argument (see e.g. Baker, 2003, on the class of verbs). Given these languages’ clearly diagnosable classes of roots, combined with their robust stem-forming morphology, the different options available for satisfying this requirement are visible in a way that we do not find in morphologicallypffi pffi poorer languages like English. Since the requirement for TV and ITV roots to compose with internal arguments is visible not only in verbal forms, but in nominalizations with and without verbal structure, we contend that it must come from the root, and not from higher categorizing/functional material. Specifically, we observe that the semantic requirement interacts with the syntactic heads available for licensing full arguments. When a DP internal argument of type e is present, it composes by means of Functional Application—an option only available in structures which contain verbal structure, including Complex Event Nominalizations. When this option is not

164      available, two alternatives are possible.¹⁵ First, we argued that the root’s internal argument can be saturated by a bare NP via Chung & Ladusaw’s (2004) Restrict and Existential Closure operations. Second, the root may combine with an implicit argument, but then overt morphology is required to existentially bind this variable. Specifically, the antipassive suffixes -(w)aj in Chuj and -oñ in Ch’ol were argued to instantiate an overt reflex of existential closure.

7.4 Derived nominals and Split-S Recall the generalization that we began with in Section 7.3: in Ch’ol, all and only verbs (or nominalizations containing verbal structure) combine with full type e internal arguments. Specifically, unaccusatives, passives, and transitives all appear directly in verbal stem forms, shown in the perfective aspect in (51). (51) Ch’ol ‘complementing’ stems are verbs a. Tyi majl-i-y-oñ.  go---1 ‘I went.’ b. Tyi mejk’-i-y-oñ.  hug.---1 ‘I was hugged.’ c. Tyi i-mek’-e-y-oñ.  3-hug---1 ‘She hugged me.’

(unaccusative)

(passive)

(transitive)

On the other hand, unergatives, antipassives, and incorporation antipassives must all appear in nominal stem forms in Ch’ol, and all require the use of a light verb like cha’l in order to predicate, as shown in (52). This results in what has been described as a Split-S system in Ch’ol (Gutiérrez Sánchez, 2004; Vázquez Álvarez 2011): while unaccusative and passive subjects are encoded via Set B (absolutive) morphology in (51), the subjects of the unergative and ¹⁵ Due to lack of space, we have intentionally left out a discussion of how verbs compose with complement clauses (CPs), which are arguably not of type e. One possibility which should be further explored is that they move, leaving a trace of the right type for the verb to compose. This is in line with previous accounts on the syntax and semantics of CPs (see e.g. Moulton, 2009, 2015, as well as Chapter 11). Evidence that this type of analysis could be on the right track comes from word order facts: While both Ch’ol and Chuj are VOS, sentences with complement clauses exhibit obligatory VSO order, suggesting they undergo obligatory movement (see also Aissen, 1992, for similar observation in other Mayan languages).

  

165

antipassive stems in (52) are encoded via Set A (ergative) morphemes on the transitive light verb. (52) Ch’ol ‘complementless’ stems are nouns a. Tyi k-cha’l-e soñ.  1-do- dance ‘I danced.’

(unergative)

b. Tyi k-cha’l-e mäñ-oñ-el.  1-do-ss buy-- ‘I did some buying.’

(antipassive)

c. Tyi k-cha’l-e juch’-ixim.  1-do- grind-corn ‘I did some corn-grinding.’

(incorporation antipassive)

Note, however, that the crucial generalization is that unergative and antipassive stems are nominal. In the perfective aspect, the transitive light verb cha’l is used and the subject is simply encoded as a transitive subject. However, the progressive already contains a predicate—the intransitive aspectual predicate choñkol (see Section 7.2.1). Subjects of progressive unergatives and antipassives are marked directly on the aspectual predicate; given that choñkol is intransitive, it is unsurprising that subjects are encoded via Set B (absolutive) morphology. The lexical stem surfaces as a derived nominal (Section 7.2.1), introduced by the preposition tyi, as shown in (53). (53) a. Choñkol-oñ tyi -1  ‘I’m dancing.’

soñ. dance

b. Choñkol-oñ tyi mäñ-oñ-el. -1  buy-- ‘I’m doing some buying.’ c. Choñkol-oñ tyi juch’-ixim. -1  grind-corn ‘I’m corn-grinding.’ As reviewed in Section 7.3, Coon (2013a) proposed a two-way requirement on v⁰ in order to capture the division of labor between verbal stems, which always contain an internal argument, and derived v⁰-less nominal stems, which do not. This is shown in (54).

166      (54) Ch’ol little-v generalization (Coon, 2013a) a. All internal arguments must be assigned (absolutive) case by a v0 head; b. All v0 heads must assign absolutive case to an internal argument. However, in Section 7.3 we argued that the requirement that an internal argument be present—a requirement seen in both Ch’ol and in Chuj, and independent of verbal structure—is not due (solely) to v⁰, as (54b) would have pffi pffi it, but rather due to the semantic type of TV and ITV roots themselves. The question then remains of how to capture the generalization that stems which lack type e internal arguments may only surface as nominal stems in Ch’ol. Here again, Chuj provides an instructive point of comparison. In exactly the environments in which Ch’ol stems must surface as nouns—unergatives and antipassives—Chuj verb stems require the suffix -w. Compare the forms in (55) and (56). (55) Ch’ol a. Choñkol-oñ tyi soñ. -1  dance ‘I’m dancing.’ b. Choñkol-oñ tyi wuts’-oñ-el. -1  wash-- ‘I’m washing.’ c. Choñkol-oñ tyi wuts’-pisil. -1  wash-clothes ‘I’m clothes-washing.’ (56) Chuj a. Lan hin-chanhal-w-i.  1-dance-- ‘I’m dancing.’ b. Lan hin-juk’-w-aj-i.  1-wash--- ‘I’m washing.’ c. Lan hin-juk’-w-i k’apak.  1-wash-- clothes ‘I’m clothes-washing.’

  

167

Coon (2019) analyzes -w as a v⁰/Voice⁰ head which introduces the external argument, but does not participate in Set A-inducing agreement. Note that in Chuj, this suffix is present not just on antipassives, but on unergatives as well. The unergative in (56a) is built from the nominal root chanhal; since nominal roots do not combine with internal arguments, none is present here. On the other hand, the transitive root juk’ requires an internal argument, as argued at length in Section 7.3. As was the case internal to the nominalizations above, the internal argument may either be a bare NP, as in (54c), or an implicit argument, as in (56b). Here we propose that Ch’ol simply lacks any equivalent of Chuj’s v⁰/Voice⁰ head. That is, it does not possess a verbal stem-building head which introduces external arguments but does not participate in Set A agreement. This captures the fact that forms without internal arguments— all of which require -w to form verbal stems in Chuj—must surface as nominals. pffi We thus split apart the pattern covered by the generalization in (54): TV pffi and ITV roots require internal arguments, regardless of the amount and type of higher functional structure; we take this to be a property of Ch’ol and Chuj, and likely of verbs cross-linguistically (Baker, 2003). On the other hand, the fact that Ch’ol forms without full type e internal arguments cannot surface as verbs, we connect to the wholesale absence of a particular type of v⁰/Voice⁰ head, present across agentive intransitives in Chuj, and absent altogether in Ch’ol.

7.5 Summary and conclusions This chapter reviewed the role and nature of nominalization in the Mayan languages Ch’ol and Chuj, with an eye toward alignment patterns, the nature of roots, and the role of functional heads. In both languages, nominalization has been argued to play a role in the system of aspect-based split ergativity, discussed in Section 7.2. Progressive aspect morphemes are predicates which select for nominal complements; the Complex Event Nominalizations which appear in the progressive aspect in both languages were argued to contain verbal structure, including PRO subjects. The fact that these PRO subjects— both transitive and intransitive—are then bound by Set A possessors accounts for the appearance of a nominative alignment pattern. In Section 7.3 we turned to smaller Result Nominals and agentive nominals. We proposed that these forms contain no verbal structure but nonetheless show pffi pffi consistent reflexes of a requirement that verbal— TV and ITV—roots are

168      of semantic type 〈e, 〈v,t〉〉 and must always compose with an internal argument. In the absence of functional verbal structure (i.e. v⁰ or Infl⁰) to license a full DP, roots either combine with a bare NP (which composes via Restrict and EC) or an implicit argument which must be existentially bound via overt antipassive morphology. Throughout this chapter, we investigated the tension between semantic requirements of roots, on the one hand, and the syntactic mechanisms available to build stems and license arguments, on the other. In Section 7.4, we proposed that Ch’ol’s ‘Split-S’ system amounts to a generalization that forms without full type e internal arguments may not surface as verb stems. Exactly these same forms in Chuj require the appearance of the suffix -w, argued in Coon (2019) to be a v⁰/Voice⁰ head which introduces external arguments but does not participate in Set A agreement. In other words, an apparently largescale grammatical property of Ch’ol can be attributed to the general absence of a single type of functional head, apparently required to form agentive intransitive verb stems. While our discussion focused on Ch’ol and Chuj, we take the simplest proposal to be that the robust morphology in these two Mayan languages shows overtly requirements that are also present in morphologically impoverished languages like English. Specifically, roots may be classified based on their semantic types, which in turn dictate—together with specific inventories of functional heads and their ability to license arguments—possibilities for the formation of verbal and nominal stems. The fact that the need for internal arguments is present not only in verbal forms, but in nominalizations of different sizes, lends support to the proposal that this is a requirement imposed by the roots themselves.

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Magdalena Torres for work with Chuj, and to Morelia Vázquez Martínez for Ch’ol. This work would not have been possible without their insights and patience. Many thanks also to the volume’s editors, as well as an anonymous reviewer for helpful feedback. This work was supported by a SSHRC Insight Grant to Coon. Authors’ names are listed in alphabetical order.

8 Three ways of unifying participles and nominalizations The case of Udmurt Éva Dékány and Ekaterina Georgieva

8.1 Introduction Chomsky’s (1970) Remarks on Nominalization deals with the syntax of different types of nominalizations in English, placing the theoretical focus on how syntax and the lexicon interact. In this chapter, we discuss the socalled participle-nominalization polysemy, that is, cases in which the suffix involved in (deverbal) nominalizations is form-identical to the suffix employed in non-finite (typically prenominal) participial relative clauses (henceforth ‘relatives’ or RCs). This scenario is schematized in (1) (with the nominalization of (1a) occupying the object position). (1) a. [VP [nominalization V-sfx] matrix-V] b. [DP [relative V-sfx] N]

(nominalization) (relative)

A shared suffix between (participial) relatives and nominalizations is crosslinguistically wide-spread, for instance, it is frequently observed in Uralic and Altaic languages (Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 1993: 2.2.5, Serdobolskaya & Paperno, 2006; Shagal, 2018) as well as in the Quechua family (Koptievskaja-Tamm, 1993: 2.2.5) and in Tibeto-Burman languages (Noonan, 1997).¹ Example (2) provides a specific illustration from Udmurt (Permic, Uralic), where the suffix -m appears in deverbal nouns with a complex internal structure (2a) as well as in (participial) relative clauses (2b). ¹ This pattern is also attested in more familiar languages, e.g. English: the reading director vs. the director’s reading (of) the book.

Éva Dékány and Ekaterina Georgieva, Three ways of unifying participles and nominalizations: The case of Udmurt In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Éva Dékány and Ekaterina Georgieva. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0008

170 ˊ ˊˊ    (2) a. [Pinal-jos-len Lim ̮ i ̮ Te̮d’i-̮ jez kir̮ dźa-m-zi]̮ min̮ im ̮ child-- Snow White- sing-m-:3 1. jaraz. appeal..3 ‘I liked that/how the children sang the song “Snow is White”.’ (deverbal noun) b. [Kil̮ ’em ar-in̮ pukt-em] korka džuaz. last year- build-m house burn..3 ‘The house that was built last year has burned down.’ (relative clause) The fact that the same morpheme appears in both deverbal nouns and participial RCs with relative systematicity in different language families makes it unlikely that we are dealing with unconnected cases of accidental homophony in the lexicon. Instead, a principled syntactic account is called for. The aim of this chapter is to lay out the hypothesis space for an explanatory account of the cross-linguistic participle-nominalizer polysemy, and to discuss which of the hypotheses is best suited to capture the Udmurt facts in particular. The discussion will proceed as follows. Section 8.2 lays out three different ways in which the polysemy can be given a unified syntactic account, such that the same lexical entry underlies the shared suffix of relatives and deverbal nouns. Section 8.3 proceeds to the empirical focus of the chapter, detailing the morpho-syntactic properties of Udmurt relatives and deverbal nouns with -m. In Section 8.4 we argue against treating -m as a nominalizing head, and in Section 8.5 we develop an account of -m as a head in the extended verbal projection. Section 8.6 closes the chapter.

8.2 Principled approaches to the polysemy Under a unified analysis for a suffix appearing in both (participial) relatives and nominalizations, the null hypothesis is that the suffix spells out either a functional head in the extended VP or a nominalizing head which requires an extended VP as its complement. In the former case the head exponed by the suffix is inherently verby (taking care of the relative use without further ado and requiring something additional to be said about nominalizations), while in the latter case it is inherently nouny (which delivers the nominalized cases and requires further explanation of the relative use). In this section we will explore both options.

   

171

If the morpheme under consideration expones a verbal head, then the participial RC use can be represented as in (3), where Ptcp is a head within the extended VP and FP is a projection in the extended NP.² (3)

Relative FP PtcpP vP verb

F'

Ptcp -sfx

F

NP noun

Nominalizations can then be analyzed in two different ways. First, they might involve a nominal layer topping off the extended VP, yielding a mixed extended projection (cf. Borer, 1997, 2013; Borsley & Kornfilt, 2000; Fu et al., 2001; Alexiadou, 2001, 2013, Chapter 5; Alexiadou et al., 2011, 2010, 2013; Kornfilt & Whitman, 2011a; Baker, 2011; among many others). This scenario could involve a phonologically zero head specialized for nominalization (a DM-style categorizer, which we are going to call n) (4), or the extended VP could be embedded directly under a nominal functional head, e.g. Num or D, without the mediation of a nominalizer proper (5). In either case, the topmost nominal projection takes care of the external nominal distribution of the phrase. (4)

‘direct’ nominalization DP D

nP PtcpP vP

Ptcp -sfx

n ø

(5)

‘indirect’ nominalization DP PtcpP vP

D

Ptcp -sfx

verb

verb

² In our trees Ptcp should be understood as an independently motivated verbal functional head. The identity of this head (e.g. Asp, T, etc.) is not of immediate concern to us and therefore we do not discuss it here. What is important is that it is a head with verbal characteristics, as in Collins (2005) and Baker (2011). Importantly, it is not equivalent to Ptcp in Doron & Reintges (2005), where this label designates a head with nominal properties.

172 ˊ ˊˊ    Second, the nominalization cases could involve a PtcpP modifying a covert noun, either in a relative-clause configuration (6) or in a complement configuration (7). (On the latter possibility, see also Moulton, Chapter 11.) The covert noun could be a lexical noun or a type of light noun. In either case, this is the head of the whole constituent, which means that the phrase under consideration has a nominal external distribution. (6)

‘nominalization’ (underlying RC syntax) FP F'

PtcpP vP verb

(7)

Ptcp -sfx

NP

F

NOUN/covert light noun

‘nominalization’ (underlying complement syntax) NP N NOUN/covert light noun

PtcpP vP

Ptcp -sfx

verb In this case what we have called the ‘nominalized’ cases do not involve any nominalization: They have exactly the same underlying structure as relative or complement clauses, except they have a covert N head. Let us now turn to the possibility that the suffix shared by relatives and nominalizations spells out a nominalizing head. The nominalizations can then be treated as mixed projections, with the suffix taking an extended VP complement. Example (8) is similar to the direct nominalization case in (4); the difference lies in the verbiness/nouniness of the suffix in question. This analysis would have to posit that for some reason, relatives (or extended VPs in general) cannot directly modify nouns: They must be nominalized before they can be merged in an adnominal position (9).

    (8)

(9)

nominalization

relative FP

nP PtcpP vP verb

Ptcp

173

n -sfx

nP PtcpP vP

Ptcp

F' n F -sfx

NP noun

verb

The three hypotheses discussed above may all be options afforded by Universal Grammar, materializing in different languages of the world. In other words, the participle-nominalizer polysemy does not necessarily have to receive the same analysis cross-linguistically; it should be investigated on a case-by-case basis which analysis is most explanatory for the dataset of a given language.

8.3 The participle-nominalization polysemy in Udmurt As said in the introduction, the Udmurt suffix -m is employed in both RCs and deverbal nouns. Most deverbal nouns with -m have a complex internal structure, with the base verb’s arguments retained. We will argue that these correspond to English verbal gerunds (the gerundive nominals of Remarks). In addition, -m is also employed in result nouns (RNs) (the derived nominals of Remarks) and other deverbal nouns which look like simple event nouns (SENs). These are illustrated below (cf. GSUJa I, 1962: 117–18; Winkler, 2001: 58). (10) kil̮ ’-em, ńula-m, vera-m, kul-em, piž̮ -iśk-em, remain-m sweat:-m speak-m die-m bake--m kin̮ -t-em freeze--m ‘leftovers, sweat, speech/utterance, dead person, pastry, ice-cream’ (RN) (11) puk-em, uža-m, vordiśk-em, vu-em, kir̮ dźa-m, kin̮ ma-m sit-m work:-m be.born-m arrive-m sing-m get.cold-m ‘sitting, working, birth, arrival, singing, getting/having a cold’ (SEN?)

174 ˊ ˊˊ    Udmurt -m deverbal nouns thus fall into different types, similarly to English. Below we present the key diagnostics with which gerunds and RNs can be told apart. It will be shown, however, that we do not find enough evidence for positing a third type of deverbal noun, namely, SENs. We also discuss the (morpho)syntactic properties of -m-relatives.

8.3.1 Verbal gerunds An example of a verbal gerund (henceforth, gerund) is given in (12). (12) [Pet’a-len pinal-jos-se kńiga(-jez) Petya- child--:3. book- lid̮ dź-it̮ -il̮ -em-ez] min̮ im ̮ jaraz. read---m-:3 1. appeal..3 ‘I liked (the fact) that Petya made his children read a/the book (several times).’ Sentence (12) shows that gerunds have several verbal properties, such as (i) the presence of aspect morphology (cf. the frequentative suffix), (ii) the possibility of expressing voice morphology (cf. the causative suffix), (iii) full argument structure (i.e. subject and an accusative-marked direct object), and (iv) an event reading. The presence of frequentative and causative markers suggests that the extended verb phrase of gerunds includes an AspP and a VoiceP.³ The presence of a vP is also supported by the fact that agent-oriented adverbs (e.g. juri ‘deliberately’) and manner adverbs (e.g. ros-pros ‘thoroughly, in detail’) are also licit with gerunds (13).⁴ (13) [Maša-len ta śariś̮ juri ros-pros Masha- this about deliberately thoroughly jua-l’l’a-śk-em-ez] Kol’a-li ̮ e̮-z jara. ask---m-:3 Kolya- .-3 appeal.. ‘Kolya didn’t like that Masha deliberately keeps/kept asking thoroughly about this.’ ³ Following Tánczos (2016), we assume that causatives in Udmurt involve a VoiceP, but nothing hinges on this and our analysis is fully compatible with a vP-analysis of causatives. ⁴ Udmurt adverbs do not take any extra morphological marking compared to adjectives, thus many words are ambiguous between an adverb and an adjective. We circumvent this problem by using adverbs which cannot be used as adjectives (juri ‘deliberately’, ros-pros ‘thoroughly, in detail’ and pi̮r-poć ‘in detail, accurately’), thus their adverbial status is not in question.

   

175

Furthermore, gerunds can only be modified by adverbs, but not by adjectives. In (14), only the adverbial pe̮rtem śamen ‘in different ways’ is allowed; the adjective pe̮rtem ‘different’ is ruled out. (14) [Pinal-jos-len Lim ̮ i ̮ Te̮d’i-̮ jez *pe̮rtem/ pe̮rtem śam-en child-- Snow White- different:/ different way- kir̮ dźa-m-zi]̮ min̮ im ̮ jaraz. sing-m-:3 1. appeal..3 ‘I liked that the children sang the song “Snow is White” in different ways.’ On the other hand, gerunds also show ‘nouny’ behavior: (i) they appear as the complement of Ps and structural/oblique cases,⁵ (ii) their subject is genitive-marked, similarly to regular possessors, and (iii) the participial verb bears possessive morphology agreeing with the genitive-marked subject. Let us take a closer look at these properties. As for their distribution, gerunds can be used as subjects (cf. examples (12)–(14)) and objects (cf. (18b)). Crucially, unlike finite clauses, they are also used as complements of structural/semantic cases and postpositions, as in (15). Thus based on their external distribution, gerunds clearly show nominal rather than clausal behavior. (15) [So-len pu daśa-m-ez-li]̮ 3- wood. prepare-m-:3- anaj-ataj-ez tuž šumpotem. mother-father-:3 very be.happy..3 ‘Hisi parents were very happy about hisi preparing wood.’ (Kel’makov & Hännikäinen, 1999: 207) Furthermore, the subject of the gerund is encoded with the genitive case, similarly to possessors.⁶ It must be emphasized that the genitive-marked ⁵ Udmurt -m-gerunds are selected by different predicates, e.g. todi̮ni̮ ‘to know sth / about sth; to find out sth’, jara ‘to appeal, like’, šumpoti̮ni̮ ‘to be happy about something’, addźini̮ ‘to see’, vit’i̮ni̮ ‘to wait (for something to happen)’ (for a complete list, see Serdobolskaya et al., 2012). Serdobolskaya et al. (2012: 455) and Klumpp (2016: 578–80) argue that unlike finite subordination, gerunds typically express given information. ⁶ The similarity between the subjects of gerunds and possessors is particularly striking in argument clauses. Adverbial clauses, on the other hand, show a strong tendency not to be nominalized, i.e. their subject appears in the nominative case and they do not bear possessive agreement (for a discussion, see Georgieva 2018). Similar facts have been reported for other Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages, e.g. Tatar (Sahan, 2002; Lyutikova & Ibatullina, 2015), Kazakh (Ótott-Kovács, 2016), Modern Standard

176 ˊ ˊˊ    noun always corresponds to the subject of the gerund and cannot correspond to the internal argument (16). This means that Udmurt gerunds are, in fact, similar to English verbal gerunds. (16) *[Pinal-len vaj-em-ez] umoj ortć-i-z. child- bring-m-:3 well pass--3 Intended: ‘The child’s birth went well.’ Similarly to possessors, the subjects of gerunds also display the so-called ‘genitive–ablative alternation’. Possessors bear genitive case by default, but possessors of direct objects must have ablative marking (17). Genitive-marked subjects also turn to ablative in object clauses (18).⁷ (17) a. [Pet’a-len/*leś puni-̮ jez] ute. Petya-/ dog-:3 bark..3 ‘Petya’s dog is barking.’ b. [Pet’a-*len/leś puni-̮ ze] śud-i. Petya-/ dog-:3. feed-.1 ‘I fed Petya’s dog.’ (18) a. [Diš̮ etiś-len/*leś diš̮ etskiś-jos-li ̮ urok-jos-iz̮ teacher-/ student-- lesson-- valekt-em-ez] min̮ im ̮ jaraz. explain-m-:3 1. appeal..3 ‘I liked that the teacher explained the lessons to the students.’

Turkish (Kornfilt, 2001, 2003), and Sakha (Baker, 2011), which has raised the question whether subjects of gerunds and possessors can be fully assimilated, and the account of non finite adjunct clauses is still open to debate. In Udmurt at least, the subjects of gerunds used as argument clauses appear in the genitive case (see Serdobolskaya et al., 2012; Brykina & Aralova, 2012; Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács, 2016, 2017; Dékány & Tánczos, 2017; Georgieva, 2018). There are two potential exceptions discussed in Georgieva (2018: 66–68): (synthetic) compounds and dative-arguments. In this chapter, we leave these cases aside, as the precise account of these patterns would require further research, and we concentrate on gerunds with genitive-marked subjects. ⁷ On the genitive–ablative alternation, see Edygarova (2010); for a possible theoretical account, see Assmann et al. (2014). Here we do not wish to commit ourselves to a particular analysis of this alternation; what we consider important is that the subjects of gerunds pattern after possessors in terms of case-marking.

   

177

b. [Diš̮ etiś-*len/leś diš̮ etskiś-jos-li ̮ urok-jos-iz̮ teacher-/ student-- lesson-- valekt-em-ze] vań-zi ̮ todo. explain-m-:3. all-3 know..3 ‘Everybody knows that the teacher explains/explained the lessons to the students.’ Furthermore, the possessive agreement morphology on the gerund is obligatory. This also suggests that gerunds obligatorily include a subject argument as well, even if it is a covert one, i.e. a pro. Example (19) contains a nonnominalized gerund, i.e. no possessive agreement and no overt subject, with an intended arbitrary reading, and it is judged as ungrammatical. (19) *[Radio pir̮ vil̮ ’ udmurt kir̮ dźan-jos voźmat-em] min̮ im ̮ radio via new Udmurt song- show-m 1. jaraz. appeal..3 Intended: ‘I liked the playing of new Udmurt songs on the radio.’ The nouny properties of gerunds are limited, however. We have seen that adjectival modification is out (14), and demonstratives are not allowed to modify gerunds either (20).⁸ Demonstratives are ruled out even when there is no genitivemarked subject in the gerund, i.e. demonstratives cannot replace the subject (21). (20) * [diš̮ etiś-len * urok-ez * ros-pros this teacher- this lesson- this thoroughly valekt-em-ez] min̮ im ̮ jaraz. explain-m-:3 1. appeal..3 ‘I liked that the teacher explained the lesson thoroughly.’ (21) *[Ta urok-ez ros-pros valekt-em] min̮ im ̮ jaraz. this lesson- thoroughly explain-m 1. appeal..3 Intended: ‘I liked this explanation of the lesson thoroughly.’ Plural marking is also ungrammatical with gerunds (22) (see Serdobolskaya et al., 2012; Dékány & Tánczos, 2017; Georgieva, 2018). ⁸ Since Udmurt is an articleless language, we cannot test the possibility of modifying gerunds by an article.

178 ˊ ˊˊ    (tros di š̮ etskiś-jos-li ̮ urok-jos-iz̮ pol) (22) [Diš̮ etiś-leś teacher- student-- lesson-- many times valekt-em-ze/ *valekt-em-jos-se] vań-zi ̮ explain-m-:3. explain-m--:3. all-3 todo. know..3 ‘Everybody knows that the teacher explains/explained the lessons to the students (many times).’ Based on these facts, we conclude that Udmurt gerunds have both nominal and verbal properties, and they resemble English verbal gerunds rather than Grimshaw’s (1990) Complex Event Nominals.

8.3.2 Result nouns Recall than the suffix -m can also form result nouns (RN). Some examples are repeated below for the reader’s convenience. As can be seen from (23), RNs are typically derived from transitive or unaccusative verbs. They often have a lexicalized/idiosyncratic meaning. (23) ki l̮ ’-em, ńula-m, vera-m, piž̮ -iśk-em, kin̮ -t-em remain-m sweat:-m speak-m bake--m frost--m ‘leftovers, sweat, speech/utterance, pastry, ice-cream’ RNs can only be modified by adjectives: (24) Dže̮k vil̮ in̮ pe̮rtem/ *pe̮rtem śam-en table on different: different way- ‘There are different leftovers on the table.’

kil̮ ’-em-jos vań. remain-m- 

Furthermore, in contrast to gerunds, RNs can be modified by demonstratives (25). This example also shows that RNs can be pluralized. (25) So kil̮ ’-em-jos-ti ̮ kušt-ono. that remain-m-- throw.away-. ‘Those leftovers are to be/have to be thrown away.’ Some of these RNs contain voice or causative morphology, e.g. pi̮ži-śk-em ‘pastry’ or ki̮n-t-em ‘ice-cream’ (we will return to the presence of voice and causative

   

179

morphology in RNs in Section 8.5.3). Crucially, frequentative morphology is illicit in RNs, suggesting that RNs contain a small verbal structure: (26) a. *Piž̮ -iśk-il̮ -em dže̮k vil̮ in̮ . bake---m table on b. *Piž̮ -il̮ -iśk-em dže̮k vil̮ in̮ . bake---m table on Intended: ‘The pastry baked several times is on the table.’ Since RNs are clearly nouns, they can be possessed, however the genitivemarked noun does not (necessarily) correspond to the subject argument of the base verb, as indicated in the translation lines of (27) and (28). Thus, we conclude that the genitive noun in RNs is a possessor rather than a subject. (27) Pet’a-len piž̮ -iśk-em-ez dže̮k vil̮ in̮ . Petya- bake--m-:3 table on ‘The pastry baked/bought/eaten by Petya is on the table.’ (28) [ . . . ] so-li̮ kofta-len kertt-em-ez tuž kel’šem. 3- sweater- knit-m-:3 very appeal..3 ‘[ . . . ] s/he very much liked the knitting pattern of the sweater.’ (Kel’makov & Hännikäinen, 1999: 207) The following table summarizes the main properties of gerunds and RNs.

Event reading Argument structure Gen-marked noun Frequentative morphology Dem modification Adj/adv modification Plural

Gerund

RN

✓ ✓ subject ✓ ✗ adv ✗

✗ ✗ possessor ✗ ✓ adj ✓

8.3.3 Are there simple event nouns with -m in Udmurt? In addition to the deverbal nouns with complex internal structure that we argued to be verbal gerunds, we also find other event-denoting deverbal nouns with -m that show rather different morphosyntactic properties in comparison to gerunds. Some examples are given in (29):

180 ˊ ˊˊ    (29) puk-em, uža-m, vordiśk-em, vu-em, kir̮ dźa-m, kin̮ ma-m, sit-m work:-m be.born-m arrive-m sing-m get.cold-m ‘sitting, working, birth, arrival, singing, getting/having a cold’ Given that nominalizations show different complexity: complex event nouns, simple event nouns, and RNs, and given that Udmurt utilizes verbal gerunds and RNs, one might raise the question whether a third, intermediate type, broadly corresponding to SEN, is also attested in Udmurt. By definition, SENs have an event reading, but lack argument structure, in other words, no internal argument and no subject are found (see Grimshaw, 1990; Moulton, 2014). Probing for SENs in Udmurt is problematic, however, as SENs derived with -m from transitives do not seem to be attested (30).⁹ (30) [*Je̮nat-em/ je̮nat-on] kema kis̮ tiśk-i-z. cure-m cure-n long be.prolonged--3 ‘The treatment took a lot of time to finish.’ The examples in (29) are all derived from intransitives. We will argue that intransitive verb-based nominalizations in Udmurt correspond either to verbal gerunds or to RNs. These two types can be distinguished with the help of the diagnostics we present below. Thus, in our view, we do not find enough evidence for positing a third category, i.e. SENs formed with -m. First, frequentative morphology is possible, as shown in (31), thus indicating the presence of AspP. Agent-oriented adverbs are also licit (32). (31) [Kol’a-len tetća-l’l’a-m-ez] anaj-ataj-os-se Kolya- jump--m-:3 mother-father--:3. pajmit̮ -i-z. amaze--3 ‘Kolya’s jumping/dancing amazed his parents.’10

⁹ We think that there are two language-specific reasons for this gap. The first is that Udmurt also utilizes another nominalizer (-n) that seems to be used in these cases, cf. (30) (the differences between the two nominalizers are rather poorly understood, see Kalinina, 2001; Serdobolskaya et al., 2012; Brykina & Aralova, 2012; Klumpp, 2016; Georgieva, 2018). The second reason is that Udmurt also has a fully productive intransitivizer (-śk) used to derive passive, antipassive, anticausative, and reciprocal verbs (see Tánczos, 2016, 2017; Gulyás & Speshilova, 2014); thus, it might be the case that the productive use of intransitivising morphology ‘bleeds’ the formation of SENs from transitive verbs. ¹⁰ The verb tetća- can either mean ‘jump’ or ‘dance’, depending on the context.

   

181

(32) [Kol’a-len (divan vil̮ in̮ ) juri tetća-m-ez] Kolya- sofa on deliberately jump-m-:3 anaj-ataj-os-iz̮ -li ̮ e̮-z jara. mother-father--:3- .-3 appeal.. ‘Kolya’s parents didn’t like his deliberate jumping/dancing on the sofa.’ Thus, based on these two criteria, these deverbal nouns behave like gerunds. However, they allow for either adjectival or adverbial modification (33). In this respect, they resemble Polish -nie/-cie-nominalizations (Alexiadou et al., 2010), German nominal infinitives (Alexiadou et al., 2011) and English process nominals (Fu et al., 2001). (33) [Kol’a-len pe̮rtem/ pe̮rtem sˊam-en tetća-m-ez] Kolya- different: different way- jump-m-:3 anaj-ataj-os-se pajmit̮ -i-z. mother-father--:3. amaze--3 ‘Kolya’s dancing/jumping amazed his parents.’ Furthermore, they can be pluralized, as shown in (34) and (35). Observe that in the singular, the deverbal noun is ambiguous. However, in the plural, the deverbal noun does not express (multiple) instances of the same event, but rather different types of events, i.e. different (types of) swings. This interpretation is given as a ‘manner’ reading below. (34) [Ivan-len dźećir̮ a-m-ez] anaj-ataj-os-se Ivan- swing-m-:3 mother-father--:3. pajmit̮ -i-z. amaze--3 ‘The way in which Ivan was swinging amazed his parents.’ ‘manner’ ‘Ivan’s swinging amazed his parents.’ ‘event’ (Georgieva, 2018: 53) (35) [Ivan-len dźećir̮ a-m-jos-iz̮ ] anaj-ataj-os-se Ivan- swing-m--:3 mother-father--:3. pajmit̮ -i-zi.̮ amaze--3 ‘The ways in which Ivan was swinging amazed his parents.’ ‘manner’ *‘Ivan’s swingings amazed his parents.’ ‘event’ (Georgieva, 2018: 53)

182 ˊ ˊˊ    Thus, on the one hand, these deverbal nouns show a verbal structure similar to verbal gerunds, but on the other hand, they seem to be more ‘nouny’. We would like to cash this out by proposing that those deverbal nouns that are pluralizable and allow for adjectival modification are actually RNs. This is supported by the fact that the pluralizable deverbal noun in (35) cannot have an event reading. Further support in favor of this view comes from the interpretation of the genitive-marked noun in these deverbal nouns (which also follow the genitiveablative alternation discussed in Section 8.3.1). The genitive-marked noun is interpreted as the subject of the deverbal noun in an out-of-the-blue context (36a), but speakers also allow for a nonsubject interpretation, if provided an appropriate context. Thus, Kol’a can also be construed as a nonsubject, for instance in the following context: ‘Kolya has invented a special kind of jump. But he was sick today, so Petya had to perform Kolya’s special jump(s) instead of him’, cf. (36b). (36) Context: Kolya is an acrobat in the circus. a. [Kol’a-len tetća-m-ez] ućkiś-jos-ti ̮ pajmit̮ -i-z. Kolya- jump-m-:3 spectator-- amaze--3 ‘Kolya’s jumping amazed the spectators.’ (subject reading) (gerund) b. [Kol’a-leś tetća-m-ze] Ivan voźmat-i-z. Kolya- jump-m-:3. Ivan show--3 ‘Kolya’s jump was performed by Ivan.’ (nonsubject reading) (RN) The non subject interpretation of the genitive-marked noun in (36b) suggests that we are dealing with an RN. In fact, such an interpretation is impossible if an agent-oriented adverb is present, even with the appropriate context (37). We propose that in this case we are dealing with a gerund. Recall that gerunds obligatorily contain a subject, and are thus incongruent with the non subject reading supplied by the context. (37) ??/#[Kol’a-leś juri tetća-m-ze] Kolya- deliberately jump-m-:3. Ivan voźmat-i-z. Ivan show--3 Intended: ‘Kolya’s deliberately jumping was performed by Ivan.’ (gerund) The crucial piece of evidence against the analysis of intransitive-based deverbal nouns as SENs comes from cases in which the deverbal noun does have an event-reading, and it is thus compatible with predicates like take place/last X hours, but lacks arguments. Recall from Section 8.3.1 that gerunds always

   

183

retain the base verb’s arguments, as evidenced by the obligatory possessive morphology on them. The deverbal noun in examples like (38) lacks possessive morphology, thus, it cannot be a gerund. Since its intended meaning denotes an event, this would be the perfect candidate to be labeled as SEN. However, the example is ungrammatical, suggesting that intransitivebased deverbal nouns in Udmurt are not SENs. (38) *Tolon cirk-in̮ tetća-m odig ćas (čože) min̮ -i-z. yesterday circus- jump-m one hour for go--3 Intended: ‘Yesterday, the jumping in the circus lasted one hour.’ In our view, the most straightforward way to explain the mixed properties of the deverbal nouns derived from intransitive verbs is to say that they can either exemplify gerunds or RNs, and the two types can be told apart with the tests summarized in Table 8.1. Thus, we do not find enough evidence to classify them as SENs.

8.3.4 Participial RCs Relatives with -m are prenominal, nonfinite modifiers of nouns. Similarly to the gerunds discussed in Section 8.3.1, -m-relatives can have an accusative object and adverbial modifiers, and the participial verb may be inflected for voice and aspectual morphology (39).¹¹ (39) a. [tros pol lid̮ dź-il̮ -em] many times read--m ‘the book read many times’

kńiga book

b. [pići dir̮ jaz tros pol kńiga lid̮ dź-it̮ -il̮ -em] murt young as many times book. read---m person ‘a/the person who was made to read a book several times as a child’ However, in contrast to verbal gerunds, participial RCs may lack a subject altogether, as shown by the lack of possessive morphology in (39). Previous work on relatives has identified two different case possibilities for overt ¹¹ The example in (39b) does not contain an overt causer in contrast to the verbal gerund in (12). This might be due to independent reasons, thus it is not necessarily suggestive of structural differences between -m-relatives and -m-gerunds. For instance, some differences might be attributed to the impossibility of relativizing certain arguments, e.g. a causer (to our knowledge relativization of causatives has not been discussed in the literature, e.g. in Brykina & Aralova, 2012). What is crucial for our purposes is that voice and aspect morphology can appear on both participial relatives and gerunds.

184 ˊ ˊˊ    subjects: They can bear either an instrumental or a genitive suffix (40a,b). In the latter case a possessive agreement suffix cross-referencing the subject’s ϕ-features appears on the head noun (Kalinina, 2001, Serdobolskaya et al., 2012, Brykina & Aralova, 2012; see also Georgieva, 2018: 57–62).¹² (40) a. [Pet’a-jen tue mertt-em] pispu umoj bude. Petya- this.year plant-m tree well grow..3 ‘The tree planted by Petya this year is growing well.’ b. [Pet’a-len tue mertt-em] pispu-ez umoj bude. Petya- this.year plant-m tree-:3 well grow..3 ‘The tree planted by Petya this year is growing well.’ (Georgieva, 2018: 60) The pattern in (40b) whereby possessive agreement tracks the feature specification of the subject but appears on the head noun rather than the participial verb is also known as nonlocal agreement. It is an areal feature of Central and Northern Eurasia, found in Uralic, Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic, and Indo-European languages as well as Palaeosiberian isolates (Ackerman & Nikolaeva, 2013: 66). In the next sections we turn to the analysis of -m-relatives and -m-nominalizations. First, in Section 8.4 we will consider the possibility of analyzing -m as a nominalizer. This line of analysis will be discarded, though. Then, in Section 8.5 we will present a verbal analysis of the suffix and a unified treatment of relatives and nominalizations.

8.4 Against treating -m as a nominalizer As discussed in Section 8.3, Udmurt -m forms appear in participial RCs and nominalizations. If the Udmurt -m suffix is a nominalizing head, then verbal gerunds and Result Nominals can be captured by attaching -m at different heights in the functional sequence: to TP/AspP/VoiceP/vP in the case of gerunds and to the VP in the case of RNs.¹³ ¹² Additionally, it has been claimed that the subject of RCs can bear nominative case (Kalinina, 2001: 88, and Serdobolskaya et al., 2012; though Brykina & Aralova, 2012, consider this pattern marginal in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt). Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács (2016: 56) argue that nominative subjects are ungrammatical in today’s Udmurt and Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács (2017) point out that all attested examples come from older sources. For this reason, in the present chapter we disregard this pattern. ¹³ We assume with Hale & Keyser (1993), Bowers (1993), Arad (1996), Den Dikken (2015), among others, that objects are introduced in a specifier position, and that this position is outside of the VP. Thus cutting off the projection line at the VP level yields nominalizations without arguments.

    (42) RNs

(41) verbal gerunds

nP

nP AspP/TP vP

185

VP

n -m

n -m

Asp/T

However, if gerunds and RNs are derived with the same nominalizer head, then it remains mysterious why only the latter can be modified like nonderived nouns. Alexiadou (2013, Chapter 5) argues that the presence of a nominalizing head (n) licenses nominal modifiers, e.g. adjectives and number marking. Indirect nominalization, where a VP is embedded directly under a nominal functional head, on the other hand, is incompatible with such modification. If both gerunds and RNs involve the same nominalizer, then it is unclear why (the projections responsible for) adjectival modification and plural marking can embed (42) but not (41). Treating -m as a nominalizer is even more problematic when we turn to the analysis of -m-relatives. Relatives with an overt genitive subject could be treated as in (43), with a DP topping off the nominalizing layer. The subject then could be moved to or inserted directly into Spec,DP, receiving genitive case there, similarly to possessors. The appearance of the possessive suffix on the head noun could be taken to indicate that relatives with a genitive subject involve a nominal structure modifying the head noun indeed. (43) rejected structure for relatives

FP DP

F'

subject-GEN

NP

D' D

nP AspP/TP vP verb

Asp/T

n -m

noun+Poss

F

186 ˊ ˊˊ    The analysis of relatives which have an instrumental subject or no overt subject is highly problematic, however. Relatives with covert subjects would have the structure in (44). Outside of relatives, instrumental subjects in Udmurt also occur in passives (F. Gulyás & Speshilova, 2014), where they function as the equivalents of English by-phrases. We suggest that in both passives and relatives, an instrumental subject is a demoted PP-subject which does not occupy the canonical subject position but is instead adjoined to vP (the projection which introduces the subject of active sentences). Relatives with an instrumental subject would then be represented as in (45). (44)

rejected structure for relatives

FP nP PtcpP vP

Ptcp

F' n -m

NP

F

noun

PRO verb (45)

rejected structure for relatives

FP nP PtcpP Ptcp

vP subject-INS

F' n -m

NP

F

noun

vP verb

Relatives with a covert subject and with an instrumental subject cannot reasonably be analyzed as nominals, as in (44) and (45), however: They show no independently verifiable nominal properties whatsoever (recall that they do not trigger the appearance of the possessive suffix on the head noun either). We consider this to be an insurmountable problem for the nominalizer analysis of -m, and therefore reject it. This leads us to conclude that -m is best treated as an exponent of a verbal head, which we will call Ptcp. In the remainder of the chapter we explore the details of this analysis.

   

187

8.5 A verbal analysis of -m In the traditional grammars and in some recent descriptive studies (cf. GSUJa I, 1962; Kalinina, 2001; Brykina & Aralova, 2012; Serdobolskaya et al., 2012) two different -m suffixes were assumed: one that appears in participial RCs and another that surfaces in verbal gerunds (RNs with -m are not discussed in these studies in detail). In light of the participle-nominalizer polysemy discussed in Section 8.1, however, we will pursue a unified analysis for the suffix of -m-relatives and -m-nominalizations. Below we spell out our proposal regarding relative clauses, verbal gerunds, and result nouns.

8.5.1 Participial RCs With -m as a spell-out of a head in the extended VP, the core structure of participial RCs can be depicted as in (46). (As the Udmurt extended NP is generally head-final, we assume that FP is also a head-final projection, but nothing hinges on this.) We suggest that internal to the nonfinite PtcpP, no structural case is available for the subject. As a result, the subject can appear only if it is demoted to a PP-adjunct (47).

FP

(46)

PtcpP vP

F'

Ptcp -m

verb

NP

F

noun FP

(47)

PtcpP vP PP

vP

subject-INS

verb

F' Ptcp -m

NP

F

noun

As already mentioned in Section 8.3, descriptive grammars also discuss relatives which feature an overt genitive subject and possessive agreement on the head noun.

188 ˊ ˊˊ    (48) [Pet’a-len tue mertt-em] pispu-ez umoj bude. Petya- this.year plant-m tree-:3 well grow..3 ‘The tree planted by Petya this year is growing well.’ (Georgieva, 2018: 60) We suggest, however, that these examples have been misanalyzed: In contrast to instrumental NPs, genitive NPs are not true subjects of the relative. Evidence in favor of this conclusion is found in the relative order of nominal modifiers in the Udmurt DP. The basic order of N-modifiers is (49). (49) possessor > demonstrative > participial RC > numeral > adjective > noun As demonstratives follow possessors but precede relatives, they can be used to test the position of genitive NPs. It turns out to be the case that a genitive NP can only precede the demonstrative (which in turn precedes the relative) (50). Instrumental subjects, on the other hand, are clearly in the RC (51). (50) a. Pet’a-len ta [tue Petya-this this.year bude. grow..3

mertt-em] plant-m

pispu-ez umoj tree-:3 well

b. ??Ta [tue Pet’a-len mertt-em] pispu-ez umoj this this.year Petya- plant-m tree-:3 well bude. grow..3 ‘This tree planted by Petya this year is growing well.’ (51) Ta [kil̮ ’em ar-in̮ peśataj-en pukt-em] korka this last year- grandfather- build-m house tolon džuaz. yesterday burn..3 ‘This house built by grandfather last year burned down yesterday.’ This shows that genitive NPs occupy a different position from instrumental subjects: While the latter are inside the relative, the former are not. We conclude from the contrast above that the genitive NP is merged outside of the relative, in the ordinary possessor position of the head noun (i.e. Spec,DP).

   

189

The reader will recall that possessors bear genitive case by default, but possessors of objects have to be ablative marked (17). Crucially, ‘genitive subjects’ of relatives modifying an NP in object position must also switch to ablative. (52) a. Pet’a-len/*leś mertt-em pispu-ez umoj bude. Petya-/ plant-m tree-:3 well grow..3 ‘The tree planted by Petya is growing well.’ b. Pet’a-*len/leś mertt-em pispu-ze kora-j. Petya-/ plant-m tree-:3. cut-.1 ‘I cut the tree planted by Petya.’ As we analyze the genitive NP as a possessor, this is exactly what we predict (no such prediction is made if the genitive NP is an RC-internal subject, however). The case facts thus support our proposal from yet another angle. A further pay-off of our account is that the obligatory possessive agreement between the ‘genitive subject’ and the head noun can receive a simple, natural explanation: This is a garden-variety (local) possessive agreement between a possessor and a possessum. Further support for the posssessor analysis of the genitive NP comes from inanimate subjects. Crucially, they are degraded in the genitive, but fully grammatical in the instrumental case (53). (53) a. ??[zor-len miśk-em] śures-ez rain- wash-m road-:3 ‘the road washed by the rain’ b. [zor-en miśk-em] rain- wash-m ‘the road washed by the rain’

śures road (Georgieva, 2018: 62)

We argue that this falls out from the possessor analysis: The inanimate NP cannot be construed as a possessor (even in a very vague possessor relation), as it has a [cause] thematic role.¹⁴ ¹⁴ Although the possessive relationship might be rather vague, it is impossible to establish such a relationship between a [cause] NP and an NP affected by the [cause]. Thus, (i) cannot have the intended meaning: (i)

zor-len śures-ez rain- road-:3 *‘the road destroyed/washed/cleaned by the rain’

A reviewer remarks that (53) is possibly an instantiation of the so-called ‘Direct Participation Effect’ (DPE) (Sichel, 2010), whereby prenominal genitives and by-phrases of derived nominals must encode a direct participant in the event (cf. the hurricane’s destruction of our crops vs. *the hurricane’s

190 ˊ ˊˊ    With the genitive NP sitting outside of the RC, we must answer the question of why examples containing such NPs are normally ambiguous between a possessor reading and a subject reading. (54) mil’am mertt-em pispu-os-mi ̮ 1. plant-m tree--:1 ‘the trees that we planted’ (subject reading) ‘our trees planted (by someone)’ (possessor reading) (Georgieva & Ótott-Kovács, 2016: 56) It has been known for a long time that possessive structures do not necessarily express possession proper. Instead, they code an underspecified relationship between the possessor and the possessee, the nature of which is interpreted based on the context (Williams, 1981). Thus possessive structures may express a family relationship (my father), a part-whole relationship (the roof of the house), a thematic relationship (the city’s destruction), authorship (my book which I wrote), and other vague, entirely context-based relationships as well (my train leaves in an hour). Similar uses of possessive constructions are attesed in Udmurt as well (see Edygarova, 2010, for discussion). Thus, following Kratzer (1996), we suggest that in Udmurt, too, agentivity or actorhood is one of the ways in which the underspecified possessive relationship can be understood (see also the references in Borer, Chapter 6, fn. 5). As an alternative to this pragmatic linking of possessor to subject, syntactic linking is also possible when the possessor in Spec,DP binds a covert subject inside the RC. In this way, our proposal is similar to Kornfilt’s (2015) analysis of a type of RC in Sakha & ÓtottKovács’s (2019) analysis of Kazakh RCs. The alternative analysis, namely, that the genitive NP is the subject of the RC, has received a lot of attention in literature, see Hale (2002), Kornfilt (2005, 2015), Aygen (2011), Asarina & Hartman (2011), Ótott-Kovács (2016) on Altaic languages; and Nikolaeva (1999), Ackerman & Nikolaeva (2013) on Northern Khanty. If the genitive NP is indeed the subject, then the question arises why

justification of the evacuation). However, the [cause] NP in (53) is the direct causer of the event, thus the DPE cannot explain the ungrammaticality of (53a). Even more strikingly, verbal gerunds allow for [cause] subjects: (ii)

[Zor-len śures-ez miśk-em-ez-li̮] gurto-os rain- road- wash-m-:3- villager- ‘The villagers are happy about the rain’s washing of the road.’

šumpoto. be.happy..3

We interpret this as additional support for the analysis presented in this chapter, namely, that the genitive NP that appears with RCs is a possessor, but the genitive NP of gerunds is a subject.

   

191

agreement is marked on the head noun and not on the participle, instantiating a non local agreement pattern. We refer the reader to the studies mentioned above for discussion of various proposals regarding this agreement pattern, but we do not discuss them in detail since in our view, the Udmurt data do not support the subject analysis of genitive NPs, thus the placement of agreement on the head noun is not unexpected. In our view, relative clauses with a ‘genitive subject’ have the structure shown in (55), i.e. they are garden-variety possessives with a participial RC modifier. (55) RCs with ‘genitive subjects’

DP NP-GEN

D' D Poss

FP PtcpP vP PRO verb

F' Ptcp -m

NP

F

noun

To summarize, we propose that -m-relatives are extended nonfinite VPs (with no nominalization involved). These relatives can occur without overt subjects and with instrumental subjects. In contrast to the previous descriptions, however, there are no relatives with genitive subjects: The genitive NP is merged outside of the relative, as a possessor of the head noun.

8.5.2 Verbal gerunds Let us now turn to the analysis of verbal gerunds with -m. Earlier we established that -m is a verbal head, thus the core of all -m phrases is (56). (56) [PtcpP vP Ptcp=-m] We have also seen that gerunds have an external nominal distribution: They take possessive marking and case marking and also combine with postpositions. Nouny syntax is also observable on their left edge: Their subject bears genitive case and participates in the genitive—ablative alternation, like possessors do. However, the rest of the internal syntax of gerunds is not

192 ˊ ˊˊ    nouny: They resist adjectival and demonstrative modification as well as plural marking. We suggest that this set of properties naturally falls out from an indirect nominalization structure in which PtcpP is directly embedded under D. Example (57) is essentially also the structure proposed for English verbal gerunds in Alexiadou et al. (2011) and Alexiadou (2013). (57) Verbal gerunds

DP NP-gen

D' D Poss

PtcpP vP

Ptcp -m

object-acc verb A further argument in favor of analyzing Udmurt gerunds as topped off only by a DP, without an nP and other nominal layers, comes from verb agreement patterns. As discussed in Abney (1987: 111–12), coordinating English verbal gerunds and that-clauses licenses singular agreement on the verb, whereas coordinated nominal gerunds license plural agreement. Applying this to Udmurt, we see that with coordinated gerunds only singular morphology is licit (58), in contrast to coordinated DPs, which trigger plural morphology on the verb (59). (58) [Pet’a-len peśanaj-ez-li ̮ emjum Petya- father’s.mother-:3- medicine. baśa-m-ez] no [Maša-len čužanaj-ez-li ̮ buy-m-:3 and Masha- mother’s.mother-:3- śaśka pukt-em-ez] min̮ im ̮ kel’še/ flower. plant-m-:3 1. appeal..3 *kel’šo. appeal..3 ‘I like/approve of Petya’s buying medicine for his grandmother and Masha’s planting flowers for her grandmother.’ (59) Pet’a-len suzer-ez no Maša-len Petya- younger.sister-:3 and Masha- apaj-ez min̮ im ̮ *kel’še/ kel’šo. older.sister-:3 1. appeal..3 appeal..3 ‘I like Petya’s younger sister and Masha’s older sister.’

   

193

The DP layer makes it possible for the -m phrase to appear in nominal positions. As an added benefit, it also provides a position, i.e. Spec,DP, where the subject of PtcpP can move and receive (genitive) case. This amounts to saying that gerunds are derived possessive structures. That Spec,DP is a derived position for the subject is supported by the fact that subject idiom chunks used in gerunds retain their idiomatic meaning (we adopt this test from Baker, 2011). In (60), we use the idiom porpios ib̮ il̮ iśko ‘wood is cracking from the cold’ (lit. ‘the Mari boys are shooting’):¹⁵ (60) Context: Today it was a very cold winter day. Azbar-e potem val=no, porpi-os-leś yard- go.out..1 .= Mari.boy-- i̮b-i̮l-iśk-em-zes kil̮ i-̮ sa, berlań korka shoot---m-:3. hear- back house. pir̮ -i. go.in-.1 ‘I went out to the yard, but after I heard the wood’s cracking from the cold, I went back inside.’ The reader will recall that in participial RCs the subject may be marked with instrumental case (40a). This is not possible in gerunds, however: Here the subject must bear genitive case. We propose that this is because demoting the subject to a PP-adjunct in Udmurt is a last resort operation which is employed only if there is no available structural case. We argued that relative clauses are bare PtcpPs, that is, nonfinite clauses. As such, they have no structural case for a subject. Therefore the subject either has to be covert (PRO) or if it is to appear overtly, it must be included in a(n instrumental) PP. In verbal gerunds, however, PtcpP is embedded directly under a DP, and in this mixed projection there is structural case available for the subject in Spec,DP. The last-resort operation of subject demotion is therefore not employed here. Our proposal provides a unified analysis for participial RCs and gerunds: They feature the same verbal head Ptcp, which -m expones. PtcpP appears on its own in RCs and is part of a mixed extended projection in gerunds. As said at the beginning of this section, recent descriptive studies (Serdobolskaya et al., 2012; Brykina & Aralova, 2012) have argued against unifying RCs and gerunds. One of their arguments was the possibility of instrumental subjects in RCs, ¹⁵ Thus Udmurt gerunds are analyzed as raising structures. On control structures in verbal gerunds, see Coon & Royer (Chapter 7).

194 ˊ ˊˊ    in contrast to gerunds. Our analysis overcomes this potential problem. The aforementioned studies also point out two further differences between RCs and gerunds, which concern: (i) their temporal orientation and (ii) negation. Serbobolskaya et al. (2012) and Brykina & Aralova (2012) argue that -m relatives always express an event completed before the time of the matrix predicate, while -m-gerunds can express not only an anterior event, but also a simultaneous one when selected by perception verbs. Georgieva (2018: 53–5) has shown that gerunds express events whose starting point is anterior to a reference time (thus, we are dealing with relative time, i.e. aspect), but the event need not be completed prior to this reference time. Thus, gerunds are compatible with perception verbs, giving the false appearance of expressing a simultaneous event. Their second argument is that in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt they investigate, negation is only possible with relatives, but not with gerunds. However, the differences with respect to negation are absent from other dialects of Udmurt as well as from the standard variety (see Georgieva, 2018: 65). As we have already seen, -m-relatives and -m-gerunds both interact with possessive agreement. Following Baker (2011), we assume that possessive agreement features are bundled with the D head. Relatives without an overt subject and with an instrumental subject do not trigger possessive agreement (Section 8.3.4). Their structure does not involve a DP as RCs are bare PtcpPs (46). We proposed that relatives with a ‘genitive subject’ involve a noun modified separately by a relative (which has no overt subject) and a relative clause external possessor (61). In these cases possessive agreement appears on the head noun because the head-final DP tops off the extended projection of N. Finally, verbal gerunds were also argued to involve a possessive D, with PtcpP in the complement position and the subject of the vP moving to Spec,DP (62). In this case the possessive agreement is linearized on the participial verb because the head-final DP tops off a mixed projection that bottoms out in the verb. (61) RCs with ‘genitive subjects’

DP NP-GEN

D'

RC FP PtcpP vP PRO verb

D Poss

F' Ptcp -m

NP noun

F

   

195

(62) Verbal gerunds

VP/PP DP

V/P NP-geni

D' PtcpP vP

Ptcp -m

D Poss

ti verb To summarize, the possessive agreement appears on the verb+m complex in gerunds but the verb of -m-relatives is unmarked (with possible agreement on N). In spite of appearances, however, in our analysis the placement of possessive agreement is governed by the same rule in RCs and gerunds: In both cases it is hosted on D and is linearized on the head of the extended projection. In Section 8.2 we also sketched a possible analysis in which a PtcpP modifies a covert noun, either as a relative clause or as a complement to the covert N (which would have the meaning ‘fact’ or ‘event’), and this gives the mistaken impression that PtcpP is nominalized. Let us now examine if an analysis along these lines is viable for the Udmurt phrases discussed in this section. A structure in which a participial clause is merged as the complement of a covert noun has been suggested to be part of the grammar of several Altaic languages, e.g. Dagur (Hale, 2002), Modern Standard Turkish (Aygen, 2011), Japanese (Maki & Uchibori, 2008), and Uyghur (Asarina & Hartman, 2011). While we do not doubt that this structure is possible in natural languages, the Udmurt data do not seem to lend themselves to this analysis. This is because participial complements of overt nouns do not seem to be attested in Udmurt, in contrast to Uyghur, Korean, and Kazym Khanty (see Kim, 2009; Asarina & Hartman, 2011; Starchenko, 2019). An analysis that posits nouns with no phonological exponent and with different selectional properties from what is otherwise attested for overt Ns in the language simply lacks empirically solid foundations. Furthermore, as argued by Moulton (Chapter 11), predicates like true/false and believe/know/say require NP arguments (possibly comprising a covert N with a clausal complement); mixed projections cannot be used with these predicates. This holds for Udmurt, too (63).

196 ˊ ˊˊ    tolon kik̮ pispu mertt-em-ez] šońer (63) [Kol’a-len Kolya- yesterday two tree. plant-m-:3 true e̮ve̮l. . *‘That Kolya planted two trees yesterday is just plain false.’ (e.g. because I know that he planted three)16 That Udmurt gerunds cannot appear with true/false, and believe/know/say constitutes a further counter argument against treating them as complements of a covert N.¹⁷ Thus we will not explore this route any further here. Udmurt overt nouns do, however, take participial RC modifiers (see Section 8.5.1), therefore an analysis in which an ordinary participial RC modifies a covert N (and hence gives the impression of nominalization) would be compatible with independently known properties of the language. This is depicted in (65). (64) [FP [PtcpP verb-m] F [NP N]]-Poss (65) [FP [PtcpP verb-m] F [NP covert N]]-Poss

relative ‘gerund’ (relative with a covert head)

Asarina & Hartman (2011) argue that (65) is the structure of some participial expressions in Uyghur. In this language the posited covert nouns freely alternate with the corresponding overt lexical nouns without a change in meaning. In Udmurt we do not attest a regular alternation between overt and covert nouns in the case of verbal gerunds. The ‘hidden relative’ analysis of verbal gerunds in (65) thus would be most plausible if it relied on a single general, all-purpose covert (light) noun; essentially the covert counterpart of Korean kes (Kim, 2009) or Kazym Khanty wεr (Starchenko, 2019). Similarly to the mixed projection approach, the hidden RC analysis could also account for the placement of possessive of morphology in an elegant way. With a covert N, as in (65), the obligatory nominal suffixes (Poss, Case) attach to the linearly adjacent participial verb for phonological support at PF

¹⁶ The example is grammatical, but only with the meaning: ‘That Kolya planted two trees yesterday was wrong/(a) bad (idea)’. ¹⁷ The Udmurt equivalents of believe/know/say typically select for finite complements. In Section 8.3, we saw that todi̮ni̮ ‘to know’ can select for gerunds as well, but this verb can also mean ‘find out’, ‘guess’, or ‘recognize’, so it is plausible to assume that it is not a direct equivalent of English know.

   

197

(cf. Asarina & Hartman’s 2011, analysis of the Uyghur data). Alternatively, we could envision a (postsyntactic) operation that displaces the possessive morphology from the light noun onto the participial verb of the RC.¹⁸ There are a number of considerations, however, which make this approach less attractive to us than the mixed projection analysis. First, as already mentioned, the free alternation between overt and covert nouns in Uyghur is not attested with Udmurt gerunds, and the existence of an overt light noun in Kazym Khanty and Korean does not make it necessary that Udmurt has a covert counterpart of this lexical item. Second, (65) posits a nominal head to Udmurt gerunds, but as already discussed, these phrases lack genuine nominal properties (such as adjectival or demonstrative modification). This property could perhaps be ascribed to the light noun, though it would be difficult to independently confirm the correctness of this assumption. Third, if -m-gerunds involve ordinary, noun-modifying relatives, then it is difficult to see why they disallow instrumental subjects: In the approach outlined in (64) and (65) the participles are expected to have identical internal properties. Finally, this approach also falls short of explaining why verbal gerunds in object position must be marked with overt accusative case. Udmurt is a DOM language, with indefinite/nonspecific objects being unmarked. The obligatory accusative suffix on gerunds is predicted on the mixed projection analysis advanced here, since their structure necessarily includes a DP (cf. also ÓtottKovács, 2016, on Kazakh).

8.5.3 Result nouns Turning to result nouns, we have seen that they exhibit the internal syntax of nouns, including the possibility of pluralization as well as adjectival and demonstrative modification. Under the mixed projection analysis of verbal gerunds we attributed the lack of such nouny properties to an indirect nominalization structure (66), in which there is no nominalizer proper in the structure. Thus in the mixed projection analysis RNs would be best treated as direct nominalizations of PtcpP (67).

¹⁸ Aygen (2011) proposes that nominalizations similar to Udmurt gerunds in Modern Standard Turkish also contain a covert head noun. Crucially, however, agreement in Modern Standard Turkish RCs is marked on the participial verb, and not on the head noun, in contrast to Udmurt. We will leave open the question of the (cross-linguistic) variation between these patterns.

198 ˊ ˊˊ    (66) Verbal gerund DP

PtcpP vP

(67) Result noun

DP NumP

D

Ptcp -m

Num

nP PtcpP

D

n ø

VP Ptcp -m The nominalizer in (67) allows for the emergence of nominal modifiers. The suffix -m attaches directly to VP. On the assumption that arguments are licensed by higher functional structure, this accounts for the fact that RNs do not have arguments. In (67) the small verbal structure of RNs correlates with their large nominal layer. In gerunds, on the other hand, we observe the reverse situation: rich verbal structure and only one nominal projection. This trade-off between the size of the nominal and verbal layers is predicted by Alexiadou et al.’s (2010) proposal that AspP and NumP (hosting the plural marker) are in complementary distribution in nominalizations. (See also Wiltschko, 2014, where verbal aspect and nominal plurality both code ‘point of view’.) While (67) could be a plausible analysis of result nouns in general, this clearly cannot be the whole story in the case of Udmurt. In Section 8.3.2 we saw that certain RNs can feature the intransitivizing/anticausative -śk voice morpheme or the -t (external) causative suffix.¹⁹ These RNs must be bigger than VP. The following examples are from Kirillova’s (2008) dictionary. (68) piž̮ -iśk-em, baśa-śk-em bake--m buy--m ‘pastry, goods/purchase’ (69) a. kin̮ -t-em, pir̮ gi-̮ t-em, sul’a-t-em freeze--m crumb--m bake/fry/melt--m ‘ice-cream, a type of sauerkraut, a type of omelette’ b. be̮t’ir̮ -t-em, žal’tir̮ -t-em, dźil’ir̮ -t-em, dźabil̮ ’-t-em --m --m --m --m ‘babbling/prattling, strumming, twitting/strumming, splashing/chirp’ ¹⁹ The -śk suffix is investigated in detail in Kozmács (2008) and Tánczos (2017). On the -t morpheme, see Tánczos (2016).

   

199

The intransitivizing/anticausative and the external causative morpheme have in common that they alter the argument structure of the base verb by removing or adding arguments. As shown in (26a), verbal morphology that operates on top of a full argument structure, e.g. frequentative morphology, is illicit with RNs. In order to accommodate -śk and -t, we might envisage a structure that contains a VoiceP or CauseP (70). (70) Rejected structure for result nouns

DP NumP nP PtcpP VoiceP vP

Voice - s´k

Ptcp -m

D

Num n ø

verb If however, we allow for RNs to contain a larger chunk of verbal structure, then it becomes impossible to exclude the appearance of arguments or adverbial modifiers. As the mixed projection analysis of RNs either cannot accommodate the argument structure changing morphology (67), or it wrongly predicts argument structure and adverbial modification (70), it is worth exploring the alternative whereby RNs arise from a PtcpP modifying a covert noun. As was mentioned in Section 8.5.2, Udmurt nouns do not take PtcpP complements, therefore an analysis with a covert N is plausible only if the PtcpP is a relative modifier: (71) [FP [PtcpP verb-m] [F [NP covert N]]]

‘RN’ (relative with a covert head)

One of the reasons why something like (71) was not attractive for verbal gerunds was that the posited covert N does not alternate with overt Ns. In the case of RNs, however, we do attest this alternation: The nouns following the -m forms in (72) can be omitted without a change in meaning.

200 ˊ ˊˊ    (72) a. kul-em ~ kul-em die-m die-m ‘dead person’

murt; mertć-em ~ mertć-em pu person sink-m sink-m wood ‘splinter’

b. piž̮ -iśk-em ~ piž̮ -iśk-em bake--m bake--m ‘pastry’ c. kin̮ -t-em freeze--m ‘ice-cream’

~

make ~ piž̮ -em make thing bake-m thing

kin̮ -t-em je̮l freeze--m milk

Numerous similar examples are also listed in Kalinina (2001: 26–31); there they are treated as the juxtaposition of a deverbal noun and a noun. The nouns that co-occur with RNs in her examples can be grouped semantically into time and place-denoting nouns as well as abstract nouns such as ‘mood’, ‘reason’, ‘manner/way’, etc. This makes the analysis of RNs in terms of an underlying RC structure more plausible than in the case of gerunds. If RNs involve underlying RCs, then we can also accommodate the intransitivizing/anticausative and the external causative morpheme: We have seen that this morphology is licit in RCs (39b). Although the overt nouns in (72) and in Kalinina’s (2001) examples are semantically light, syntactically they behave like garden-variety nouns: They allow for pluralization, adjectival modification, etc. If their covert counterparts share these grammatical properties and the difference mainly concerns exponence (which is what we attest with Uyghur covert nouns, cf. Asarina & Hartman, 2011), then the nouny properties of RNs are also correctly predicted. Example (71), however, does not straightforwardly account for the fact that RNs reject frequentative morphology, adverbial modification and the expression of the base verb’s subject argument as an instrumental PP. As shown in Section 8.5.1, ordinary RCs have these properties (because they allow a large verbal constituent under -m). In other words, the posited covert nouns seem to correlate with the lack of arguments and modifiers within the relative clause. We propose that RNs which contain the intransitivizing/anticausative or the external causative morpheme as well as those which optionally modify another N (such as those in (72) and the ones listed in Kalinina, 2001), regardless of whether they contain Voice/Cause morphology, are indeed RCs of some sort. If an RC+N combination is frequently used (e.g. because this specific collocation names an everyday household object, a traditional food

   

201

item, or an object connected to regularly recurring activities), then this combination can develop a conventionalized meaning, which can ultimately lead to a shortening of the phrase by dropping the head noun (which, we have seen, is often semantically quite light anyway). Examples such as džoktem lit. spooled ‘ball of yarn’, sul’atem lit. baked ‘omelette’, kin̮ tem lit. frozen ‘icecream’, kulem lit. dead ‘dead person’, pir̮ git̮ em lit. chopped ‘chopped and pickled cabbage’, kil̮ ’em lit. left ‘leftovers’, etc., are, in our view, outputs of this process.²⁰ A conventionalized meaning can emerge and the RC+N combination can function as a generic name of a kind when the semantic content of the RC is general enough to allow this, that is, it does not contain any modifiers that would lead to an episodic reading. An overtly expressed instrumental subject, an adverbial modifier, or the frequentative morphology will usually lead to an episodic reading, and so the N modified by such an RC will refer to a particular object in the world.²¹ That is, these modifiers are perfectly licit in RCs, including RCs projected by the base-verb of RNs, but the modified noun will not have a general, kind-denoting meaning in their presence, and therefore it will not be omissible either. While we take RNs with the intransitivizing/anticausative or the external causative morpheme and RNs freely juxtaposed to other nouns to be RCs in disguise, we leave open the possibility that other RNs (comprising just the base verb plus -m and not appearing in the juxtaposed construction) are mixed projections along the lines of (67). In Section 8.3.3 we discussed RNs derived from intransitive verbs. As they do not feature voice and causative morphology and they are more transparent semantically than the ones discussed in this section, it might be the case that these RNs instantiate the direct nominalization structure depicted in (67). If this is on the right track, then it might turn out that RNs in Udmurt have different underlying structures. We leave this question open for future research.

8.6 Conclusion The central problem addressed in this chapter was how to capture the crosslinguistically widespread participle-nominalization polysemy in a principled, structure-based account. We outlined three ways to unify participles and ²⁰ Over time, these short RCs with a covert head can grammaticalize into regular, morphologically nondecomposable nouns. ²¹ The object of the participial verb will not appear within the RC either, as the object corresponds to the overt or covert head noun and it is therefore necessarily unexpressed in the RC.

202 ˊ ˊˊ    nominalizations which share the same suffix, and as a case study, we explored which of these is most suitable to capture the facts in Udmurt. We discarded the possibility of analyzing the suffix -m of participles and nominalizations as a nominalizer, and concluded that this suffix is a verbal head, with gerunds involving mixed projections. Although still refinable in various ways, our proposal can serve as a basis on which to attempt a nonstipulative approach to the participle-nominalization polysemy in other languages as well.

Acknowledgments Our names appear in alphabetical order. We wish to thank our informants for being generous with their time and making this research possible. This material is based upon work supported by grants NKFIH KKP 129921, NKFIH FK 125206, and PPD-011/2017, which is gratefully acknowledged.

9 Relative nominals and event nominals in Hiaki Heidi Harley

Remarks on Nominalization centered on the question of whether certain derived nominals should be derived from underlying clauses, the ‘transformational’ approach, or base-generated in their nominal form. Given the conclusion that many complex nominals should be base-generated in their nominal form, the parallels between the phrase structural behavior of the corresponding verbal and nominal forms led to the proposal that phrase structure itself was best understood as an acategorial template—X-bar theory. It was the beginning of the end for language-specific syntactic rules, and the beginning of the beginning for a universal syntactic theory. Since then, however, it has become common to suppose that derivational morphemes take phrasal (though not necessarily ‘clausal’) complements (e.g. Miyagawa, 1998; Alexiadou, 2001, 2009; Borer, 2003, 2005a,b). In such proposals, the head of the embedded phrasal category is typically supposed to head-move and adjoin to the affix which projects the derivational phrasal category, resulting in the affixation of the derivational morpheme to its base, and effecting the category change triggered by the affix, if any. An important conceptual advance facilitated this development, namely the discovery that the clausal category (‘S’, or CP) consisted of a detailed hierarchy of projections intervening between the root node and the VP node. This allowed analysts to contemplate many subtle variations on a ‘clausal’ complement, each with varying properties: A CP complement would exhibit different properties than a TP, vP, or VP complement. Besides breakthroughs in our understanding of the morphosyntax of causatives and event nominals, key advances were made in ‘purely’ syntactic areas such as restructuring (Wurmbrand, 2003) or control vs. raising infinitives (Sigurðsson, 1989).

Heidi Harley, Relative nominals and event nominals in Hiaki In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Heidi Harley. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0009

204   Many cases of category-changing derivational morphology in this phrasal approach involve a nominalizer taking a phrasal complement at or within the level of ‘first-phase’ syntax (Ramchand, 2008): the VoiceP, vP, VP, √P-projections that between them account for the syntactic and semantic properties of the constituent corresponding to the traditional verb phrase, see e.g. Borer (1993, 2003), Kratzer (1994, 1996), Alexiadou (2001, 2009), and many others. Less work has considered nominalization of constituents larger than VoiceP, but Alexiadou (2001) laid the foundations for investigation of nominalized phrases in the verbal extended projection that include at least AspP, in Greek (Alexiadou, 2011b), Romanian, Polish, Bulgarian, German, and Spanish (Alexiadou et al., 2010), Cherokee (Stone, 2012), and other languages; see Kornfilt & Whitman (2011b) for a cross-linguistic overview. Such nominalizations are predicted to exhibit many clausal characteristics internally—mandatory argument realization, adverbial modification, unconstrained verb class—but nominal characteristics externally. I build on these developments to argue that Hiaki possesses nominalizations of this type, embedding (outer) AspP but not higher projections, such as TP or CP, supporting the conclusions of Martínez Fabian & Langendoen (1996) and Álvarez González (2012). Although they are not ‘true’ relative clauses, I also argue that the filler-gap structure evident in most of them requires an operator-movement treatment. Interestingly, although these constructions are usually predicates of individuals, a subset are event nominalizations. The event nominalizations are for the most part constructed from argumentless predicates—weather predicates and impersonal passives. Building on this observation, I propose that the nominalizing head is an identity predicate, reifying the outermost unsaturated argument in the nominalized projection, whether it is an entity (relative reading) or an event (event-nominal reading). I follow Kraus (2001) in suggesting that the assignment of genitive case to the subject conditions the allomorphy of the main exponents of the nominalizing head. I argue, building on Álvarez González (2012), that these clausal forms behave externally as unexceptional nouns, hence the term ‘nominalization’ is appropriate. However, I also argue that the syntactic patterns in the entitydenoting nominalizations requires an analysis involving lambda-abstraction over a saturated predicate, characteristic of relative clauses. Hence, Kraus’s term ‘reduced relative clause’ is also appropriate. I compromise on ‘relative nominal’ as a descriptive term.

      

205

9.1 Hiaki relative nominals: nP embedding AspP Hiaki is a Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Sonora, Mexico, and the southwestern US. It is SOV and agglutinating, with a nominative-accusative case system, and shows concord for case and number within the DP. Although it has ‘lexical’ nominalizers, such as-reo, an agentive nominalizer borrowed from Spanish-ero, it frequently derives nouns and adjectives from verbs by means of suffixes which preserve the base verb’s argument structure (modulating whatever changes the suffix itself imposes). Three types of suffixes have been called ‘relativizers’ in Hiaki (e.g. by Dedrick & Casad, 1999: 370). Subject ‘relatives’ are formed by adding the suffix -me to a verb, object and oblique ‘relatives’ are formed with -‘u, and locative ‘relatives’ are formed with -‘Vpo or -‘Vwi/-‘u. Below, we see pairs of examples, the first illustrating the declarative clause corresponding to the relative nominal form, the second the relative nominal itself. As is the case for adjectives in Hiaki, relative nominals can be freely used without a head noun. No relative pronoun is in evidence. (1) Subject-referring relative nominals with -me: a. Peo usita mahta. Peo usi-ta mahta Pete. child- teach ‘Pete is teaching the child.’ b. Uu usita mahtame Uu usi-ta mahta-me The. child- teach-. ‘The one who is teaching the child’ (2) Object-referring relative nominals with -‘u: a. Vempo aa teak. Vempo aa=tea-k 3. 3.=find- ‘They found it.’ b. Vem teaka’u Vem tea-ka-‘u 3. found--. ‘What they found’

206   (3) Oblique-referring relative nominals (with resumption) with -‘u: a. Vempo aetuk yeu yoemtuk. Vempo ae-tuk yeu yoem-tu-k 3. it-under out person-become- ‘They were born under it (referring to the nurturing earth)’ b. Vem aetuk yeu yoemtuka’u Vem ae-tuk yeu yoem-tu-ka-‘u 3. it-under out person-became-. ‘(The land) in which they were born (which nurtured them)’ (4) Location-referring relative nominals (syntactically PPs) with -‘Vpo: a. Empo hunum karimpo hoakan Empo hunu-m kari-m-po hoa-kan 2. - house--in live-. ‘You have lived in those houses.’ b. Em hoaka’apo Em hoa-ka-‘apo 2. live--. ‘Where you have lived’

(Álvarez González, 2012: 78)

Álvarez González (2012) argues that these forms should all be considered nominalizations, rather than relative clauses. Martínez Fabian & Langendoen (1996) come to a similar conclusion for the -me forms based on the fact that perception verbs can take -me forms as complements, but suggest that -‘u forms are true relative clauses; they do not address -‘Vpo constructions. The core of the argument presented by Álvarez González (2012) is that these forms exhibit most of the external morphological and syntactic properties of Hiaki noun phrases. In particular, he provides extensive documentation of the potential for each of these construction types to bear nominal inflection. The -me forms are inflected for accusative singular when they occur in object position or as the object of an accusative-assigning preposition. In addition to this, they may optionally inflect for plural number. The -‘u forms, which refer to nonsubjects, exhibit a more restricted pattern of nominal inflection. Objectreferring -‘u forms can be marked for plural number. However, the -‘u forms appear to be unlike regular nouns and -me forms in that they cannot be marked accusative. I contend, however, that this is not unexpected. Rather, it is a subcase of a general property of Hiaki noun phrases: Object noun phrases with genitive possessors usually fail to inflect for accusative case (Estrada-Fernandez &

      

207

Álvarez González, 2008; Sanchez et al., 2017). Since object relative nominals must express their subject arguments, and since those subject arguments are marked with genitive case (e.g. vem, ‘their’ in (2b)), the failure of -‘u forms to take accusative is a subcase of the general incompatibility of a genitive DP with accusative marking on the head noun. Hence, even when they cannot bear nominal inflection, Hiaki relative nominals show the morphosyntactic patterns of underived nouns. More evidence that these forms behave like underived nouns can be seen when they appear in predicate position. Adjectival and nominal predicates in Hiaki may occur bare in present tense (5a), but in order to be marked with other TAM suffixes, they must first be verbalized by the copular verbalizer -tu, ‘be/become’ (5b): (5) a. Hunuu kari. Hunuu’u kari That. house ‘That is a house.’

b. Hunuu’u karitukan. Hunuu’u kari-tu-kan That house--. ‘That was a house.’

In (6) we see -tu reverbalizing a -me nominal for use as an inflected predicate: (6) Uu ili uusi weemtuka veha vuivuititaitek. uu ili uusi wee-m-tu-ka=veha vui-vuiti-taite-k The little child. walk-.--=then -run.-begin- ‘The little child, having learned to walk, is starting to run.’ lit. ‘ . . . having become one who walks’ The subject nominal weem(e), ‘one who walks’, is reverbalized by -tu, permitting the attachment of the participial -k(a). Similarly, an -‘u relative nominal can occur as a predicate with TAM suffixation as long as it is reverbalized by -tu, as in the following corpus example: (7) Bweta vat naatekai wa’a bwa’ame ama mana’aname, huna’a vea mukilam tu’urisuka’utune. Bwe-ta vat naatekai wa’a bwa’ame ama mana’a-na-me, Well-but first beginning that food there set-.-. huna’a=vea mukilam tu’u-ri-su-ka-‘u-tu-ne that.=then deceased good-find---.-- ‘But since the beginning the food set [at the altar] is the kind that the deceased would have liked.’ (lit. ‘would be that which the deceased found good’) (Leyva, 2019)

208   The use of -tu- to verbalize -m(e) and -‘u forms is more evidence that they are nouns, as this is one key category diagnostic in Hiaki (Harley et al., 2019). Álvarez González (2012) also notes that these forms are never headed by a relative pronoun, the hallmark of true relative clauses, and concludes that these Hiaki constructions should be analyzed as nominalizations rather than relative clauses. It is unlikely that the verbal suffix can plausibly be treated as a relative pronoun or determiner. Hiaki DPs are left-headed, with a preceding D. Hiaki wh-words are similarly left-peripheral; in questions, wh-words always occur clause-initially, presumably in a specifier of CP. If these forms were relative clauses and had a wh-pronoun (or other A-bar-moved pronominal element) in Spec, CP, we would expect to see it surface clause-initially, not as a verbal suffix. A relative clause analysis might instead posit a null wh-operator in Spec, CP, and propose that the relative affixes spell out a head-final relativizing C on the right, agreeing with the wh-operator in its specifier. This would be consistent with the rigid right-headedness of the Hiaki extended verbal projection. But it would not explain their external nominal properties. However, there is other evidence these forms are internally not finite relative CPs. Neither -me clauses nor -‘u or -‘Vpo forms permit the full range of TAM suffixes inside the nominalizer. Although irrealis -ne (8a), (9a) and perfective -k(a) (2b), (3b), (4b) can occur inside the nominalizers, past -n (8b), (9b) and past perfect -kan cannot (8c), (9c): (8) a. Uu yoeme eu nokneme ama weyek. Uu yoeme e-u nok-ne-me ama weyek The. man. you-to speak--. over.there stand ‘The man who will speak to you is standing over there.’ b. *Uu yoeme eu nokanme . . . *Uu yoeme e-u noka-n-me . . . The. man. you-to speak--. ‘The man who was speaking to you . . . ’ c. *Uu yoeme eu nokakanme . . . *Uu yoeme e-u noka-kan-me . . . The. man. you-to speak-.-. ‘The man who had been speaking to you . . . ’

      

209

(9) a. Humee nava’asom hume kuusim ae a’a kututane’u humee navá’áso-m hume kúusi-m á-e The. blade- the. rosary- with it a’a kutúta-ne’u 3s. carve--. ‘The knife with which he would carve the beads’ (Crumrine, 1961: 23) b. *In amet tekipanoan’u *In a-met tekipanoa-n-‘u 1. it-with work--. ‘The thing with which I was working’ c. *In aet tekipanoakan’u *In ae-t tekipanoa-kan-‘u 1. it-on work-.-. ‘The thing I had been working on’ Although a past interpretation is normally impossible for an uninflected verb, uninflected verbs in a relative nominal can get either a past or present reading (10), suggesting that Tense is unspecified. (10) Uu yoeme eu nokame . . . Uu yoeme e-u noka-me . . . The. man. you-to speak-. ‘The man who is/was speaking to you’ The constrained range of TAM inflection inside nominalizations thus also suggests they are not fully finite relative CPs, but rather a nominalization of a lower functional projection.¹ The typological conclusions of Kraus (2001) further mitigate against a CPanalysis of the Hiaki relative nominals. She argues that genitive subject marking is cross-linguistically a hallmark of a ‘reduced’ relative structure, reflecting the omission of the nominative-assigning finite TP projection. Positing a reduced extended projection inside Hiaki relative nominals thus can explain why object, oblique, and locative relative nominals require genitive-marked subjects. ¹ This argument is weaker than it could be in that there is a potential phonological reason why these forms might not surface. Although coda [n] and onset [m] are both well formed in Hiaki, clusters of the form [n.m] are not attested, so it could be that the inflection is abstractly licit but deleted at the surface due to phonotactics. Further work is necessary to devise other diagnostics for the presence of the TP layer. Thanks to A. Álvarez (p.c.) for discussion of this possibility.

210   Following Kraus, we can ask which of the projections below TP is selected by these nominalizers. In previous work, Harley & Tubino-Blanco (2013) proposed the following templatic view of the extended projection of a Hiaki verb: (11) V-(V*)-(Derivation*)-Voice/Mood-Asp-Tense-C They argued that irrealis -ne resides in the Voice head, and that perfective k(a) resides in Aspect. Past -n is a realization of Tense. Given that -ne and -ka are licit, while -n is excluded from these forms, I conclude that AspP is selected by the nominalizers. This comports with Álvarez González’s (2012) observation that accusative case (a feature of Voice) and habitual Aspect (indicated by reduplication of V) and all varieties of derivational suffixation are preserved inside these nominalizations. A preliminary structural analysis of subject and object relative nominals is given in (12). The nominalizing n
head selects an AspP, and the verb headmoves to it. In the nonsubject relative nominals (12b), the subject DP, deprived of case within its own clause, raises to Spec, nP (or higher) to receive genitive case. (12) a.

nP AspP

n

VoiceP

Asp

vP VP DP[acc]

Voiceacc v

V

kava’i-ta hahasehorse-acc chase ‘one that chased the/ahorse’

ø-

ø-

kapfv

me S.nmlz

      

211

nP

b. DP[gen]

n’ AspP VoiceP ti

Asp Voice’

vP VP

n

Voice v

V vem tea ø3pl.gen found ‘one that they found.’

ø-

ka pfv

‘u o.nmlz

When a relative nominal modifies another head noun, I assume, with Álvarez González (2012), that it occurs in apposition to the modified noun, adjoined to the nP and yielding an intersective reading.² The structures above, however, do not account for the forms’ interpretations, and, relatedly, they have unexplained gaps where arguments should be. In Hiaki, valency is a rigid property of most predicates. In (12a), the subject position (Spec, VoiceP) is not realized, although the signs of active Voice and an external argument are present—no passive markers, accusative case on kava’ita, ‘horse.’. Similarly in (12b), the object of the transitive verb tea ‘find’ is absent, which otherwise never occurs; overt realization of selected objects in Hiaki is mandatory. In Section 9.3 a standard operator-movement

² This is thus a ‘matching’ analysis of the filler-gap structure, at least when these relative nominals occur in apposition with a ‘head’ noun. This predicts the absence of reconstruction effects or idiomatic interpretations with idiom chunks in the head position; further testing will be needed to investigate these predictions. I hypothesize, with Álvarez González, that apposition of a relative nominal can yield the same range of restrictive and nonrestrictive interpretations as ‘true’ relativization, perhaps depending on the height of attachment of the relative nominal; this issue also requires further investigation. See also discussion in fn. 5.

212   account of these gaps is proposed. First, however, we meet a class of nominalizations that appear semantically and syntactically distinct, but are formed with the same -me suffix as the subject relative nominals already discussed. They will motivate a proposal for the semantics of nominalizing n.

9.2 The subject nominalizer -me and abstract/event nominalizations We now turn to a closer examination of the subject nominalizer -me. As we have seen, this nominalizer creates relative nominals referring to subjects. It does not care what theta role that subject argument bears, nor what event type the verb belongs to. Rather, -me creates nominals that refer to whatever entity would be the nominative subject of the corresponding declarative, whether derived or base-generated. That subject argument is mandatorily absent, and the complex nominal is interpreted as referring to it—the nominative argument is ‘reified’, in Landau’s (2010a) sense. For example, as shown in Álvarez González (2005), a passive clause with a promoted internal argument, which has become the nominative subject (13a), forms a relative nominal in -me that refers to the promoted internal argument (13b): (13) a. Huna’a kesu ama hoowa. Huna’a kesu ama hoo-wa That cheese there make- ‘That cheese is made there.’ b. Huna’a kesu ama hoowame Huna’a kesu ama hoo-wa-me That cheese there make--. ‘That cheese that is made there.’ Similar patterns obtain for other derived argument structures. If a new object is added to the clause by applicativization, and then promoted to subject by passivization, -me suffixation produces a nominal referring to the promoted applied argument. Similarly, if a verb that has an agentive subject is causativized, the former subject is marked as an object and the causer becomes the new nominative subject. The -me nominal of such a causative refers to the nominative causer, not the verbal Agent. In short, if the corresponding

      

213

declarative has a nominative subject, -me suffixation creates a nominal that refers to it, whatever its selectional relation to the main verb.³ Surprisingly, Hiaki also permits subjectless clauses to be suffixed with -me. Consider an intransitive which has had its nominative subject suppressed by (impersonal) passivization (15a), available in Hiaki for any intransitive verb with a human subject (Harley & Jelinek, 2014). This verb has zero valency; it takes no entity arguments and would translate as an impersonal passive in e.g. Dutch. Here, affixation with -me yields a nominal that refers to the event denoted by the zero-valency verb (14b). The best translation is an English event nominal: (14) a. Aman nahsuawa. Aman nahsua-wa There fight- ‘Fighting is going on there.’ lit. ‘(It) is being fought there.’ b. Hunu’u nahsuawame hunu’u nahsua-wa-me that fight--. ‘The fighting’ Importantly, note that in the base sentence in (14a) there is no grammatical subject. Aman is adverbial, and does not figure in the argument structure of the sentence. Nonetheless, the supposed ‘subject’ nominalizer creates a nominal referring to the event argument. Molina et al. (1999) list several Vintr-wa-me forms as translations of English event nominals, all built from impersonal passives (15). Even these fairly ‘lexicalized’ forms (I call them ‘lexicalized’ since they merited inclusion in the dictionary) are clearly still clausal nominalizations; consider (15b) for example, which includes a clausal negator and adverb: (15) a. aleewame alee-wa-me happy--. ‘health, happiness, well-being’

³ Note that this insensitivity to verb type or thematic role, and sensitivity to purely grammatical roles, is another motivation for deriving these nominals syntactically, taking as a base a larger structure in the functional domain. Typical examples of ‘lexical’ derivational morphology attend to thematic or event-structural properties of the stem.

214   b. kaa ama’ali anwame kaa ama’ali an-wa-me not properly do--. ‘sin’, lit. ‘not doing properly’ c. atwame at-wa-me laugh--. ‘smiles, laughter’ d. bendisiroawame bendisir-oa-wa-me bless-do--. ‘blessing’ e. bwanwame bwan-wa-me cry--. ‘crying’ f. yee chupa’awame yee-chupa’a-wa-me people-finish--. ‘ambition’ g. eteho-wa-me speak--. ‘conversation. The productive character of event nominals in -wa-me is further supported by nonce forms in natural speech, like these corpus examples: (16) Kaita wana haksa to’owame. Kaita wana haksa Nothing from.side somewhere ‘There was no lying down anywhere.’

to’o-wa-me lie.down--. (Leyva, 2019)

(17) Hunaa intok vat yee varkaroawame Hunaa=intok vat yee=varkaroa-wa-me That=and first people=deport--. ‘And that’s when the deportations began.’

(Leyva, 2019)

      

215

The forms to’owame and yee varkaroawame do not occur in any dictionary and do not appear to be lexicalized; they seem to have been created for use in the moment. As with the previous examples, they are formed from impersonal passives of intransitive verbs, to’ote ‘lie down’ and the verb yee-varkaroa ‘people-deport’, which has transitive varkaroa as its base but which has been detransitivized with the incorporation of the indefinite prefix yee- ‘people’. In previous descriptions (Dedrick & Casad 1999), the -wame sequence is treated as an unanalyzable event nominalizer. Álvarez González (2005) recognizes the bimorphemic diachronic source of this form, but suggests that the abstract event-denoting meaning is due to lexicalization/reanalysis. He proposed that the reanalysis started with transitive-base forms in -wa-me, as in (12), forms which refer to a patient entity, ‘the one who is Vd’. He proposes that an abstract sense for the -wame combination was developed via lexicalization: The interpretation ‘the one who is Vd’ lost its concrete denotation via metonymy and ‘abstractivization’ and came to refer to ‘the result or event of V-ing’. This new abstractivizing suffix -wame could then apply to intransitive, yielding the event/Result Nominals typified by (15). In support of this proposal, Álvarez González (2005: section 3.5.2) exhibits two transitive-base verbs which have nominalizations in -wame that can either refer to the promoted patient argument (subject relative denotation) or to the event or result: (18) a. Hoan kaarota etbwa. Hoan kaaro-ta etbwa Juan car- rob ‘Juan is robbing the car.’ b. etbwawame etbwa-wa-me rob--. ‘The one who is robbed’ or ‘The result or action of robbing’ c. Ume yoemem maasom suak. Ume yoeme-m maaso-m sua-k The. men- deer- kill.- d. suawame sua-wa-me kill.--. ‘The ones who are being killed’ or ‘the result or action of killing’

216   In our data, these forms are more the exception than the rule. For example, no event/result reading is available for my consultants for (12b). For suawame ‘kill-pass-s.nmlz’, (18d), my consultants agree it has the abstract meaning (as well as the concrete meaning) when presented with the form out of context, but when asked to generate a sentence using the abstract sense, they prefer instead the detransitivized form hissuawame, which only has the event/result meaning. For etbwawame, (18b), they agree that it has the event-denoting meaning, as in Etbwawame si kaa tu’i ‘Stealing is really not good’, but note that it can also have the meaning ‘That which is being stolen’; for them, however, it cannot refer to the person being robbed. If the event/result readings in (14) and (15) were dependent on a lexicalized -wame suffix, we might expect that -wame forms generally would receive an event/result reading. That is, transitive bases in -wame would receive event/ result readings as often as entity readings, since there would be two derivations available: (i) the subject-nominalizing -me attached to a passive verb in -wa, yielding a relative nominal referring to the patient, and (ii) the event/result nominalizing -wame attached to the transitive verb. However, for my consultants, this does not seem to generally be the case. Transitive verbs suffixed with -wame seem to receive (patient) entity-denoting readings, while event/result readings are reserved for intransitive verbs with -wame. That is, the hypothesis that -wame is a monomorphemic event nominalizer misses the generalization, for my consultants, that it is primarily attested with intransitive verbs. If we take seriously the decomposition of -wame into passive -wa-, which suppresses an argument, and the nominalizer -me, we arrive instead at the generalization that the event reading for a -wa-me form is only available with intransitive verbs—that is, with verbs whose adicity has been reduced to zero by the removal of their only argument via the impersonal passive suffix -wa. This makes two predictions. First, only intranstive verbs that independently take -wa should be able to form event nominals in -wame. This is borne out by the ill-formedness of -wame event nominals of verbs which take nonhuman subjects. For example, the verb bwase ‘cook.’, cannot form an event nominal *bwasi-wame ‘cooking’. This is expected on the bimorphemic hypothesis, since there is no impersonal passive *bwasi-wa ‘(it) is being cooked’/‘cooking is happening’, because the verb does not take a human subject. Second, if -wa and -me are independent in these forms, we can seek confirmation in inflection. If -wa and -me are separate morphemes, perfective -ka will surface at the end of the verb but before the nominalizer. Such perfective event nominalizations require special context to make them felicitous, but in an appropriate context, they are perfectly acceptable.

      

217

Consider the following examples. The first, (19a) refers to drinking in general. The second, perfective, form refers to a specific event of drinking. It could be used in a context where people are discussing the deleterious effects of drinking tap water in e.g. Mexico City, which can give Americans diarrhea. The speaker remembers a particular night when she drank tap water, and then says (19b) (19) a. hi’iwame hi’i-wa-me drink--. b. Hunu’u hi’iwakame nee nasontak. Hunu’u hi’i-wa-ka-me nee nasonta-k that drink---. 1s. destroy- ‘That event of drinking wrecked me’ In this example we can see that the impersonal passive internal to the event nominal, hi’i-wa, ‘drink-’, can be inflected for Aspect, prior to the attachment of -me. This is predicted by an analysis which treats the -wa and the -me as independent suffixes in their own right, each performing normally in the clausal syntax. Further confirmation comes from certain -me nominalizations without -wa, formed from inherently impersonal predicates—weather predicates—which do not have a thematic subject argument at all. Martínez Fabian & Langendoen (1996) give nominalized forms derived from yuke, ‘to rain’, that have an event denotation even without -wa: (20) Yukemta ne hikkahan. yuke-m-ta=ne hikkaha-n rain-.-=1 hear- ‘I listened to it raining.’ A true relative clause formed on ‘rain’ or other intrinsically argumentless weather predicates could not denote since there is no argument position to abstract over. For example, #the event/time/weather that was raining does not work as a subject relative in English. Since the corresponding declaratives contain no grammatical subject, these forms cannot be relative clauses; relativization cannot proceed when there is no syntactic argument to relativize.⁴ ⁴ As in English, there is no subject nominal possible in Hiaki weather predicates; examples like (i) are out:

218   This observation forms part of Langendoen and Martínez Fabian & Langendoen’s argument against treating -me forms as relative clauses. The availability of an event-denoting reading for -me relative nominals of weather predicates confirms that -me on its own can yield an event nominal; -wa is not needed. This suggests that the inclusion of -wa in the other event nominals above is necessary to suppress the argument structure of the base predicate. The core generalization, then, is relative nominals with -me denote the subject of the clause, unless the clause was subjectless to begin with, i.e. unless the clause was an impersonal passive or a weather predicate. If -me attaches to such a subjectless clause, the resulting nominalization denotes the event or situation argument of the verb. Assuming that such zero-adicity verbs are predicates of events, and taking seriously the unity of subject-nominalizing -me and event-nominalizing -me, we propose that when -me attaches to a verb, it reifies whatever open argument is available. This will be the subject argument, in the case of the entitydenoting -me forms—but if there is no open entity argument, -me reifies the open event argument. This is what yields event/result denotations with argumentless predicates.⁵ In Section 9.1, we sketched the syntax of these relative nominals. Now we can develop a proposal about their interpretation.

(i)

*Yuku aman yuke. Yuku aman yuke Rain over.there rains ‘Rain is raining over there.’

I take this as evidence against the possibility that these event nominals are actually true subject relativizations of a null cognate subject, akin to the (dance) that was danced or the (song) that was sung. Although some of the unergative Hiaki predicates exemplified above, such as yi’i- ‘dance’, can optionally take an incremental-theme cognate object argument referring to an event, others cannot (e.g. hi’i- ‘drink’). As noted, weather predicates like yuke ‘rain’ prohibit any overt argument. I conclude a subject relativization analysis of these event nominals is untenable. Nonetheless, further investigation is warranted; the intuition resembles that expressed by Álvarez’s (2015) concept of ‘abstractivization’ of the relativized patient argument. Schäfer (2008b) describes some ambiguous -er nominals in German. Such nominals normally would refer to agents, but also have event-referring meanings, e.g. ein Hüpfer ‘a jumper/a jump’. ⁵ We might expect that an event nominal in -me could occur in apposition to another eventdenoting nominal, modifying it. It can, albeit with a significant prosodic break: (i)

Hiawata, atwamta ne hikkahak. Hiawa-ta j at-wa-m-ta=ne hikkaha-k Sound- laugh--.-=1. hear- ‘I heard the sound of laughter’; ‘I heard the sound—the laughter’

Restrictive uses of entity-denoting -me nominals in apposition do not usually require a prosodic break. However, little is known about nominal apposition and its relationship to prosody. It is possible that (i) is an instance of a nonrestrictive relative appositive use of an event nominal in -wa-me, and thus supports the unified treatment of -me here.

      

219

9.3 An identity function The introduction noted that the modern understanding of the extended verbal projection permits finer-grained hypotheses about the phrase structure of nominalizations. Similarly, the development of Davidson’s (1967) event argument will allow us to make a more concrete proposal concerning the interpretation of the Hiaki relative nominalizers. Davidson added the event argument to verbal predicates to capture entailments and anaphoric reference to the event. He argued that verbal predicates typically do not point to specific events, but simply assert the existence of the described type of event. Rather than hypothesize that the event argument is saturated or bound by a projected syntactic element, the consensus is that it remains unsaturated in the syntax until the verbal predicate merges with a particular functional projection, typically Tense. At that point either a default semantic operation of unselective binding existentially binds the event argument (as well as any other unbound variables), or else the lexical content of the T node existentially binds the event argument. In the syntactic representation, up to a certain level, the extended verb phrase remains an open predicate of events. This allows us to propose a treatment of the Hiaki nominalizers. At the constituent that is the correlate of the former VP node in the modern framework, i.e. at VoiceP, we have a denotation equivalent to that of the former VP, i.e. a predicate of events. In fact, I will propose that the event argument in Hiaki remains unbound even into AspP. This will allow us to adopt a univocal denotation for all the relative nominalizers of Hiaki. Here is the core idea: In a Hiaki nominalized clause, the nominalizer selects a verbal predicate, regardless of its type, and passes the denotation of the predicate up. The nominalizer functions purely syntactically: It changes the predicate’s category from verbal to nominal. If necessary, it also checks genitive case on the external argument of the predicate. (In Section 9.4, I follow Kraus, 2001, in suggesting that the form of the nominalizer is determined by whether it bears a [+gen] case feature or not.) The nP thus still denotes a predicate but due to its nominal category it will only subsequently compose with elements from the nominal extended projection. The nP can compose via predicate modification with another noun, to give the appearance of a headed-relative structure, or simply compose with D itself to have its open role bound and form a referring expression.

220   Let us see how the semantic derivation works. I will notate the nominalizer’s identity function as λP.P, where P is a variable over predicates.⁶ The most straightforward cases are the event nominals formed from passivized intransitive verbs or subjectless weather verbs. Let us consider the form in (15e), bwanwame ‘crying’, whose tree diagram in (21a) is annotated with the types of each of its constituents, with each node numbered for ease of reference. We follow Kratzer (1996) in assuming that external arguments are introduced by Voice. Let us look at the denotations corresponding to the numbered nodes from the bottom up. The unergative verb and its verb phrase 1 is a predicate of events, characterizing all and only crying events. The passive Voice head 2 introduces and existentially binds the only entity argument of the verbal predicate at VoiceP 3, yielding the ‘some Agent of this event exists’ entailment of an impersonal passive. The VoiceP itself is thus a predicate of events only. Aspect 4 is merged next, projecting to AspP 5. Since Aspect is unmarked, I assume it also denotes the identity function. Finally, the nominalizer n 6 is introduced and changes the category of the projection to nP 7; its denotation, however, is still that of a predicate of events. A subsequent nominal projection, most likely D, binds the open argument position in the predicate and yields the event-referring denotation crying for the full projection headed by this nominal. (21)

7

nP

a.

6n

5AspP 3Voice

1VP

V bwancry

4Asp

2

VoicePass

-wa pass

ø-

-me s.nmlz

b. 1. ⟦VP⟧=λe.cry(e) 2. ⟦VoicePass⟧= λPλe∃x.P(e) & Agent(x, e) 3. ⟦VoiceP⟧=⟦VoicePass⟧(⟦VP⟧)=λe∃x.cry(e) & Agent(x, e) by Function Application (FA) ⁶ In the formulas, s is the type of events/situations and e is a variable over events/situations; e is the type of entities/individuals; and x, y are variables over entities/individuals. Truth values are type t.

       4. 5. 6. 7.

221

⟦Asp⟧=λP.P ⟦AspP⟧=⟦Asp⟧(⟦VoiceP⟧)= λe∃x.cry(e) & Agent(x, e) by FA ⟦n⟧=λP.P ⟦nP⟧=⟦n⟧(⟦AspP⟧)= λe∃x.cry(e) & Agent(x, e) by FA

So far we have not learned much by working through the semantic derivation, but we can at least see how the content of nP is inherited from AspP to derive the abstract/event nominalization interpretation. Next we turn to subject-referring relative nominals, like (22) below: (22) Uu usita mahtakame Uu usi-ta mahta-ka-me The child- teach--. ‘The one who taught the child’ In this case, the derivation is constrained by our understanding of the syntax of Voice. Since the verb occurs in its active form, and assigns accusative case to the object of the verb, the Voice head above mahta must be an active Voice head—a syntactic argument must be projected in its specifier. The nP must denote a monotransitive predicate in order to compose with D, and since n is the identity function, its complement AspP must share this denotation. Since nP is a predicate of entities in this case, AspP must also be a predicate of entities, and its argument must be identified with the external argument of the verb mahta ‘teach’. To satisfy both the syntactic and semantic requirements on the construction, we must posit operator movement from Spec, VoiceP, creating a predicate of entities by lambda-abstraction over AspP. Spec, VoiceP is filled by Heim & Kratzer’s (1998: 186) lambda-operator, which moves to spec, AspP to create the predicate of entities that n selects in subject nominalizations. As usual, the trace of operator movement is interpreted as a variable. I illustrate the derivation in (23), this time including a D which binds the open lambda-abstracted argument to yield the entity-denoting referring expression.⁷ There is a key difference between this derivation and the previous one in the binding of the event argument; see discussion below. Again, the nodes of the tree are annotated with superscript numerals and subscript types to make discussion easier.

⁷ I omit intervening nominal projections for simplicity, though I assume they are there; the number/ case suffixes, for example, likely head NumP between DP and nP. For discussion of number in event nominals, see Alexiadou et al. (2010).

222   (23)

15DP 14

13

D

nP

11AspP 10

n

9

λi

Asp’

7

6t

12

8

VoiceP 5Voice’

i

3

4

VP

1

Uu The.nom 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

DP[acc]

usi-ta child-acc

Asp

Voice[acc]oblique hierarchy, it also permits relativization of all higher roles. Under Martínez Fabian & Langendoen’s treatment, Hiaki would be a language with object and oblique relativization, but without subject relativization, counter to the hierarchy.

228  

9.5 Outstanding issues and problems There are two primary types of example which pose problems for the analysis, having to do with copular and unaccusative verbs. Certain unaccusative verbs, besides permitting subject relative nominals with the predicted -me suffix, also permit subject relative nominals with -‘u, despite having no genitive-marked subject. Alongside the expected (29a), we find the unexpected (29b), apparently with the same meaning. (29) a. yaha-ka-me arrive.--. ‘Those who arrived’ b. yaha-ka-‘u arrive.--. ‘Those who arrived’ Similarly, in corpora we find the expected (30a) alongside the unexpected (30b), again with the same meaning. (30) a. Kokokame hiva aman kom woowota. Koko-ka-me hiva aman kom woo-wota die.--. only there down -throw ‘Only the ones who died were thrown down there.’ b. Hunum te kaa hu’unea haikimsa kokoka’u Hunum=te kaa hu’unea haikim-sa There-1 not know how.many- ‘We do not know how many died there.’

koko-ka-‘u die.--.

Although such forms are unexpected, in one respect they are perhaps not surprising, in that these apparent ‘object’ relative nominals are formed on unaccusative intransitives, which are independently argued to basegenerate their single argument in object position (Harley et al, 2006). If further investigation shows that the optional use of -‘u in these forms is related to the ‘deep object’ status of the relativized argument, that could be independent verification of the class of unaccusative intransitives in Hiaki. However, it would not bode well for the allomorphic treatment of the -me/-‘u alternation proposed in Section 9.4, since it suggests that the choice of

      

229

nominalizer depends on the grammatical role being relativized, rather than on the presence of a genitive-marked subject argument. On the other hand, these unexpected -‘u forms may also be related to the other class of challenging -‘u forms, created from perfective copular sentences. This construction is most frequently used with proper names in predicate position, and translates roughly as ‘the late Name’, or more literally, ‘the one who was Name’: (31) uu Luis Tonopoatuka’u uu Luis Tonopoa-tu-ka-‘u the Luis Tonopoa---. ‘The late Luis Tonopoa’, lit. ‘the one who was Luis Tonopoa’ (Leyva, 2019) It is also used with regular predicate nouns, often denoting roles or professions, as in (32). Álvarez González (2016) also documents its use with predicate adjectives: (32) a. kompae Rego komandantetuka’u. kompae Rego komandante-tu-ka-‘u compadre Rego commandante---. lit. ‘Compadre Rego who was commandante’ b. uu uhyoli-tu-ka-‘u uu uhyoli-tu-ka-‘u the pretty---. ‘The one who was pretty.’

(Álvarez González, 2016)

If the forms with unaccusative verbs in (29)–(30) require the use of perfective -ka with the -‘u suffix, that could suggest unifying those cases with the ka’u ‘one who was’ cases in (31)–(32). Álvarez González (2016) argues that these descend from a separate construction in Old Cahita, and are a holdover in Hiaki; he reports that Mayo has either regularized these forms to -me (for the nondeath-related meanings) or innovated a novel construction (for the death-related meanings). I set these forms aside here for future investigation.

9.6 Conclusion Although much remains to be done, certain conclusions seem to be supported. Filler-gap strategies for constructing relative-clause-like structure do not require CP; they can be implemented at lower levels of clause structure, like AspP.

230   Nominalization by a selecting n head can provide an account of why the subjects in these relative nominals are marked with genitive case. The analytical picture of available nominalization types cross-linguistically has been significantly enriched by developments since Remarks, built on advances that were only made possible by discoveries arising from the proposals in that paper. However, this new understanding suggests that Chomsky’s original arguments for expanding the base to accommodate nominalizations, rather than creating them via syntactic transformation, were perhaps off the mark. These Hiaki nominalizations are clearly created from inflected phrasal forms, not as separate neologisms in the lexicon. Our theory of UG does need a universal syntactic combinatoric operation, in the form of Merge, but instead of an X-bar template, Merge is constrained only by the selectional restrictions and interpretive possibilities of the specific lexical items involved. This analytical picture has a lot in common with the pre-Remarks framework, with its language-specific phrase-structure rules.

10 Categorization and nominalization in zero nominals Gianina Iordăchioaia

10.1 Derived nominals Chomsky (1970) draws a fundamental distinction between gerunds, as in (1b), and derived nominals, as in (1c), in how they relate to the parallel sentential construction in (1a). (1) a. John has refused the offer. b. John’s refusing/having refused the offer c. John’s refusal of the offer As summarized in Alexiadou & Borer (Chapter 1), the two types of nominalization present crucial differences with respect to productivity, compositionality of interpretation, and morphosyntactic properties, which led Chomsky to argue that only gerunds deserve a ‘transformationalist’ account, i.e., a syntactic derivation from corresponding sentences in the spirit of Lees (1960) and Lakoff (1965). Derived nominals lend themselves to a ‘lexicalist’ treatment, in which both the verb and the noun category are available for the base in the lexicon, with fixed category-specific selectional properties. Later literature readily acknowledges the contrast between gerunds and derived nominals, which leads to two parallel trends in the study of nominalization. On the one hand, mixed projections like the gerund are investigated in close connection with clausal structure and infinitival constructions (see Chierchia, 1984, Abney, 1987, Pires, 2001; cf. Panagiotidis, 2014, and Pires & Milsark, 2017, for overviews). On the other hand, the polysemy and often intriguing morphosyntactic behavior of derived nominals has made the focus of research studies that attempt to model regularity and idiosyncrasy in word formation, whether part of syntax or the lexicon (e.g. Grimshaw, 1990;

Gianina Iorda˘ chioaia, Categorization and nominalization in zero nominals In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Gianina Iorda˘ chioaia. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0010

232  ˘  Marantz, 1997; Harley & Noyer, 2000a; Alexiadou, 2001; Borer, 2005a, 2013; Lieber, 2016). This chapter belongs to the latter orientation. Grimshaw (1990) set another important milestone after Chomsky (1970), by showing that among derived nominals we can further delimit compositional readings, which inherit event structure properties from the base verb, from more idiosyncratic readings, whose relation to the base verb may be as weak as in lexicalization. I refer to the former as Argument Structure Nominals (ASNs; i.e., Grimshaw’s Complex Event Nominals); the latter come in two versions: Result Nominals and Simple Event Nominals, as Grimshaw calls them. The crucial difference between ASNs and the other two readings is the realization of argument structure as a diagnostic for the presence of verbal event structure (cf. Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 1998; et seq.), as illustrated in (2), and this is shown to pattern with further other morphosyntactic tests summarized in Alexiadou & Borer (Chapter 1): (2) a. The examination of the patients [took a long time / *was on (ASN) the table]. b. The examination/exam was [long / on the table]. (RN) Grimshaw does not dwell much on the difference between Result Nominals and Simple Event Nominals, and in this chapter I shall refer to them together as Referential Nominals (RNs) as in Borer (2013), in contrast to ASNs. On its RN reading, examination is synonymous with the clipped form exam and compatible with predicates of individuals like was on the table in (2b). On its ASN reading, it requires predicates of events such as took a long time in (2a). This distinction is recurrent in most of the subsequent literature, and especially in syntax-based models of word formation such as Distributed Morphology (DM) and the Exo-Skeletal Model (XSM), which have posited implementations of various cross-linguistic types of ASNs and RNs in terms of presence/absence of verbal and nominal structure. This chapter dwells on a type of derived nominal that has not figured very prominently in this tradition until Borer (2013)—namely, Zero-derived Nominals (ZNs) such as break (< to break). Grimshaw (1990) mostly discusses derived nominals built with the Latinate suffixes -al, -(at)ion, -ance, -ment, which Borer (2013) calls ATK-nominals (‘-ATion and Kin’). For the sake of contrast, Grimshaw occasionally mentions gerundive nominals (i.e. the ing-of gerund), which she takes to always form ASNs, and ZNs, which she takes to always form RNs. Neither of the two claims holds, however. Borer (2013: ch. 4)

  

233

shows that gerundive nominals may be RNs in the absence of argument structure, and I will show below that ZNs may form ASNs. The debate concerning the status of ZNs remains unsettled. Syntactic approaches initially followed Grimshaw (1990) (a lexicalist account, otherwise) and assumed that ZNs are always RNs, given examples as in (3a) (Marantz, 1997), to eventually admit the existence of so-called ‘exceptional’ ZNs that behave like ASNs, as in (3b) (Borer, 2003, 2013; Harley, 2009b). (3) a. *John’s break of the glass

(Marantz, 1997: 215)

b. My constant change of mentors from 1992–1997 (Borer, 2003: 53) Lexicalist accounts, in general, reject the event structure tests proposed by Grimshaw and reduce the description of derived nominals to a polysemy between eventive readings (including states) and referential readings (i.e. result, product, instrument, location, agent, path), a distinction for which argument realization does not play a role in itself, since arguments are understood in their semantic nature only, and not as a result of syntaxsemantic mapping as in Grimshaw (1990) (Lieber, 2004, 2016; Newmeyer, 2009). Lieber (2016), for instance, takes the possessive and the of-PP to be arguments of the ZN in (4) on its RN reading, although she mentions that possessives and of-PPs that appear with RNs ‘are interpreted as possessors, creators, or authors rather than as subjects or objects of the verbal base’ (Lieber, 2016: 43). In this chapter, I follow Grimshaw’s notion of argument structure and consider only the syntactic-semantic arguments that ZNs inherit from the verb on their eventive ASN readings; the possessive and the of-PP in (4) would thus qualify as modifiers and not arguments: (4) Guiding ethics have always required these guides to keep within the legal limits and never personally help fill a client’s catch of fish or bag of game. (Lieber, 2016: 43) The first goal of this chapter is to find out which ZNs may realize argument structure and what exactly, in the lexical semantics of their base verbs, allows ASN-formation. The second goal is to place these empirical facts in the context of the contemporary syntactic modeling of word formation and argue against labeling ZNs as a simple process of ‘categorization’ by which roots get categorized as nouns. I will show that, just like ATK-nominals, ZNs instantiate both categorization of roots and nominalization of verbal structures.

234  ˘  I start in Section 10.2 with a short summary of the main theoretical assumptions in the syntactic modeling of derived nominals and explicate the notions of categorization and nominalization as I use them from this perspective. In Section 10.3 I proceed with the empirical picture of ZNs, in which I present previous claims and challenges to them. Section 10.4 presents a substantial body of empirical evidence from semantic verb classes, which shows that ZNs may form ASNs for particular types of verbs but not for others. In Section 10.5 I conclude on my results.

10.2 Syntactic approaches to derived nominals This work will be couched in DM so I focus on this framework and make additional remarks for comparison to XSM, when necessary. Both DM and XSM assume that word formation involves uncategorized and nondecomposable roots as basic elements (e.g. √, √), which combine with functional categories to form words. An important difference is that DM assumes that roots first combine with lexical categorizers such as n(oun), v(erb), and a(djective), while in XSM these are inexistent, and roots are indirectly categorized by higher category-specific functional heads such as D or T for nouns and verbs (Borer, 2005a,b, 2013; cf. De Belder, 2011). In DM, lexical categorizers are crucial, since Marantz (2001, 2007, 2013) argues that they are phase heads and delimit the level where idiosyncratic meaning is negotiated between roots and functional categories, leading to two cycles of word formation, as in (5): root-based (inner) derivation in (5a) and word-based (outer) derivation in (5b) (see also Arad, 2005; Embick & Marantz, 2008; Embick, 2010; Panagiotidis; 2011, 2014). (5)

a. Root-based derivation xP x

√ROOT

b. Word-based derivation xP x

n/v/aP n/v/a

√ROOT

The outputs of the two cycles exhibit different properties. Root-based derivations as in (5a) are characterized by: (i) negotiated (idiosyncratic) meaning of the root in the context of the categorizer; (ii) reduced productivity;

  

235

(iii) the meaning of the construction depends on root semantics independent of argument structure operations. Word-based derivations show opposite properties: (i) compositional meaning predicted by the base word; (ii) apparent full productivity; (iii) the meaning of the construction may involve arguments structure. The first two properties remind us of Chomsky’s (1970) contrast between gerunds and derived nominals, and the two cycles in (5) perfectly capture the distinction between ASNs and RNs, as argued even before lexical categorizers were specifically introduced in DM (Alexiadou, 2001) or in their absence in XSM (Borer, 2013). This suggests that RNs, which receive relatively free interpretations in relation to their base verbs and inherit no properties from them, are root-based derivations, while ASNs are word-based derivations, i.e., nominals derived from categorized verbs, from which they inherit various amounts of functional structure that includes at least vP and possibly as high as VoiceP or even higher, as in (7). The root-based structure in (6) derives the RN examination in (2b): in the context of -ation, the root √ negotiates the meaning ‘set of questions or tasks designed to test a person’s knowledge’, and, possibly, other readings, which is typical of polysemous deverbal nouns. A root-based derivation accounts for polysemy (Marantz, 2013) and for the selectional restrictions with respect to suffixes (cf. *examin-ance, *examine-ment, etc.). In the absence of verbal event structure, the absence of argument structure as for examination in (2b) is accounted for.¹ (6) Root-based derivation of RNs nP

n -ation

√EXAMINE

Following Grimshaw’s (1990) insights, the ASN reading of examination would receive a word-based derivation as in (7), which includes at least the

¹ Some RNs may involve the phonology of a verbalizing suffix: e.g. organ-iz-ation on its RN reading of an institution involves the verbalizer -ize, which should instantiate v and form a word-based derivation in DM (e.g. Borer, 2013: 447). Marantz (2013) discusses similar examples with rootderived stative participles including such suffixes and, following also Anagnostopoulou & Samioti (2013), shows that these suffixes do not introduce an event variable and do not carry event structure properties typical of v. This aspect does not bear on my discussion of ZNs, as they do not include verbalizers, but I refer the reader to Anagnostopoulou & Samioti (2013) for a possible implementation of the differences between such suffixes and those that involve event structure properties.

236  ˘  event structure responsible for argument realization (but possibly also higher levels like AspectP; see comparable analyses in Harley, 2009b; Alexiadou et al., 2011; and Borer, 2013: 179). In a neo-Davidsonian approach, I take the internal argument to be hosted by ThemeP and the external one by VoiceP (see Alexiadou et al., 2015). Importantly, ASNs are word-based formations, predicting compositional interpretation, productivity, and availability of argument structure, as in (7). (7)

Word-based derivation of ASNs the doctor’s examination of the patients nP n -ation

VoiceP the doctor

VoiceP Voice

ThemeP

the patients

vP v

√EXAMINE

10.2.1 Categorization and nominalization by n From this perspective, there is no morphosyntactic difference between rootderived RNs and lexical nouns such as cat: both are categorizations of roots into nouns. In DM, cat is derived by a zero nominalizer, as in (8), while the RN in (6) involves an overt suffix -ation. (8)

(9)

nP n -Ø

√cat

vP v -Ø

√examine

The implication is that there is no reason to consider RNs deverbal, since they do not present any morphosyntactic properties of a verb in their behavior (leaving aside possible verbal phonology mentioned in fn. 1). Their

  

237

interpretation solely relies on encyclopedic knowledge about the corresponding root, which is also associated with the verb examine, similarly derived from a root, as in (9). Accordingly, the RN readings may be seen as independent of the existence of the verb and qualify as categorizations of roots by n, while ASNs are built on top of verbs and represent nominalizations of verbal structures. I will keep the term nominalization only for structures as in (7), where a nominalizing suffix indeed changes the category of a word.

10.3 Zero nominals In what follows I review recent critical takes on the formation of ZNs, as developed in Borer (2013), and then focus on one generalization—namely, their alleged inability to build ASNs. Most of the data I use originates in natural text corpora available at www.english-corpora.org (Davies & Fuchs, 2015; Davies, 2017): COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), NOW (News on the Web), and GloWbE (Corpus of Global Web-based English). My examples come from US, Canadian, British, and a few Australian web domains.

10.3.1 ZNs in syntactic approaches ZNs have rarely been closely investigated before—exceptions are Irmer (1972) and Cetnarowska (1993), which represent comprehensive overviews of the semantic and morphosyntactic diversity of these derived nouns. In general, the generative literature paid more attention to denominal zero-derived verbs, which are more productive than ZNs in English. In DM, in particular, the latest view on zero-derived verbs is that they are (re-)categorizations of roots, following the derivation pattern in (5a) (see Rimell, 2012), a result also supported by computational studies on their distributional semantics such as Kisselew et al. (2016). In spelling out her implementation of word formation in XSM, Borer (2013: ch. 7) explicitly argues against lexical categorizers and zero derivational suffixes as used in DM, proposing instead that roots implicitly receive a category from the extended projection head they combine with once they appear in the syntax. She employs zero-derived verbs and nouns to illustrate her claims. Although this is not her primary goal, Borer offers a worked-out proposal for ZNs in XSM, which is theoretically close enough to allow a direct

238  ˘  comparison with the patterns in (5). Moreover, her work also includes an extended critical overview of the properties of ZNs and their previous accounts, which I will not review here. In the context of the two word formation types in (5), Grimshaw’s (1990) claim that ZNs never form ASNs but only RNs leads to a derivation as in (5a). Their lack of overt marking further supports this analysis, as they would pattern with lexical nouns as in (8). This is also what Borer (2013) proposes. Specifically, in rejecting lexical categorizers like n and v, she argues that a root like √ gets categorized either as a noun or as a verb by corresponding nominal and verbal extended projections such as D and T in (10a) and (10b). (10) a. [[C=N √]]

b. [[C=V √]]

Borer (2013) discusses several characteristics of ZNs that lead her to this analysis, which I summarize in three main aspects below. I present these properties strictly from the perspective of ZNs as an empirical domain and not that of the theoretical modeling in DM or XSM, as Borer does. The framework I assume is DM, and I will not attempt to defend it over XSM, or take issue with Borer’s reasons to reject its foundations. The first and most important property of ZNs, which requires the rootbased analysis in (10a) in Borer’s view, is their alleged inability to form ASNs, as illustrated especially by the contrast with overtly suffixed nominals built on the same root offered in (11) (Borer, 2013: 332); we will see, however, that these judgments are challenged by corpus data in (14) and (15): (11) a. the walking/*walk of the dog for three hours b. the importation/*import of goods from China in order to bypass ecological regulations c. the salutation/saluting/*salute of the officers by the subordinates Second, as previously noted in Kiparsky (1982b), ZNs may exhibit stress shift in comparison to the corresponding verb form, as in (12). In XSM, like in DM, phonological changes on the root are an indication of root-based derivation, which also supports the analysis in (10a). (12) a. permítV > pérmitN b. progréssV > prógrèssN

  

239

Third, Borer notes that if ZNs were able to include verbal structure in their make-up, roughly corresponding to an ASN pattern as in (7), they should be available with complex verb forms that include overt verbalizing suffixes such as -ize or -ify, just like overt suffixes are. Example (13) shows that this is not possible, enforcing Borer’s conclusion that ZNs are root-derived. (13) a. crystal(l)-ize > *the crystal(l)-ize-Øn (cf. crystallization) b. acid-ify > *the acid-ify-Øn (cf. acidification) Borer (2013: 331) lists some—in her view, ‘exceptional’—ZNs that realize arguments: e.g. change (exchange), release, use (misuse, abuse), murder, discharge, endeavor, consent, resolve, descent (ascent), decline, collapse, rape (see (3b)). For these, she suggests a possible ASN treatment and argues that they may involve a suffix that is phonologically robust enough as to block stress shift in Latinate ZNs. Thus, argument-realizing ZNs such as abúse, descént, collápse with no stress shift contrast with ímport, éxport, prógress, which involve stress shift and do not form ASNs (see (12)). The former behave as expected under the ASN derivation in (7), the latter conform to the rootderivation in (6)/(10a). We will see in (16), however, that stress shift does not always prevent argument realization as predicted by Borer. To conclude, Borer’s account presents ZN formation as nominal categorization of roots (see Section 10.2.1), and not as nominalization of verbal structure, with some limited exceptions. To this extent, there is no morphosyntactic difference between lexical nouns and ZNs.

10.3.2 Some challenges to previous generalizations on ZNs The generalization that ZNs cannot form ASNs and the data in (11) are challenged by counterexamples from natural text corpora: import and export frequently realize argument structure, as shown by (14), where ZNs realize of-PPs in eventive contexts (in bold), pointing to ASNs. Although they are not so frequent as for import and export, we also find examples with salute and walk realizing of-phrases and possessors on eventive readings, as in (15), showing that at least for some speakers they are possible, contra (11) (see also McIntyre, 2019).² ² Examples without a period at the end represent fragments from longer sentences in the corpus. Those that have a period appear as such in the corpus.

240  ˘  (14) a. And ending that also means ending import of slaves. (GloWbE) b. Tokyo allowed the continued import of South African (COCA) coal c. Beijing’s continuing export of dangerous missiles and (COCA) nuclear technology d. to help Russia privatize its nuclear program and stop (COCA) export of scientists and plutonium (15) a. Trump defended his salute of one of Kim’s generals. b. Dave headed off for his first daily walk of the dog. c. I have made the conscious choice not to exercise much beyond a brisk walk of the dog.

(NOW) (GloWbE) (GloWbE)

Stress shift is indeed a property of ZNs, yet it does not automatically block realization of argument structure, as predicted by Borer’s analysis. This is shown by ímport in (14a,b) and other ZNs such as íncrease and réwrite in (16). There are additionally many other recent ZNs derived from complex verbs with particles/prefixes—which, like réwrite, involve stress shift and realize argument structure: e.g. dównload, úpload, úpdate, óverride, óvercount, réstyle (see also Iordăchioaia, to appear, and Roeper, Chapter 12, on particle verb nominals). (16) a. [T]he events of recent days have brought a rapid rewrite of the Green story. b. the ongoing rewrite of the city’s land use code c. A White House blog post highlighted Microsoft’s efforts to expand Internet access in schools, as well as its increase of paid leave for mothers d. Progressives say that his increase of the top tax bracket did not prevent economic growth

(NOW) (NOW) (NOW)

(GloWbE)

Examples (15) and (16) show that ZNs do not entirely conform to the predictions of a root-based derivation and have the potential of realizing argument structure to various degrees. For instance, while salute and walk typically denote RNs, as Borer (2013) rightly points out, appropriate contexts as in (15) enforce ASN readings for some speakers. I will not dwell here on why ZNs cannot be formed from verbs with overt verbalizers as in (13), but see Iordăchioaia (2019b) for some suggestions. In what follows, I show that the ASN potential of a ZN depends on the type of root that the base verb is built on.

  

241

10.4 ZN formation from the perspective of verb classes In this section, I seek to explain why some ZNs ‘exceptionally’ form ASNs and to determine this on the basis of the semantic type of the verb they are derived from. I will eventually make the case that ZNs may form both ASNs and RNs, largely depending on the base verb’s root ontology and the type of event structure that these roots require. I concentrate on two larger groups of verbs that are built on stative roots: psych verbs and change of state verbs.

10.4.1 Property concept and result roots Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2020) differentiate between change of state verbs built on property concepts and result roots. A list of both types of roots is given in (17) and (18) (from Beavers & Koontz-Garboden, 2020: 78–9; and Dixon 1982: 16).³ (17) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

(18) a.

b. c. d. e. f.

Property concept roots Dimension: large (big), small, short, long, deep, wide, tall Age: old (age) Value: bad (worse), good Color: white, black, red, green, blue, brown Physical Property: cool, cold, warm, hot, dirty, dry, wet Speed: fast, slow Human Propensity: angry, calm, scare, sick, sad (depress), hurt, tire, embarrass Result roots Entity-specific Change of State: burn, melt, freeze, decay (rot), swell, grow, bloom (flower, blossom), wither (wilt), ferment, sprout (germinate), rust, tarnish Cooking Verbs: cook (bake, fry, roast, steam), boil Breaking Verbs: break, crack, crush, shatter, split, tear (rip), snap Bending Verbs: bend, fold, wrinkle (crease) Verbs of Killing: dead/die/kill, murder, drown Destroying Verbs: destroy (ruin)

³ The Human Propensity class in (17g) follows Dixon’s classification (1982) of the seven classes of property concepts, which Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2020) also largely adopt.

242  ˘  g. Verbs of Calibratable Change of State: go up (rise, ascend, increase, gain), go down (fall, drop, descend, decrease, decline), differ h. Verbs of Inherently Directed Motion: come, go, go in (enter), go out (exit), return Semantically, property concepts are simple states, while result roots entail a change that leads to the state, and this associates with a difference in their categorization as adjectives or verbs. Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2020) argue that in English the former are typically lexicalized as adjectives (as expected for simple states) and the latter as verbs (which typically lexicalize change). Consequently, change of state verbs built on property concepts are usually de-adjectival (see to redden, to lengthen, to cool), while adjectives built on result verbs are deverbal (see burnt, frozen, shattered). This predicts a contrast between simple (root-based) and deverbal adjectives built on property concepts, in that the latter will entail a change and the former will not. The data in (19), where negating the event is contradictory with the deverbal adjective but not with the simple one, confirms this prediction. Moreover, adjectives built on result roots as in (20) behave like the deverbal adjectives in (19). (19) a. The red/#reddened dirt has never (been) reddened. b. The long/#lengthened river has never (been) lengthened. (20) a. #The shattered vase has never (been) shattered. b. #The dead man has never died. A cross-linguistic investigation of the two classes shows that labile roots that may express both property concepts and change of state are overwhelmingly lexicalized as verbs, leading Koontz-Garboden et al. (2019) to conclude that the presence of a change of state meaning component requires the verb category, as formulated in (21) (see also Koontz-Garboden, 2005: 103–7; cf. Beavers et al., 2017). (21) The same property concept word can give rise to state and change of state lexical entailments just in case it is a verb. This generalization is relevant for ZNs, as it gives us a means to find out which, if any, must be derived from a verbal structure (not a root) and, possibly, realize arguments. As I will argue, ZNs with a change of state meaning built on result roots as in (18) are such cases.⁴ Following (21), the change of state ⁴ The formulation ‘ZNs derived from/built on (result) roots’ should be read in a strictly morphological sense and not taken to suggest a root-derived analysis for ZNs. My argument will be that some are derived from verbs, while others from roots.

  

243

meaning with state roots should not be available in the absence of a verb, which for ZNs entails that they should include some verbal event structure.

10.4.2 ZN formation with stative verbal roots 10.4.2.1 Methodological preliminaries ZNs are not as productive as other deverbal nominals—like, for instance, those formed with -ing or -ation. Yet, they are not unproductive either: Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records about 300 (i.e. 11%) ZNs that appeared after 1900.⁵ The direction of the derivation from noun to verb or verb to noun is not always straightforward, but I generally follow the historical attestation and consider nouns attested later or around the same time with the verbs (cf. fn. 11 on verbs of killing).⁶ In identifying the ZNs built on the roots in (17) and (18), I rely on their entries in the OED, which records their various senses.⁷ I classified these OED senses in four general categories: event, state, agent/instrument/cause, and result entity, of which the latter two morphosyntactically behave like RNs, while events and states potentially form both ASNs and RNs. I take argument realization to disambiguate in this case and I focus on events, since only these are dynamic and would encode a change of state. Besides the entries in (17)–(18), I consider additional verbs of the same class from VerbNet (Kipper Schuler, 2005). As already discussed in (4) and pointed out by Grimshaw (1990), not every possessive or of-PP realization with a derived noun qualifies as a structural external/internal argument, and additional tests are usually needed. It is well known, however, that unequivocal diagnostics offered in the theoretical literature are barely ever found in corpora (Lieber, 2016). The most reliable test provided by Grimshaw (1990) for ASNs is their co-occurrence with aspectual in- and for-PPs (Alexiadou & Borer, Chapter 1). However, corpora exhibit close to no such occurrences.⁸ For the corpus data below, if possessives and/or ⁵ Thanks to James McCracken (OED Technology) for providing me with this list. ⁶ Many of these ZNs are, of course, borrowed from French or Latin and not formed in English. However, to the extent that their formation merged with an internal word formation process in English, identifying semantic verb classes from which they are derived is a step toward understanding this process. ⁷ Many of the ZNs discussed here come from a database that I developed together with my student assistants Yaryna Svyryda, Susanne Schweitzer, and Camila Buitrago Cabrera in the DFG Project IO 91/1-1 (see Iordăchioaia, Schweitzer et al., 2020). ⁸ Iordăchioaia, van der Plas et al. (2020) created a frequency-balanced list of 125 ATK- and gerundive nominals derived from transitive verbs and automatically extracted their occurrences in a head-modifier

244  ˘  of-PPs are realized with ZNs on a reading parallel to that of the base verb, and the ZN appears in an eventive context, I interpret this combination as indicating an ASN reading, similarly to Grimshaw’s (2a). See more clarifications at the end of Section 10.4.2.2. 10.4.2.2 ZNs derived from verbs with result roots I start with ZNs that are built on the result root classes in (18) and show that many of these indeed realize argument structure, which speaks for event structure in their make-up. All the result root classes in (18) build ZNs except for the destroying verbs in (18f) (ruin is at least chronologically a noun first). ZNs derived from breaking verbs typically are RNs and favor a result entity reading (see break, crack, crush, shatter, rip, split, tear), as Levin (1993: 8–9) also observes for break. Although some are recorded with an event meaning in OED (break, rip, split, tear, crash), only crash appears with of-phrases, mostly on an inchoative reading, as in (22a), but causative readings are also available with agentive modifiers, as in (22b).⁹ (22) a. what I think will ultimately lead to a complete crash of the US economy b. investigated the deliberate crash of a Germanwings passenger jet into a mountainside

(GloWbE) (GloWbE)

ZNs derived from cooking and bending verbs also primarily display RN readings (see agentive cook, and result entity bake, fry, roast, steam, boil, broil, stew, scald, toast, as well as bend, fold, crinkle, crumple, stretch). Boil, roast, scald, bake, bend, fold, and stretch may refer to actions, but only roast occasionally realizes argument structure, as in (23). (23) the sun resumed its slow roast of the forest canopy

(COCA)

The classes of entity-specific change of state, verbs of killing, verbs of calibratable change of state and verbs of inherently directed motion are relationship with in- and for-PPs from an annotated corpus of general domain English (c. 4 billion words). However, this led to no usable data. The few attested in-PPs were not aspectual modifiers and, among the few aspectual for-PPs, we found only result state modifiers, which modify not the extension of the event itself but that of the result state following the event (as in Manuela jumped into the water for twenty minutes from Piñón, 1999). ⁹ I employ the term ‘causative’ in its broad sense of the transitive use of a verb, without any implications related to causative semantics.

  

245

most productive in deriving ZNs that realize what looks like argument structure. The first three also derive result entity ZNs: especially entityspecific change of state verbs (burn, melt, rot, swell, bloom, blossom, sprout, tarnish, molt), some of calibratable change of state (increase, rise, raise, vary) and kill, among verbs of killing. Like most of the other ZNs corresponding to the verb classes in (18a,e,g,h), some of these have event readings, many of which exhibit of-phrases and possessives (or by-phrases) introducing arguments: burn, melt, thaw, decay, rot in (24); murder, kill, dispatch, massacre, slaughter in (25); rise, increase, fall, drop, decrease, raise in (26) (besides (16c,d)); exit and return in (27).¹⁰ (24) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

(25) a. b. c. d. e.

ZNs with entity-specific change of state verbs Coast Guard begins controlled burn of oil in Gulf. This approach translates into a faster and more complete burn of the fuel if we don’t stop [ . . . ] the continued melt of sea ice, that population will disappear a continuing, slow thaw of a credit card lending industry that nearly froze up during the recession [ . . . ] who came of age in Kruschev’s thaw of Stalinism a continued decay of British society the ongoing decay of culture you are just describing the continued slow rot of selfinterested politicians ZNs with verbs of killing11 [he] probably witnessed their murder of his mother legalizing the on-site kill of meat animals on farms their dispatch of Osama bin Laden last May the Uzbek army’s massacre of civilians in Andija the slaughter of the city’s Jews by crusaders

(NOW) (NOW) (NOW) (GloWbE) (COCA) (GloWbE) (GloWbE) (GloWbE)

(NOW) (GloWbE) (NOW) (NOW) (NOW)

¹⁰ Causative thaw and kill in (24e) and (25b) may not be fully natural to every speaker, but I cited them for their potential use in such contexts. ¹¹ The nouns murder, slaughter, and massacre are attested earlier than the verbs. For murder and slaughter, OED suggests connections with Proto-Germanic roots indicating that at an earlier stage they could have been deverbal nouns with a suffix that then disappeared. This would explain the subsequent formation of new verbs with the same form. Massacre is borrowed from French and attested a few years earlier than the verb, also a borrowing. According to the OED, the direction of the derivation is also debated for French, but I treat them all as ZNs, since they conform to the others in the class and are semantically felt as such (see also Borer, 2013: 331).

246  ˘  (26)

ZNs with verbs of calibratable change of state a. satellites have tracked the gradual rise of the world’s ocean b. It’s been an expensive year, especially with the constant rise of living costs c. the surgery will also stop the constant increase of pain d. It is the result of the continued fall of the dollar. e. the continuous drop of the budget deficit f. the gradual decrease of the patient’s white cell count. g. the biggest focus of the military in recent years has been a continuous raise of salaries

(27) a. b. c. d.

ZNs with verbs of inherently directed motion The oldest most experienced workers [ . . . ] are beginning their gradual exit from the workforce. Their quick exit from the playoffs In my opinion, the book suffers because of his constant return to Google Wave as an (irrelevant) whipping post. His gradual return to music began in 2009 with shows in Las Vegas.

(GloWbE) (GloWbE) (GloWbE) (GloWbE) (NOW) (COCA) (GloWbE)

(GloWbE) (COCA) (GloWbE) (GloWbE)

As mentioned in Section 10.4.2.1, corpus examples are challenging, since not all instances of possessives and of-phrases qualify as structural arguments, and additional evidence is needed, which is often not available in corpora. In the data from (14) to (16) and (22) to (27), I took causative ZNs that either realize both internal and external arguments (see (14c), (15a,b), (16c,d), (23), (24e), and (25)) or include agent-oriented modifiers (as in (22b) and (24a)) in parallel readings to those of corresponding verbal constructions to be clear ASNs. However, many of the verbs in (18) lack causative readings and appear only inchoatively. Their ZNs realize inchoative readings, which are more susceptible of ambiguity with RNs than the causative ones. For these inchoative ZNs, I cited contexts that include event modifiers indicative of event structure and pointing to a structural licensing of the apparent semantic arguments. Among these modifiers, constant, illustrated in (26b,c) and (27c) is employed in Grimshaw (1990) as a test for ASNs, while continuous (or continuing, continued) in (24c,d,f,h)–(26d,e,g) and ongoing in (24g) show similar aspectual properties. The degree modifier complete measures the scalar change undergone by the internal argument in the inchoative event in (22a) and (24b), while gradual, as illustrated in (26a,f ) and

  

247

(27a,d), has been argued to modify scalar change and diagnose telicity (see Piñón, 2000, on gradually; Borer, 2013: 162, on gradual; Piñón, 2005, on completely). Manner modifiers such as slow in (23), and (24d,h), fast in (24b), and quick in (27b) confirm the eventive use of these ZNs, although they would be compatible with eventive RNs as well; in these examples, however, argument structure is attested by other means. In addition, ZNs occasionally appear with event-selecting verbs such as witness in (25a) and aspectual verbs such as resume in (23), begin in (24a) and (27a), and stop in (24c) and (26c). Some of the ZNs above commonly realize arguments (e.g. crash, thaw, melt, rot, exit, return), while others like decay, drop, rise, increase, decrease, and fall very frequently do so—we find hundreds of examples in the mentioned corpora. Moreover, my current OED-based collection includes about one hundred ZNs derived from change of state verbs, half of which exhibit what could be interpreted as eventive uses, and over thirty of these also realize at least the internal argument (see Iordăchioaia et al., 2020). Further examples are plunge, soar, decrease, causative move, reheat, topple, change, collapse, advance, close, drain, overturn, defreeze, meltdown, close-down, rebalance, refill, revise, and repair. Interestingly enough, one may notice that many of Borer’s (2013: 331) ‘exceptional’ AS-ZNs belong to some class of change of state verbs. Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2020) argue that the verbs built on result roots obligatorily include an inchoative subevent. Given the argument structure available in their corresponding inchoative ZNs in (22) to (27), I propose in Section 10.4.3 that these ZNs must inherit the verbal event structure from the verb to realize arguments and thus form ASNs. By contrasting them with ZNs derived from psych property concepts, I show that their argument realization cannot come from the root alone but must originate in verbal event structure. 10.4.2.3 ZNs built on psych property concept roots There are not many ZNs derived from the property concept roots in (17), which may be due to their lexicalization as adjectives and the fact that ZNs are not derived from deadjectival verbs for reasons that I cannot address here (see Kiparsky, 1982b, Borer, 2013: ch. 7, for morphological restrictions on ZNs). A subclass that productively builds ZNs is that in (17g), which Dixon (1982) calls human propensity. This class includes psychological states, which in English are often lexicalized as verbs, besides adjectives (Pesetsky, 1995): see subject experiencer verbs like love, hate, adore; and object experiencer verbs like depress, worry, amuse, anger. I will call their nonexperiencer argument a stimulus.

248  ˘  Subject experiencer verbs are usually stative, while the object experiencer ones have been argued to involve (stative or eventive) causation (Iwata, 1995; Pesetsky, 1995; Arad, 1998a). The latter are interesting for our purposes, as they may involve a change of state meaning which, in principle, could be inherited by their ZNs (see Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia, 2014b). I will argue, however, that this is not the case and that ZNs built on psych roots are derived from the root. We find close to fifty ZNs derived from Levin’s (1993) amuse class of psych verbs, which realize their experiencer argument as an object. Following their definitions in the OED, some of these ZNs lack a psych interpretation (e.g. dazzle, disarm, exhaust, refresh) but most denote simple psych states (e.g. anger, baffle, concern, content, daze, delight, discomfit, disgrace, disgust, disquiet, dismay, fluster, lull, muddle, puzzle, rankle, sting, trouble, worry) or the stimulus of the psych state (e.g. affront, bother, charm, concern, delight, haunt, lull, puzzle, rankle, shock, surprise, torment, wound). Unsurprisingly, few of these ZNs receive what could count as an eventive psych meaning, which is what we are after: e.g., ZNs like transport and ruffle are psych only on the stative meaning and nonpsych on the eventive one. Exceptions are shock, surprise, stun, and torment, which have both stative and eventive readings, according to the OED. Shock, surprise, and torment can be found in corpora realizing a possessive experiencer and a prepositional stimulus as in (28a–c), which could be instances of argument structure, while torment occasionally also exhibits a causative reading, as in (28d). (28) a. Larry Fisher’s shock at her accusation could have resulted from [ . . . ] b. Whether it was my foreign accent or Belle’s surprise at my information c. Britain’s torment over EU membership is rooted in history. d. He redoubled his torment of the poor animal

(COCA) (COCA) (NOW) (COCA)

The question, however, is whether these ZNs do indeed express eventive change of state readings (like the ones built on result roots in (22) to (27)). In (29) I test whether they denote inchoative events when they realize the experiencer and the stimulus to see if they pattern as ASNs.¹² Each sentence in (29) diagnoses states with the verb persist and events with happen.

¹² These data were tested with five native speaker consultants, whose judgments mostly converged.

  

249

(29) a. Amanda’s shock at the news [persisted for half an hour / *happened in the garden]. b. Olivia’s surprise at the present [?persisted for a while / *happened in the kitchen]. c. Sam’s torment over the loss of his wife [persisted for years / *happened two years ago]. d. The murderer’s torment of his victim [??persisted for hours / ?happened at noon]. As the contrasting contexts in (29) show, none of these ZNs denotes events, except for torment—however, on the causative reading in (29d) and not on the inchoative one in (29c). We can conclude that these psych ZNs with apparent arguments lack an eventive reading, which would be obligatory if their arguments came from event structure. The stative reading does not require a verb; it may be derived from the stative root (Iordăchioaia et al., 2015). The stimulus argument comes with a root-specific preposition (see at, over in (28)–(29)), not a structural one like from assigned by event structure (Pesetsky, 1995; Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia, 2014b). The presence of the experiencer is not enough to posit event structure, since experiencers may always appear as possessors with psych nouns, whether they are ZNs derived from subject experiencer verbs as in (30a), de-adjectival as in (30b), or simply underived as in (30c–d): (30) a. b. c. d.

Ann’s love for her sister Sam’s sadness at the news the boy’s passion for soccer my horror/joy at the news

In Iordăchioaia (2019a) I argue that such stative ZNs are root-derived and do not represent ASNs (cf. Rozwadowska, Chapter 14, on Polish psych nominalizations); they realize only semantic arguments of the root, which for the derived ZNs act as modifiers, in the absence of event structure. Torment exceptionally allows a causative event reading in (29d), in which its internal argument appears with structural of-genitive. Given, however, the overwhelming majority of stative psych ZNs, I assume that in this eventive use, the property concept root of torment is coerced into a result-like root. In this reading, torment is an ASN, but psych ZNs in general are derived from the root (see Iordăchioaia, 2019a; cf. Rozwadowska, Chapter 14).¹³ ¹³ A reviewer mentions the US torture of Cuba for 60 years, used by Noam Chomsky in a recent article (http://inthesetimes.com/article/21893/iran-war-trump-bolton-neoliberalism-venezuela-cubaworld-order), as a ZN derived from a nonresult verb. It is debatable whether torture is a

250  ˘  This conclusion complies with Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia’s (2014b) observation that English psych verbs never exhibit a causative alternation. Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia argue that psych verbs like worry, grieve, thrill, madden, weary, which have subject and object experiencer cognates, do not form a causative alternation, as their subject experiencer forms do not denote a change of state like typical change of state verbs built on roots as in (18) do (see also Marin & McNally, 2011, on Spanish). If the verbs do not exhibit such readings, the expectation is that their ZNs will not do that either, as confirmed by (29).¹⁴

10.4.3 Categorization and nominalization with ZNs Having looked at ZNs built on the two types of stative roots in Section 10.4.2 we see a clear contrast: Many of those formed on result roots appear in contexts that indicate inchoative or causative event readings with structural arguments ((22)–(27)), while those formed on psych property concept roots rarely present other semantic arguments than experiencers, and, when they do, they require root-specific prepositions and denote states as shown by (29a–c). Following Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2020) and the generalization in (21), stative roots can express change of state only as verbs. This implies that the ZNs in (22)–(27) must include event structure like the ASN in (7), otherwise their inchoative/causative meaning cannot be obtained. I propose the structures in (31a) and (31b) for inchoative and causative ZNs, respectively. I follow Alexiadou et al. (2015) in assuming that the syntax of causative and inchoative verbs solely differs in the presence of VoiceP licensing external ZN. According to the OED, it was borrowed a few years before the verb from French, where the noun also predates the verb. Its morphology reminds us of the nominalizing suffix -ure (see enclosure), indicating a suffix-based nominalization not analyzable anymore. If we take it to be a ZN, it would denote an activity (not a state), given its occurrence after verbs that require events: e.g. to stop/end torture of prisoners, people who have witnessed torture of animals (GloWbE). While I am arguing that change of state readings of ZNs derived from result roots embed a verb with argument structure and represent ASNs, this does not exclude the possibility of other eventive ZNs to do so. However, I would not expect stative ZNs to form ASNs (see Iordăchioaia, 2019a). ¹⁴ Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) argue that Romanian and Greek exhibit causative nominalizations similar to those of change of state verbs, which are expected, given the causative alternation available in these languages (Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia, 2014b). Pending closer investigation, I would assume that these are cases similar to torment, where the psych root has been coerced into a change of state root. I see no reason why these readings should not be part of the notional category of psychological verbs, even though most of these verbs behave as derived from property concept roots and lack change of state readings.

  

251

arguments in the former and its absence in the latter. The root specifies the result state of the inchoative/causative event in a ResultP small clause that also accommodates the internal argument. (31) a. the crash of the US economy [DP the [nP Ø ( . . . ) [vP v [ResultP the US economy √ ]]]] b. their murder of his mother [nP Ø ( . . . ) [VoiceP they [VoiceP Voice[vP v [ResultP his mother √ ]]]] Arguably, between n and vP/VoiceP, the structures in (31) may include further layers like AspectP for aspectual modifiers, but since these also target various attachment levels, I will not address them in detail. What is important is that these ZNs inherit verbal event structure that structurally licenses internal arguments with of-PPs and external arguments with possessives or by-PPs. By contrast, psych ZNs as in (29a) receive the root derivation in (32), where both the stimulus PP and the possessive experiencer act as modifiers. (32) Amanda’s shock at the news [DP Amanda [DP ’s [nP [nP Ø √] [PP at the news]]]] A possible argument against my claim that the ZNs in (22) to (27) include event structure and represent ASNs may come from Beavers & KoontzGarboden’s (2020) claim that result roots carry change of state meaning inferences that are not available with property concept roots. One may wonder if ZNs built on result roots are not also root-derived and if the change of state meaning does not come from the root alone. The presence of arguments would be explained as for the psych ZNs in (29a–c). The crucial difference between the ZNs in (22) to (27) and those in (29a–c), however, is that the former mark their arguments with structural case (i.e. possessive or by-phrase and ofgenitive), while the latter employ root-specific prepositions such as at, over, and others in (28)/(29a–c) (see also Coon & Royer, Chapter 7, on the interaction between roots and functional structure in two Mayan languages). When the root of torment is coerced to allow a change of state event reading, as in (29d), the ZN realizes its arguments with structural case, although this construction is slightly degraded by comparison to the stative root-derived one in (29c), which highlights its unusualness. Moreover, following the cross-linguistic generalization in (21), we do not expect an inchoative reading of ZNs in the absence of a verbal categorizer.

252  ˘ 

10.5 Conclusion and discussion Chomsky’s (1970) pivotal distinction between gerunds and derived nominals as outputs of different components of grammar has had an enormous impact on the linguistic thinking of the last fifty years. Moreover, his observation that some nominalizations exhibit a ‘mixed’ behavior led linguists to acknowledge the need for a coherent theory of grammar that successfully accounts for the extremes but also for the categories in between, a research program that is still pursued at least by the linguistic tradition to which this study belongs. In this chapter, I have argued that, on a scale between purely idiosyncratic root formations and compositional deverbal nominalizations, ZNs cannot be placed at the low end of root categorization, by default. By looking at two verb classes from which they can be derived, I have shown that, depending on the lexical semantics of the root and the type of event structure that it requires, ZNs also instantiate readings that require compositional event structure, as proper nominalizations. The first implication of this study is that more attention needs to be paid to the semantics of the root in order to understand what may appear as exceptional in the behavior of some derived nominals, as in the case of ZNs with argument structure. The hypothesis defended here may turn out just as relevant for ATK nominalizations, which are also known to fail to realize causative readings with some verbs (Sichel, 2010; Alexiadou et al., 2013). Second, it seems that the overtness of the suffix may not play such a decisive role in the ability of nominalizations to host event structure, as claimed before. In Iordăchioaia (2019a), I argue that ATK psych nominals are also rootderived and fail to include event structure, just like ZNs. Finally, allow me to stress that this study mostly relies on corpus data, which must be taken with caution. While the type of examples quoted have been found in several sources, indicating that at least for some speakers the targeted uses are possible and natural, it is not clear how general this tendency could be among other speakers and even whether the same speakers would accept the data in an introspection-based questionnaire of the type theoretical studies usually rely on. Therefore, the next step in investigating the present hypothesis would be to test comparable data in targeted questionnaires and see to what extent the contrast between the two classes of ZNs is indeed also confirmed by introspection judgments.

  

253

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editors, two reviewers, and especially Andrew McIntyre and Hagit Borer, for their insightful comments and constructive feedback to a previous version of this chapter. I am also grateful to Katie Fraser, Andrew McIntyre, Neil Myler, Chris Piñón, and Jim Wood for their native speaker judgments. This research has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), via the project IO 91/1-1, Zero-derived nouns and deverbal nominalization: An empirically-oriented perspective, at the University of Stuttgart.

11 Remarks on propositional nominalization Keir Moulton

11.1 Introduction Remarks is famous for capitalizing on the fact that, contrary to earlier generative views like those in Lees (1960), nominalizations should not be derived by transformation from sentences. Considerations of meaning played a big role then and do to this day. It is a commonplace observation that nominalization closer to the root allows for an idiosyncratic grab-bag of meanings—a result state, an argument role, an eventuality described by the root itself (Grimshaw, 1990; Marantz, 1997; Alexiadou, 2001; Moulton, 2014; Alexiadou, Chapter 5; Borer, Chapter 6). Higher nominalizations give rise to more semantically predictable meanings that come closer to clause meanings. For instance, high nominalizations like verbal gerunds resist being predicated of event descriptions like be gradual/slow/sudden (1b) unlike gerundive nominals and -ation and Kin Nominals (ATK nominals) (1a). In this respect such high nominalizations are more like full-fledged clauses (1c). (1) a. The/their construction of the new highway b. *Them/their/PRO constructing the new highway c. *That they constructed the new highway

g

was gradual/fast/ sudden.

What high nominalizations cannot do—even clausal gerunds that contain much of the functional structure of clauses (Pires, 2006, 2007; Alexiadou, Chapter 5)—is serve as arguments to a class of proposition-selecting predicates, such as true/false (2a,b) and attitude verbs like believe, say, and know (3a,b). This, of course, is in contrast to CPs (2c)/(3c). (2) a. *The/their construction of the new highway b. *Them/their/PRO constructing the new highway c. That they constructed the new highway

g

was true/false.

Keir Moulton, Remarks on propositional nominalization In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Keir Moulton. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0011

256   (3) We believe/say/know

f

a. *the/their construction of the new highway. b. *them/their/PRO constructing the new highway. c. that they constructed the new highway.

These facts are well-known (Vendler, 1967; Portner, 1992; Zucchi, 1993) but remain ill-understood, although a recurring and plausible intuition for the restrictions in (2) and (3) rests on the fact that English can only nominalize lower regions of the clausal spine—perhaps as high as TP. Maybe it takes a bigger chunk of structure to express the meanings that the predicates in (2) and (3) want. In this chapter I argue that this is not the case. Rather, I suggest that the nominal functional structure in (2) and (3) simply cannot deliver the meanings that the embedding predicates need. Many languages allow nominal morphology or determiners to convert ‘big’ CPs into NPs or DPs.¹ Greek is famous for allowing the determiner to to combine with CPs headed by a complementizer, like oti in (4). Spanish also allows a determiner to combine with a finite CP headed by the complementizer que (5). Languages that are morphologically richer have nominalizing morphology that converts clausal constituents to nominals, as in Navajo where a clause can be headed by the nominalizing morpheme -ígíí (6). (4) [to oti lei psemata] the.  tell.3 lies. ‘That she tells lies is obvious’

ine be.3

fanero (Greek) obvious- (Roussou, 1991: (45b))

(5) Ana lamenta [el que hayas tenido que Ana regret the that had..2 had that tomar esa difícil decisión tú sola]. take. that difficult decision you alone ‘Ana regrets that you have had to make that decision on your own.’ (Serrano, 2015: 24 (7)) (6) [Jáan diné nilín=ígíí] yooch’ííd át’é. (Navajo) John Navajo 3.be=  lie 3.be ‘That John is a Navajo is a lie’ (Schauber, 1979: 243, (46)) In the case of Greek and Spanish, however, there is the possibility that we are not looking at nominalizations of CPs but at complex NP constructions, with some type of null noun between D and CP. If that were the case, these would not be nominalizations in any interesting sense. Here Spanish turns out to be ¹ In what follows I set aside clausal nominalizations that correspond to relatives (see Harley, Chapter 9, for discussion).

   

257

very revealing: Picallo (2002) showed that in Spanish we can tell whether there is a null noun intervening between the D and CP. Alongside the Spanish example in (5), where el combines with a que-clause, there is the option of the element lo, traditionally described as a neuter article, combining with a CP provided there is the preposition de. (7) [Lo de que María compró una casa] es cierto/verdad/falso. The of that Maria bought a house is certain/true/false. ‘That Maria bought a house is certain/true/false.’ Picallo demonstrates without doubt—I detail this below—that there is indeed a null noun in lo+de+que constructions but crucially not in the el+que constructions in (5) (the argument hinges on the presence of de, in fact). So Spanish helps structurally disambiguate between a ‘true’ clausal nominalization (where D selects CP as in (5), the el+que construction) and complex NP constructions in disguise (the lo+de+que construction as in (7)). With that as a backdrop, this chapter will focus on the interpretation of these two types of clause-embedding DPs. As Serrano (2014, 2015) documents, the el+que construction is very picky about the kinds of predicates it combines with. It is quite content as an argument of emotive factives like lamentar ‘regret’ as in (5) but not a truth/falsity predicate as in (8). (8) #[El que María compró una casa] es cierto/verdad/falso. The that Maria about a house is certain/true/false. ‘That Maria bought a house is certain/true/false.’ My contribution here is identifying the contrast between (7) and (8) in terms of the ‘kinds’ of propositions the two constructions describe. We need to recognize that ‘proposition’ is too crude a notion to distinguish among the items of natural language that can be used as the arguments of intensional predicates (Portner, 1992; Zimmermann, 1993; Zucchi, 1993; Moltmann, 1997; among many others). Both el+que and lo+de+que clauses are propositional, in a broad sense—for instance, both appear in intensional contexts.² I will follow Zucchi (1993) and identify nominalizations of the el+que type as states-of-affairs (SOAs). SOAs cannot be predicated of truth/falsity nor serve as the complements the attitudes know/believe/say. In contrast, the objects that combine with these predicates are what Chierchia (1984) describes as the individual correlate of a proposition, or following Moltmann (2013), attitudinal objects. This is what lo+de+que clauses can denote. The claim I make in this ² We will also see that el+que clauses need not describe facts or appear only with factive predicates (Serrano, 2014, 2015).

258   chapter, which is to my knowledge a novel one, is that such individuals do not come for free out of a nominalization operation, but require there to be some lexical noun. In the case of Spanish, this noun can be null. The take home message is that merely nominalizing a clause—adding functional elements like a determiner or familiar Indo-European nominalizing morphology—will not deliver a phrase that refers to or describes a proposition in the most canonical sense. This has consequences for several theories of CP-level nominalizations, particularly those in Chierchia (1984); Potts (2002); Takahashi (2010); and Alexiadou (Chapter 5). In the second half of the chapter, I turn to an independent set of facts, novel to my knowledge, concerning propositional proforms which exhibit a split similar to that shown by the two types of Spanish clausal nominalizations. I will argue that propositional proforms which stand in for ‘canonical’ propositions (objects of believe for instance) take exophoric reference (‘deep anaphora’) in a much more limited set of circumstances than previously recognized (Hankamer & Sag, 1976; Snider, 2017). In contrast, propositional proforms that serve as the arguments of predicates that otherwise select for nominalizations can refer exophorically freely. I argue that this is so becuase direct reference to propositions is not possible. As with clausal nominalizations, an attitudinal object must play host for the propositional content. In the case of propositional proforms, the attitudinal object may be an event of assertion (Hacquard, 2006). Both propositional proforms and propositional nominalizations help clarify what is meant when it is said that some linguistic item refers to a proposition:³ We are in fact referring to an object—an individual or eventuality—that bears propositional content.

11.2 The problem of propositional proforms While (1) demonstrates that ATK nominals and gerundive nominals differ in their distribution from verbal gerunds, there is one environment where all types of nominalization appear to behave as we would expect if they were derived transformationally from clauses. That environment is the argument position of a subset of proposition-selecting predicates. As Vendler (1967) first noted, nominals here appear to give rise to the same propositional meanings as clauses, as demonstrated by the paraphrases with finite clauses below each of the following examples. This is true for ATK nominals (9), verbal gerunds with possessor subjects (10), and verbal gerunds with accusative subjects (11): ³ Here I am thinking of work that describes certain clauses as ‘referential propositions’ (Haegeman & Ürögdi, 2010; De Cuba, 2017).

   

259

(9) We were informed of the Romans’ destruction of the city. ≊ We were informed that Romans destroyed this city. (10) The authorities were aware of John’s removing the goods. ≊ The authorities were aware that John removed the goods. (11) John was aware of them constructing the highway ≊ John was aware that they constructed the highway. Nominalizations in such contexts also behave like their clausal counterparts in being referentially opaque. Substitution of extensional equivalents does not necessarily preserve truth; the following entailment does not hold (Zucchi, 1993). (12) a. Oedipus was informed of the arrival of Jocasta. b. Jocasta is Oedipus’ mother. ⊭ Oedipus was informed of the arrival of his mother. Moreover, when the nominalization is freed of definiteness—as can be the case for clausal gerunds (Portner 1992)—then a nonfactive propositional interpretation becomes easily available: (13) a. Him arriving early was likely (and yet he was still late). b. I am skeptical of Bo getting the job done. There is no presupposition in (13a) that someone actually did arrive. Uttering (13b) I do not presuppose Bo will get the job done, quite the opposite in fact. Gerunds wth possessor subjects need not describe facts either, as Zucchi points out. So while (14a) is a contradiction, (14b) with a Poss-ing gerund is not: (14) a. We prevented the fact that John succumbed to the temptation by hiding all the cookies from him. b. We prevented his succumbing to the temptation by hiding all the cookies from him. (Zucchi, 1993: (68)–(69)) Whether a nominalization describes a fact seems to be orthogonal to the issue at hand. This will be a common theme in this chapter: Nominalizations, even the very large clausal ones in Spanish, Greek, and Navajo, do not describe facts. This is apparent already from the Navajo example in (6). If this nominalization described a fact, the sentence would be anomalous since asserting

260   that something is a lie or false would be at adds with presupposing it is a fact. (I will provide some analogous data from Spanish and Greek in Section 11.3.) Developing a semantics for the propositional interpretation of nominalizations has proved difficult (see Portner, 1992, Zucchi, 1993, and Frana & Moulton, 2018, for some options). One of the challenges, previewed in Section 11.1, is that nominals do not always get propositional readings. In particular, nominalized complements of verbs like believe, say, and know do not express what the clausal complement can—in fact, they are downright ungrammatical. Even clausal gerunds are out here. (15) a. *I said him/his taking the bus/his arrival on the bus. b. I said that he took the bus/he arrived on the bus. (16) a. #They knew him dancing the polka.4 b. They knew that he was dancing the polka. (17) a. *I believed her winning. b. I believed that she might win / I believe her to be winning. Likewise, while clauses can be the arguments of true and false, no English nominalization, of any size, can: (18) a. That he left is false/true. b. *PRO/Him/his winning (of) the race is false/true. Truth/falsity predicates and the attitude verbs that likewise resist nominalized complements (15)–(17) form a natural class. This is revealed by the fact that the complements of such attitudes themselves allow modification by truth/ falsity predicates (19). (19) John believed/said [that she won which was true/false] The difficulty posed by propositional nominals is in letting them ‘mimic’ propositions but preventing them from serving as arguments of the attitudes believe/say/know and true/false. I cannot provide a complete solution to this problem, but I believe the Spanish patterns to which I turn next help diagnose and solve one half of the problem. ⁴ This might have an acquaintance meaning for know, taking the DP him modified by a participle. The intended reading—the one available to a clausal complement—is not available for the gerund.

   

261

11.3 Spanish el+que vs. lo+de+que Unlike English, Spanish can nominalize infinitival clauses or finite clauses headed by the complementizer que. The nominalization comes in the form of the language’s definite determiners. There are two types of determiner-plusCP constructions in Spanish. The first involves the masculine definite determiner el, which can take a finite (20a) or nonfinite CP (20b) (Plann, 1981; Picallo, 2002; Delicado Cantero, 2013; Serrano, 2014, 2015). In what follows I focus on the finite version, hence the moniker the ‘el+que construction’. (20) a. [El [que creas que hay fantasmas en la that that believe.2 that there.is ghosts in the azotea]] carece de lógica. attic lacks of lógic. ‘That you believe that there are ghosts in the attic is illogical.’ b. Lamento mucho [el [PRO haberme visto obligado a regret. 1 lot the to.have seen forced to explicar todo esto]] explain all this ‘I regret a lot to have been forced to explain this.’ (Picallo, 2002: 119 (6a,b)) The second type involves the element lo followed by the preposition de and then the CP.⁵ The CP can be finite or an infinitival as with el+que constructions. (21) a. Lo de que se tenga que the of that people have that impuesto adicional provocará un tax additional will.cause a ‘The (idea/proposal) that people have cause a unanimous revolt.’

pagar un to.pay a unánime rechazo. unanimous revolt’ to pay an additional tax will

⁵ Picallo (2002) reports that lo is traditionally classified as the neuter determiner. The -o portion appears in other contexts where a noun is absent or silent (ia) but not when an N is present (ib) (Bernstein, 1993): (i) a. Busco uno rojo. look.1-for a red. ‘I am looking for a red one.’ b. Busco un paquete rojo. look.1-for a parcel. red. ‘I am looking for a red parcel.’ Picallo (2002) follows Bernstein (1993) in associating -o with a nominal Agr projection (Gender and Number) dominating a null N head.

262   b. Lo de ir a Mallorca este verano no nos convence. the of to.go to Mallorca this summer not us convince ‘The (idea/proposal) of going to Mallorca this summer does not convince us.’ (Picallo, 2002: 120 (9a,b)) Picallo (2002) points out that there must be a null noun in the lo+de+que constructions but not one in the el+que constructions. This is suggested not only by the translations in (21) that include nouns like idea and proposal, but by the presence of de which verifies that there is in fact a null noun. We know this because in Spanish de is required when a CP complements N: (22) Lamento el hecho *(de) que no me saludara. regret. 1 the fact of that not me greet.3 ‘I regret the fact that he did not greet me.’(Picallo, 2002: 119, fn. 3, (ia)) But de is disallowed in the el+que construction (at least when presented out of the blue, unlike lo+de+que constructions). (23) Lamento el (*de) que no me saludara. regret.1 the of that not me greet.3 ‘I regret that he did not greet me.’ (Picallo, 2002: 119, fn. 3, (ib)) Picallo’s argument, then, is that while there is a null N in lo+de+que constructions—given that de is obligatory as with overt nouns—there must not be one in el+que constructions. The null N must be a true null element too, not ellipsis. Spanish has NP ellipsis, and it can apply in cases like (24). Here there is a linguistic antecedent hechos ‘fact’ for the elided N. The determiner is el but note the presence of de (unlike in el+que constructions). (24) Consideró varios hechos independientemente. El [e] de que considered.3 several facts independently the of that hubieran apoyado tal propuesta era el más conspicuo. had.3 supported such-a proposal was the most conspicuous ‘S/he considered several facts independently. The (fact) that they had supported such a proposal was the most conspicuous one.’ (Picallo, 2002: 120, (8a)) In contrast, no such linguistic antecedent is required for lo+de+que constructions, suggesting that it is a null N as distinct from an elided N. So to summarize, Picallo’s conclusion is that el+que constructions do not have a null N but lo+de +que constructions do, and this null noun is not a result of ellipsis.

   

263

Now for my contribution: lo+de+que clauses can express ‘canonical’ propositions in that they can serve as the arguments of predicates of truth and falsity (25a) and propositional attitude verbs such a creer ‘believe’ (25b), saber ‘to know’ (25c), and decir ‘to say’ (25d). (25) Lo+de+que a. [Lo de que María compró una casa] es cierto/verdad/falso. The of that Maria bought a house is true/true/false ‘That Maria bought a house is certain/true/false.’ b. No me creo lo de que María compró una casa nueva. Not me believe.1 the of that Maria bought a house new ‘I don’t believe that Maria bought a new house.’ c. Juan ya sabe lo de que María compró una casa nueva. Juan already knows the of that Maria bought a house new. ‘Juan already knows that Maria bought a new house.’ d. Juan ya me dijo lo de que María compró una casa nueva. Juan already to.me said the of that Maria bought a house new ‘Juan already said to me that Maria bought a new house.’ In contrast, el+que clauses cannot complement these predicates (26); this restriction extends even to factive saber ‘know’, as Serrano (2014, 2015) documents. (26) El+que a. *[El que María compró una casa] es cierto/verdad/falso. The that Maria bout a house is certain/true/false. ‘That Maria bought a house is certain/true/false.’ b. *Carol dijo el que no quedaban entradas para el cine. Carol said the that  left tickets for the cinema ‘Carol said that there were no movie tickets for the cinema left.’ (Serrano, 2015: 24, (8a)) c. *Helena pensó el que el viaje a Japón había sido estupendo. Helena thought the that the trip to Japan had been great. ‘Helena thought that the trip to Japan had been great.’ (Serrano, 2015: 24, (8b)) d. *Cristina sabe el que su prima ha tenido un bebé. Cristina knows the that her cousin has had a baby. ‘Cristina knows that her cousin has had a baby.’ (Serrano, 2015: 28, (13b))

264   This aligns with the contrast in English between nominalized and non nonminalized arguments.⁶ In the case of el+que clauses, this is the conclusion of Serrano (2014, 2015), who meticulously details the range of predicates that el+que clauses can combine with. One of Serrano’s important discoveries is that el+que clauses are not confined to denoting facts or being the argument of factive predicates (as opposed to earlier claims in the literature (Plann, 1981)). For instance, el+que can complement impidió ‘prevent’ just as English nominalizations can. Example (27) replicates the data point from Zucchi (1993) in (14). (27) a. Evitamos el que cayera en la tentación escondiéndole We.prevented the that he.fall in the temptation hiding todas las galletas. all the cookies. ‘We prevented him from falling into temptation by hiding all the cookies.’ b. ??Evitamos We.prevented escondiéndole temptation ‘We prevented cookies.’

el hecho de que cayera en la tentación the fact of that that he.fall in the todas las galletas. hiding all the cookies. the fact he fall into temptation by hiding all the (Serrano, 2015: 217, (40))

Similarly in (28), the content of the el+que clause is not presupposed. In neither the nonnegated (28a) or negated (28b) sentence is the speaker committed to it being true that Palmira learned to recognize the musical notes—in fact, this is explicitly denied in (28b). (28) a. Ese juego dificulta el que Palmira aprenda a That game makes.difficult the that Palmira learn to distinguir las notas musicales. distinguish the notes musical. ‘That game makes it difficult for Palmira to learn to recognize the musical notes.’ ⁶ It may be most appropriate to compare el+que clauses to English clausal gerunds. All the Spanish predicates that Serrano (2014) reports allow el+que clauses have an English counterpart that allows a clausal gerund. This includes predicates like ser sorprendente/importante/irrelecante ‘be surprising/ important/irrelevant’, hacer ‘to make (something)’, lamentar ‘to regret’, mostrar ‘to showing something’, subrayar ‘to highlight/underline something’. Likewise, el+que clauses resist combining with event-selecting predicates like suceder ‘to happen’ just like clausal gerunds (1). As an anonymous reviewer points out, the infintival versions of el+que clauses (see (20b)) show structural ambiguities reminiscent of the different projections that form English verbal vs. nominal gerunds, as discussed in Yoon & Bonet-Farran (1991).

   

265

b. Ese juego no dificulta el que Palmira That game  makes.difficult the that Palmira aprenda a distinguir las notas musicales, pero ella learn to distinguish the notes musical, but she sigue sin distinguir una sola nota. still without distinguish a single note. ‘That game doesn’t make it difficult for Palmira to learn to recognize the musical notes, but she continues to be unable to recognize even one of them.’ (Serrano, 2015: 38, (33b)) The translation of these el+que clauses into English for-clauses is also a clue that they need not denote facts. This is all to say that the inability of el+que clauses to combine with nonfactive attitude verbs and truth/falsity predicates as in (26) is not because such clauses must denote facts. Additionally, el+que clauses can be interpreted opaquely, since they provide the propositional content of the emotive factives such as lamentar ‘regret’ (see example (5)). El+que clauses require, it would seem, an analysis similar to that given to English propositional nominalizations described in Section 11.2. Various proposals exist in the literature, none of which I can improve upon. As noted, Zucchi (1993) argues for the notion of states-of-affairs (SOAs).⁷ Serrano (2015) identifies el+que clauses with situation kinds. In any event, we need to ensure that such nominalizations are interpreted opaquely but not allow them to behave like canonical proposition-denoting clauses. One possibility is that SOAs denote possible situations, i.e. situation concepts, and so are type 〈s,s〉, where s is the type of possible situations (compare to individual concepts of type 〈s,e〉). They would thus be distinguished from canonical propositions, functions from possible situations to truth values 〈s,t〉. We would then stipulate that true/false/believe/know/say select for type 〈s,t〉 but not 〈s,s〉. For present purposes, however, SOAs must remain a primitive notion; I also leave to future work a compositional analysis of el+que clauses that would deliver such meanings. What is crucial to my message is what el+que clauses do not denote: Neither canonical propositions nor what lo +de+que clauses denote. I turn to the these now. I suggest that lo+de+que clauses denote what Moltmann (2013) calls attitudinal objects. Moltmann illustrates attitudinal objects with complex NP like (29a) ⁷ Zucchi’s analysis was designed for English propositional nominalizations that have the distribution of el+que clauses. Portner’s (1992) analysis of propositional nominals distinguishes them from the propositional expressions that accept true/false in terms of the ‘size’ of the situations described using Kratzerian situation semantics (Kratzer, 1989, 2007).

266   headed by nominalizations such as belief and claim. Like propositions, attitudinal objects can be true or false (29b). But unlike propositions, they behave like concrete objects because they can participate in causal relations (30). (29) a. John’s belief/claim that Mary likes Bill. b. John’s belief/claim is true/false/correct. (30) a. John’s clam that Mary won the race caused astonishment. b. ??The proposition that Mary won the race caused astonishment. (Moltmann, 2013: 135, (31)) Relatedly, Kratzer (2006) extends similar ideas to nonderived nouns like idea, story, and myth. These content nouns describe individuals of a certain sort— associated with propositional content, which are here notated as xc for ‘content’. Adopting ideas from Kratzer (2006), taken up in Moulton (2009, 2015) and Elliott (2018), suppose that these nouns, like the nominalizations that Moltmann argues are attitudinal objects, select propositions of type 〈s,t〉 as their complements, returning a property of individuals whose content is the proposition they embed:⁸ (31) ⟦idea⟧ = λpλxcλw [idea(xc)(w) & (xc)(w) = p] The function cont is defined in (32): (32) (xc)(w) = {w 0 : w 0 is compatible with the intentional content determined by xc in w} (after Kratzer, 2013: (25)) A definite description with a content noun and a clausal argument looks like (33): (33) ⟦the idea that Bob sang⟧ = λw.ιxc [idea(xc)(w) & (xc)(w) = λw 0 . Bob sang in w 0 ]

⁸ Here I treat idea as relational, whereas in Kratzer (2006), Moulton (2009, 2015), and Elliott (2018), such content nouns are treated merely as properties. On that view, the CP combines with these nouns by intensional predicate modification. A functional head in the embedded clause (perhaps a complementizer) introduces a content function. I do not pursue that analysis here, since it makes the incorrect prediction that the extended verbal functional projection delivers contentful individuals by itself, without a noun. This is precisely what I am now arguing against from the Spanish contrasts.

   

267

Predicates like true/false (29) and believe/say/know can combine with such content descriptions: (34) a. I believe that myth/claim/idea. b. I know/said false things. These predicates, when they select an individual type, select only contentful individuals, not SOAs.⁹ (35) ⟦believe⟧ = λxcλyλw. Dox(y)(w)  (xc)(w) (36) Dox(x)(w) = { w0 : w0 is compatible with what x believes in w} This verb can combine with the DP in (33). The result will be that all the worlds that are compatible with what the attitude holder believes are a subset of the worlds compatible with the content of xc. The result is a standard Hintikkan analysis of belief (Hintikka, 1969). A similar move can be made for the other attitudes, although I must leave an in-depth analysis of true/false for another time. Returning to Spanish, I suggest that the null noun in lo+de+que clauses provides a contentful individual, an attitudinal object. Assuming the determiner lo is like a definite, the lo+de+que construction will refer to a (possibly unique) contentful object. This is what allows it to combine with these predicates. El+que clauses simply do not have such a noun, and so cannot describe attitudinal objects. As I make clear above, I do not have a novel theory for just what el+que clauses denote, but what I hope is instructive is that their lack of a nominal projection prevents them from denoting attitudinal objects via a null content noun. The idea that a language could have a null content noun is independently plausible because a number of languages have overt, semantically light, allpurpose content nouns that introduce a variety of propositional complements. Korean kes ‘thing’ is one such element that introduces a variety of clauses (Horie, 2000; Kim, 2009), including factive (37a) and nonfactive complements (37b).

⁹ When the verb selects a bare CP, it may simply have an alternative 〈s,t〉-taking type. In separate work (Moulton, 2015), I argue for just the low-type taking option. Chierchia (1984) argued for the view that all argument slots should be understood as individual type and two important works follow this mission in certain ways (Landman, 2006; Poole, 2017).

268   (37) a. Mary-nun [John-i sihem-ey hapkyekha-n] Mary- John- exam-in pass-. al-ass-ta. know-- ‘Mary learned that John passed the exam.’

-kes-ul -

b. Mary-nun [John-i sihem-ey hapkyekha-l] -kes-ul Mary- John- exam-in pass-. - pala-n-ta. hope-- ‘Mary hopes that John will pass the exam.’ (Horie, 2000: 21 (20)) Kes-clauses can be predicated of truth and falsity (38) and can complement believe-verbs (39), under certain conditions discussed in Shim & Ihsane (2015) and Bogal-Allbritten & Moulton (2017): (38) [Toli-ka cip-ul sa-ss-ta-nun kes-un] sasil-i Toli- house- buy--- - fact- an-i-ta. not-- ‘The claim that Toli bought a house is not a fact.’ (C.-h. Han, p.c.) (39) Na-nun [kay-ka swukecey-lul ta ha-yass-ta-nun kes-ul] I- he- homework- all do--- kes- mit-e. believe- ‘I believe that he finished his homework.’ Baker (1996) reports on a noun in Mohawk that not only serves as a general all-purpose content noun, but incorporates into nonCP selecting verbs such as ‘like’ (41a) to build the propositional attitude ‘agree’ (41b). (40) o-rihw-a’ : ‘matter’, ‘affair’, ‘fact’, ‘news’ ‘A very general word referring to a kind of proposition’ (41) a. Sak rake Sak MsS/1sO ‘Sak likes me.’

-nuhwe’ -like

-s -

(Baker, 1996)

   

269

b. Sak ro- -rihw -a -nuhwé’ -u a-ha-’sere-ht-óhare-’ Sak MsO -matter -Ø -like - -MsS-car--wash- ‘Sak has agreed to wash the car.’ (Baker, 1996b: 462 (23)) More such combinations are given in (42) from Baker (1996: 462). (42) CP-taking verb rihw-a-nuhwe’ rihw-a-tshuri rihw-a-yʌta’s rihw-isak

Literal gloss Free gloss matter-like ‘to agree to S’ matter-find ‘to find out that S’ matter-acquire ‘to decide to S’ matter-seek ‘to investigate S’

Since all-purpose, semantically light content nouns have overt form in these languages, it is not surprising that in some languages this light noun is null. This is the nature of the covert N in lo+de+CP clauses.¹⁰ (43) [Lo ØContent de que María compró una casa nueva] es The N of that Maria bought a house new is una mentira. a lie ‘That Maria has bought a new house is a lie.’ Suppose that Spanish reflects a truth about natural language. To get a ‘canonical’ proposition from a D+CP construction, there has to be a content N in there. Greek D+CP constructions can be arguments of truth/falsity predicates, suggesting a null noun: (44) a. [To oti i Ji ine strogili] ine alíthia/láthos. (Greek) The that the Earth is round is true/false. ‘That the Earth is round is true/false.’ (Angelopoulos, p.c.) b. [To oti ine plusios] ine psema. The that is- 3 rich is lie ‘That he is rich is a lie.’ (Pappas, p.c.) Roussou (1991) argued against the presence of a null noun in these constructions and that instead the determiner to combines directly with CP. Her ¹⁰ The element lo is sometimes decomposed into the determiner l- plus a nominal -o (see n. 5 on this issue). It could be that -o is like Korean kes, an overt pronoun that stands in for a variety of semantic types, including content-carrying individuals.

270   objections mostly hold for one particular implementation of a null noun approach, that of Warburton-Philippaki & Papafili (1988). They suggest that to+oti clauses contain a silent, or perhaps elided, version of the noun gheghonos ‘fact’. Roussou correctly objects that this would not extend to other D+CP constructions, like those headed by the particle na rather than oti (45a), since na-clauses cannot complement gheghonos (45b). (45) a. to na ehis ipomoni ine the  have.2 patience. be.3 ‘That you have patience is an advantage.’

proson advantage.

b. *to gheghonos na ehis ipomoni . . . the fact  have.2 patience. . . . ‘*The fact to have patience . . . ’ (Roussou, 1991: (11a), (12)) Roussou’s argument is neutralized, however, if the null content noun is not literally a noun meaning fact (see also Hartman, 2012), something we must recognize anyway given the examples in (44). Rather, the null content noun is a very general content noun, more like Korean kes or Mohawk rihw- than the word fact.¹¹ Another of Roussou’s objections to a null noun concerns the fact that only the neuter determiner to is possible in D+CP constructions not the feminine or masculine versions, even though overt content nouns can bear these genders (e.g. i fimi, the- rumor). What Spanish shows us is that an all-purpose null content noun can be neuter (see fn. 5). In general, the strong empirical prediction is that nominalized CPs that complement predicates like true/false and believe/know/say will have some element in them like a content nominal. In the case of Greek and Spanish, it is a null lexical noun. In the case of Korean and Navajo (6), it is a morphological nominalizer. It is generally the case that the nominalizers in these languages cover a wider semantic territory than familiar English nominalizers like -ation and -ing, and so it should not be considered out of the range of plausibility that they can nominalize into contentful individuals. See Kim (2009) and Bogal-Allbritten & Moulton (2017) for a discussion and implementation in the case of Korean kes-clauses, and BogalAllbritten & Moulton (2018) on Navajo. Alexiadou (Chapter 5) has suggested that n-based nominalization cannot attach to the highest reaches of the clauses spine. Assuming that the Navajo and Korean nominalizers are ¹¹ It is also possible that na-clauses under D do not involve a noun but oti-clauses do, which would mirror the split between lo+de+que and el+que in Spanish.

   

271

n and not D (see Kim, 2009, and Bogal-Allbritten & Moulton, 2017) then they constitute a counter example since both types of nominals can describe attitudinal objects—i.e. be arguments of true/false or believe-type predicates. A brief note is in order concerning some proposals in the literature on nominalized propositions. Chierchia (1984) posits a type-shifting operation  that, among other things, can shift propositions into their individual correlates. This could indeed be the function of the null content noun in Spanish, but we would need to control its syntactic distribution—i.e. to appearing only in places where nouns (and Korean and Navajo nominalizations) can appear and not be a freely-applying type-shifter associated with just any kind of syntactic nominalization, like an el+que clause. Other authors have suggested that nominalized propositions ‘denote the plural individual composed of the worlds in the input proposition’ (Potts, 2002: 58). Takahashi (2010: fn. 14) suggests that a covert determiner in English can combine directly with a CP and in doing so deliver a plurality of worlds which can be fed to attitude verbs like believe. The Spanish facts cast doubt on this approach. If it were generally possible, we would expect el+que clauses—which are D+CP constructions—to have the distribution of canonical proposition-denoting expressions. Taking stock, we have argued that el+que clauses refer to SOAs whereas lo +de+que clauses refer to individuals with propositional content. The outstanding task is to prevent predicates like true/false and believe/say/know from combining with el+que clauses. Just calling them SOAs or situation concepts, without giving a thorough semantics, is not enough. Building on a set of empirical considerations distinct from those discussed here, Djärv (2019) has recently proposed that there is a fundamental split among clauseembedding predicates. Some, like the emotive factives, describe relations between attitude holders and individual situations (these would be Zucchi’s, 1993, SOAs). Other predicates relate to content-bearing individuals in virtue of containing as part of their lexical semantics the  function, as with the denotation given for believe in (35). The implication, then, must be that the situations described by el+que clauses are just incompatible with the  function— for whatever reason just cannot recover propositional content from such situations. If something like this can be defended, then we would be closer to explaining—not just stipulating—the distribution of el+que clauses and perhaps even the English propositional nominalization we began with. In Section 11.4 I explore this idea using propositional anaphora as a guide (Hankamer & Sag, 1976; Asher, 1993). We will see a similar split in terms of reference to propositional entities. The observation will be that only certain kinds of individuals and events can deliver content in the way required by verbs like believe.

272  

11.4 Propositional proforms do not refer to propositions Since Hankamer & Sag (1976), it has generally been accepted that propositional proforms such as this, that, and it can be either ‘surface’ or ‘deep’ anaphors. As surface anaphors, they can anaphorically refer to propositions introduced by linguistic antecedents as in (46). (46) a: Julie just said that Fred resigned. b: Yeah, I had suspected that/this/it. that/this/it = that Fred resigned Propositional proforms, it is claimed, can also be ‘deep anaphors’, taking exophroic reference deictically to non linguistic, pragmatically controled propositional referents. An example of this in (47) is from Hankamer & Sag (1976); the example in (48) is from Snider (2017): (47) Hankamer [observing Sag successfully ripping a phone book in half]: I don’t believe it. (Hankamer & Sag, 1976: (32)) (48) [Mom walks into the living room, and sees her three children standing around the broken remains of a lamp.] [Mom:] Who broke the lamp? [Two of the children look at Dewey.] [Dewey:] That’s not true! (Snider, 2017: (89)) It turns out, however, the ability of propositional proforms to take exophoric reference is more constrained than previously recognized. Imagine the following scenario. It is mid-October in Montréal and it is snowing. I, however, have been inside a windowless lab all day, and do not know this. I know that you have been outside recently and hence are sure to know the weather. On exiting the building together, I see the snow and say the following, where this is intended for that it is snowing: (49) a. You didn’t tell me this. b. I am surprised by this c. I didn’t expect this. d. This is crazy. e. This was unlikely given the heat yesterday.

   

273

There is something much odder about the following: (50) a. b. c. d.

#You didn’t say this before. #I didn’t think this. #I believed this already. #Had you claimed this before, I’d have thought you were crazy!

These intuitions are surprising, since previous descriptions of the facts tell us that when a proposition like ‘that it is snowing’ is salient enough in the discourse context, exophoric reference to it is possible. But the salience of a proposition or situation is constant across these examples and yet there’s a difference. With a linguistic antecedent as in (51), the contrast is neutralized; the utterances in (50) are acceptable. (In these cases that is sometimes a little better than this—see Snider, 2017, for similar observations; this is interesting, I think, but does not deter from the point at hand.) (51) [You:] Me:

Look, it’s snowing! (i) You didn’t say this/that before. (ii) ?I didn’t think this/that. (iii) I believed this/that already. (iv) Had you claimed this/that before, I’d ‘a thought you were crazy!

So these predicates can take DP propositional proforms, just not those with apparently exophoric reference. One clue to the contrast in (49) and (50) is the fact that the predicates in (49) can all take DP arguments that describe (possible) situations—employing nouns like outcome, possibility, fact, situation as in (52). The predicates in (50) cannot (53): (52) a. b. c. d.

You didn’t tell me this fact before. I am surprised by this outcome. I didn’t expect this loveliness. This situation is crazy. e. This possibility was unlikely given the heat yesterday.

(53) a. b. c. d.

*You didn’t say this fact before. *I didn’t think this outcome. *I believed this possibility already. *When you claimed this situation, I thought you were crazy!

274   The contrast between say and tell is instructive. Both can take DP propositional proforms, but only tell allows exophoric reference. And this is correlated with the fact that tell semantically selects for concrete situations, expressible by this fact, whereas say does not. But it is important for me to stress here (as I did earlier), this cannot be primarily about factivity; as (49e) and (52e) show, propositional anaphora can refer to things otherwise describable by the noun possibility (Asher, 1993). We can all agree that a possibility is not a fact. Sure, the situation needs to hold in the world of evaluation for exophoric reference as in (49e), but that does not limit propositional proforms to occurring only under factive predicates. The examples above also demonstrate that the verb believe does not, in the basic case, allow exophoric propositional reference (50c). But in the form of can’t believe, as with Hankamer’s original example, it is possible: I can’t believe this/it! The phrase can’t believe is quite different from vanilla believe. It can combine with situation-denoting expressions better than plain believe can. (54) [Watching a trashy television show:] a. #I believe this garbage! b. I can’t believe this garbage! (55) [Lamenting the fact that Trump won:] a. #I believe this outcome/situation. (I expected it all along.) b. I can’t believe this outcome/situation. (I never expected it.) The lesson here is that we should not compare can’t believe to believe. They are just different verbs, and the former patterns with predicates like surprising, crazy, expect as in (49) independently of propositional anaphora.¹² The larger lesson is that exophoric reference to the kinds of propositions that believe/know/say select is severely limited, in contrast to the propositions that surprise, crazy, and expect select. The different kinds of propositions are tracked by the nominal phrases that they allow. This is reminiscent of the distribution of el+que vs. lo de que: The former describe possible situations, ¹² An anonymous reviewer suggests that positive believe can, with a certain emphasis, take situation denoting nouns (ia). As expected, the reviewer’s judgment is that an exophorically-referring propositional proform is possible here too (ib). (i) a. I can well believe this outcome. (I expected it all along.) b. (Context: I’m watching a football match, and see an exciting young player score a stunning goal:) I can well believe it! He’s such a talent. The important thing is the correlation between allowing a DP that refers to a situation (this outcome) and allowing a propositional proform.

   

275

intuitively SOAs. It seems easy to refer exophorically with that/this/it to actual situations. As for the kinds of propositions that believe/know/say select, it is apparently not enough to refer to an exemplifying situation to get at the proposition it exemplifies for purposes of these predicates.¹³ As far as I know, the existing proposals for propositional anaphora will not capture these contrasts. They all assume that propositions can exist as discourse referents, even if they are made salient nonlinguistically. Suppose, rather, that propositional proforms never denote in type 〈s,t〉 but can refer only to particulars, like situations. For predicates like believe/know/say a propositional proform that refers to a situation is just not going to cut it, just as el+que clauses are not suitable arguments for these predicates in Spanish. We are left then with explaining Snider’s (2017) example in (48), which suggests that proforms that are predicated of true/false can take exophoric reference. What makes Snider’s example felicitous is the gesture made by Dewey’s siblings—their demonstration that Dewey is guilty is their look toward Dewey. Without that demonstration, the propositional proform is not acceptable, as Snider points out. (56) [Mom walks into the living room, and sees her three children standing around the broken remains of a lamp.] Mom: Who broke the lamp? Dewey: #That’s not true! The demonstrations made by Dewey’s siblings in (48) may not be utterances, but they establish something close to a discourse move. Note the following: (57) By looking at Dewey, the two children suggest/indicate/claim that Dewey broke the lamp. Perhaps we conceptualize these kinds of nonlinguistic demonstrations as discourse moves—we can talk about them as claims. Claims and suggestions are events that have content. And it is these particulars that a proform can refer to: an eventuality with propositional content. At the extreme case, these are demonstrations like Dewey’s siblings’ accusatory looks. In the simplest case, these eventualities are linguistic events like the assertion in (51): ‘Look it’s snowing!’ Hacquard (2006) argues that the content function (like that ¹³ Here I am informally evoking the notion of a situation exemplifying a proposition, as in Kratzer (1989, 2007).

276   embedded in the verb believe in (35)) can recover content from events of assertion. So the individual-denoting object of believe need not just be an individual like a story or myth but an individual eventuality with propositional content (e.g. believe his loud claim). Propositional proforms that combine with believe/true/false must then denote attitudinal objects.

11.5 Conclusion The Spanish nominalization facts and the propositional proform data point to the same conclusion. When we refer to the kinds of things that predicates like believe and true/false select, we are referring to a particular kind of attitudinal object: an individual or event with content. We are not referring to a proposition, whatever that might even mean. Reference to a contentful event or individual probably does not come for free from nominalizers in IndoEuropean languages, although it might in Navajo and Korean. Rather, it must be provided by a content noun, which can be null in Spanish lo+de +que constructions and maybe also in Greek. ATK nominals, gerundives, and el+que constructions do not describe such individuals or events—the clausal spine simply does not provide such meanings—and so they cannot combine with the same range of predicates. They can only describe (possible) situations which I have identified as SOAs, following Zucchi (1993). Going forward, the strategy for looking at clause-level nominalizations or clause-selecting determiners should include a larger battery of tests for the ‘kind’ of propositions they denote. And we should be careful about talking about reference to propositions. To me, at least, it is still not clear what that really entails, both for clauses with determiners on them or propositional proforms.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten, Ilaria Frana, and Junko Shimoyama; working with them on related topics has inspired the direction of this work. They are not responsible for what I say here, whether it is wrong or simply trivial. For discussion and help with Spanish, I thank Luis Alonso-Ovalle, María Biezma, Cristina Cuervo, and Paula Menéndez-Benito. I would like to thank Nikos Angelopoulos and Panos Pappas for some Greek examples and their judgments. None of these people are responsible for any errors in this contribution. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer and the volume editors. This work is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant #435-2015-0454 held by Junko Shimoyama and the author.

12 Where are thematic roles? Building the micro-syntax of implicit arguments in nominalizations Tom Roeper

12.1 Introduction The modern challenge in linguistics is to grasp how concepts and principles cross interface boundaries. For instance, thematic roles have been largely imagined in terms of syntactic projections, but with an acknowledgment that they are directly reflected in some kinds of derivational morphology (-er, -ee, -able) along with projections of semantic notions like Event (-tion, -ment). How does one module, built upon on separate primitives, project into another? So we ask both: How does the thematic module get projected in the syntax (e.g. Agent can go to Subject) and how is it also projected into the lexicon in derivations (like adding Agent -er)? A nominalization itself can be passive: (1) the city’s destruction by the enemy. But what happens if there is a passive inside the nominalization? (2) the city’s preparedness Is it the -ed or the nominalizer -ness that allows the possessive to carry the THEME? The strongest view, which we defend as well, is that the lexicon itself is essentially a part of syntax and therefore projects the same kind of syntactic structure with the same operations. Their interaction nonetheless raises precise technical questions.

Tom Roeper, Where are thematic roles? Building the micro-syntax of implicit arguments in nominalization In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Tom Roeper. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0012

278  

12.1.1 Minimal interfaces One plausible expectation for a theory of interfaces is that points of contact between modules will themselves be minimal.¹ For instance, lexical items carry thematic roles and instantiate them in the syntax (realized, bound, or saturated) in a number of mutually exclusive ways, but with unusual diversity.² Observationally, a verb can project an Agent in a number of separate places: (3) V [cook [AGENT, THEME]] => Subject: John [AG] cooks food [TH] => by-phrase: the food was cooked by John [AG] => implicit argument: the food was cooked [AG entailed] => Nominalization: the cook [AG] => morphology: a cooker of strange food => Nominalized Possessive: the enemy’s destruction of the city If they all project from a single lexical verbal entree ([cook]V), then the notion that they are mutually exclusive is natural but still it needs to be stated as it is in the traditional Theta-criterion.³ It is important to note that one could build a system where double representation carries more information, but we can see that it clearly fails to be grammatical: (4) a. *the discoverer of America by Columbus b. [compare: the discoverer of America who was Columbus] The Agent is linked to the verb by -er and then further identified by the PP (Columbus). The UNgrammaticality of (4a) provides a strong acquisition constraint, and indeed no cases like *‘the winner by Bill’ are reported from children. Therefore, some form of mutual exclusivity presupposition (a version of the Theta-criterion) enables a child to avoid UG-excluded options, although they might be informationally advantageous. Our arguments below reveal other, much subtler blocking effects in lexical items.

¹ In Roeper (2014) a constraint: Minimal Modular Contact is articulated as a pivotal concept to explain interface relations in the acquisition process. The same concept can apply to the syntax/lexicon interface. ² We assume that parallel rules of semantic composition are needed, but we will not address them here (see Harley, Chapter 9). ³ θ-criterion: Each argument bears one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument (Chomsky, 1981: 35).

    ? 279 We shall argue that impersonal passives of intransitives (5), found in many languages, but not English, must be added to the list in (3) and it adds a significant new dimension to what a theory of implicit arguments must capture: (5) a. Es wurde die ganze Nacht getanzt (it was danced all night) = everyone danced

(German)

How does the passive apply to a nontransitive verb and where is the Agent projected? We will argue that the verb werden is a Main Verb and carries its own thematic role (5a) which becomes inaccessible in a nominalization (5c): (5) b. it was danced all night => c. *die getanztheit der Nacht (*= the dancedness of the night) The Theta-criterion simply fails to address phenomena where syntactic and morphological properties are interwoven as in (2) or the absence of nominalizations as in (5c).

12.1.2 Goal: build on the Theta-criterion Our approach retains the original view that thematic roles are carried by the verb and projected onto argument structure and reflect Event structure. The Numeration, drawn from the lexicon, undergoes initial composition via Merge in terms of these thematic roles and arguments and then it is externalized in a syntactic structure where further compositional principles are followed (e.g. see Harley, Chapter 9). At the opposite end, we will argue that Discourse composition is also entailed. Ultimately then we need a theory in which thematic projection can be extended to have the syntax, lexicon, and discourse within the scope of economic interface principles. First, we will lay out the full diversity of thematic projections in nominalizations and then make suggestions about how movement operations can affect them.

12.2 A sketch of structures The domain of nominalizations has grown ever more complex. Van Hout & Roeper (1998) argued that nominalizations can occur at the TP-, VP-, and V-levels with varying potential for morphology and aspectual modification.

280   (6)

Poss

DP

NP

TP => +ing. + Aspectual PP.

VP => +er. + No aspectual marker.

V => +bare nominals. + Agent projection [John’s glance / glance by John]

Alexiadou (Chapter 5) provides extensive arguments for a ‘mixed’ model like this in which verbal and nominal projections are interwoven putting Greek and other languages in focus. Borer (Chapter 6) adds arguments demonstrating (as in Roeper, 1987; and Sichel, 2009) that nominalizations have a subject PRO,⁴ contra counterarguments over the years (see Section 12.4, fn.16), and she shows that aspectual adjuncts also entail the presence of arguments. Harley (Chapter 9) extends these arguments including representations of semantic or Event interpretations. Iordăchioaia (Chapter 10) provides extensive discussion of the presence of argument structure in bare or zero-derived nouns. Our analysis assumes, extends, or slightly modifies all of these. We will take another step: We explore how one class of zero-derived nominals (ZN) with prefixes (like outflow) show the presence of argument configurations at the bare V-level that mirrors exactly the disposition of arguments at the sentential level. The principle behind this morphological/syntactic symmetry remains to be fully stated.⁵ We shall not fully solve the challenge of how this central syntax/lexicon interface mapping should be represented. We will instead articulate the depth of the question by our focus both on the lowest level, thematic roles for bare nouns (ZN) (glance) and the highest Discourse level where implicit arguments ⁴ Borer (Chapter 6) provides a number of important semantic distinctions in the interpretation of what she labels Silent External Arguments (SEA) which could all fall under a notion of PRO, but possibly not if it is tightly linked to Pro-arb, for instance, interpreted as universal. This interesting challenge pertains to how far node labels reflect semantic features, which we will not address here. We continue the traditional assumption that PRO is an empty NP whose content is determined by syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors, including discourse, which we explore below. ⁵ The concept is adumbrated in Baker’s (1997) formulation of UTAH (uniform theta-assignment hypothesis).

    ? 281 for impersonal passives and small clauses must be connected, as in German: es wurde nackt getanzt (it was danced [PRO naked]). In the process we will argue for lexical internal movement operations and Unlabeled morphological operations following Bauke & Roeper (2014, 2016).

12.2.1 Levels and mixed derivations We assume a V-level for ZN nominals (jump, glance, hope, attempt) and a VP level that allows Agent and object (singer of operas, jumper of fences),⁶ but excludes Aspectual PP’s (7a): (7) a. *the runner to the store b. the running to the store Then there is a higher level nominalization (-ing) at TP which can include Aspect (7b). The intricacy of syntax/lexicon connections becomes stark when morphological projections occur prior to nominalization. We find that VP level modification is possible for -ed: (8) preparedness but the higher TP projection does not allow -ness after -ing: (9) *preparingness/*his constant preparingness of lectures although it is possible to say: (10) his preparing of the lecture for hours Thus one structure (-ing) both includes an aspectual PP and excludes a nominalization, while the other (-er) includes a nominalization and excludes

⁶ Roy & Soare (Chapter 13) provide an extensive typology of -er nominals, many of which are not derived from verbs. There are of course cases like: Detroiter, New Yorker, bummer, downer, footballer which are all idiomatic. Our focus is upon productive -er AGENTS, which apply to virtually every transitive verb: avoider, evader, disturber are all examples that reflect on-line productivity. Although there are interesting semantic classes involved, the core rule appears to be purely syntactic in our estimation.

282   aspectual PP.⁷ So we find not only ‘mixed’ thematic projections which underscores the claims of Alexiadou, Borer, Harley, and others in this volume, but subtle semantic consequences as well, in keeping with other forms of semantic variation discussed by Moulton (Chapter 11) and Roy & Soare (Chapter 13).

12.2.2 Acquisition implication The proliferation of UG options are, in turn, prime challenges for acquisition since critical morphologically complex examples like preparedness, or further modified ones undecidedness, unexpectedness, are notably rare in the input. Therefore, these options should flow directly from acquisition decisions about the syntactic tree structure that particular grammars have. For instance, cases like -ung in German, which may seem to be nominalizations of progressive forms like -ing in English, do not allow aspectual modification where English does, while -en nominalizations which also cover progressive meaning, do allow them.⁸ We expect the child to have a syntactic structure which delimits

⁷ Bauke & Roeper (2014) report these plural forms of gerundive nominalizations which again exclude the aspectual PP’s. Google examples show they occur but never with temporal PP’s (*PP): a. b. c. d. e. f.

The screenings of movies (*in three days) The killings of journalists (*in an hour) The firings of guns the snatchings of cell phones the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the trouncings of Germany at major tournaments

They argue that -ing itself must be projectable both verbally within the VP and alternatively at a higher DP level allowing pluralization and blocking aspect. Borer (Chapter 6) also shows how PP without an argument is blocked. ⁸ Bauke & Roeper (2014) -en allows adjuncts a. das Mähen des Rasens mit einer Sense the mow-en() the lawn- with a scythe ‘the mowing of the lawn with a scythe’ b. das Rasenmähen mit einer Sense the lawn-mow-en() with a scythe ‘the lawn-mowing with a scythe’ c. *die Spaltung des Holzes mit der Axt the splitt-ung the wood- with an axe d. *die Holzspaltung in zwei Tagen the wood-splitt-ung in two days e. *die Holzspaltung für zwei Tage the wood-splitt-ung for two days

    ? 283 these morphological options without specific input of morphological evidence—another example of the Poverty of the Stimulus argument.⁹

12.2.3 Thematic role syntax in nominalizations Our approach here focuses on one small part of the verbal substructure of nominalizations: a proposal for a node that corresponds to little v inside nominalizations (Chomsky, 1995; Kratzer, 1996; Hale & Keyser, 2002). It is largely accepted since Chomsky (1970) that nominalizations carry essentially the same syntactic structure as declaratives.¹⁰ The surface of nominalizations, however, has many special properties including missing subjects, possessives bearing theta-roles—order properties which should, if this parallelism holds, conform to properties of modern minimalism.

12.2.4 By-phrases It is well known that by-phrases are blocked in unaccusatives and middles (Keyser & Roeper, 1984): (11) a. *the ship sank by the navy b. *bureaucrats bribe easily by anyone Here, arguably, the subject position blocks the AGENT projection because the object has been moved into it. In (11a) the Agent is altogether deleted, plausibly by a Voice shift to the inchoative that has no Agent, while in (11b) it is the projection onto Subject that is blocked and the thematic role may still be on the verb (or possibly a ‘cognitive agent’ remains present in the broader meaning). Unlike in passives, Mutual exclusivity blocks a by-phrase in (11b). A typical example of where by-phrases survive lexical derivation comes from nominalizations which can inherit thematic roles, to use the term advanced by Randall (1982), even after passive applies. The passive -ed and -able carry an

⁹ This is not an instant process. Randall (1982) shows that children will misinterpret a sentence like a writer with a candybar to mean write with a candybar. And spontaneous examples like ‘there’s a bikerider with no hands’ also indicate that children can mistakenly attach morphology to larger phrases, which occurs as well in the adult grammar with possessives in the man on the corner’s hat. ¹⁰ See Borer (2005a,b, 2012) and van Hout & Roeper (1998) and references therein, which lay out in detail the evidence and arguments.

284   implicit Agent that is maintained by the nominalizer -ness (or -ity) or even further morphological marking by un-: (12) a. the well-preparedness of the lecture by the professor was evident the learnability of grammar by children is important the well-establishedness of his claims by the media was uncontroversial the well-researchedness of the project by the newspaper was never in question the conclusion’s undoubtedness by anyone b. Further complex cases: unexpectedness, unsuspectedness, undoubtability These reveal again that the passive projection is inside a further morphological derivation.¹¹

12.2.5 Spec, POSS projections Crucially—one core argument of this chapter—in addition to its semantic interpretation, syntactic consequences of passive are maintained as well, namely the AGENT cannot be projected into the Spec,-NP POSSessive, whereas the object can: (13) *the professor’s well-preparedness of the lecture *the child’s learnability of grammar (14) the lecture’s well-preparedness by the professor the grammar’s learnability (by children) the gene’s heritability by children John’s excludedness (by the team) his belovedness (by everyone) ?the conclusion’s undoubtedness by anyone While (14) may be questionable for some speakers, (15) shows that the same subject-blocking is radically ungrammatical if a passive -ed is inside the nominalization: ¹¹ Syntactically external uses are possible using a kind of pseudo-lexical item creation with dashes, as in his-always-being-lateness, whose grammatical properties deserve careful attention.

    ? 285 (15) **the team’s excludedness of John **everyone’s belovedness of him **anyone’s undoubtedness of the conclusion **the children’s heritability of the gene Chomsky (1970) originally argued that nominalizations not only maintained the original thematic structure of verbs, but allowed the same syntactic operations of object-preposing and by-Agents: (16) a. the enemy’s destruction of the city b. the city’s destruction by the enemy It was often said that the free use of by-phrases and the double options for subject (pre- and postnominal the destruction of the city/the city’s destruction) meant that the nominalization itself was inherently passive or neutral in Voice. The much sharper question behind (15) was not recognized: What happens if the morphology of the nominalization contains a passivizing element (-ed, -able) as in singability, or an adjective gets further morphology as in reportedly (still a passive subject in: John was reportedly dead). Once again, quite strikingly, subject only allows object-Themes, not Agents, just like in syntax: (17) *John is singable/*John’s singability the song is singable/the song’s singability *Bill was learned/*Bill’s learnability the grammar was learned/the grammar’s learnability Therefore it is how thematic roles work within these constructions which begins to show how external syntax and syntax within lexical items interact and reflect a single structure. Note as well the power of the Agent to control a purpose clause remains: (18) Control Potential: a. the well-preparedness of a lecture to dazzle the students was typical. b. the desirability of a gun to shoot the enemy was unavoidable. It leads to this question: How exactly does Burzio’s (1981) formulation of ‘dethematization of the subject position’ get transferred to the POSS of nominalizations? We offer one syntactic mechanism, generally based on Hiraiwa (2005), who argues for a Supercategorial representation that captures

286   CP or DP within it, by a simpler categorial alternation. Hiraiwa argues that DP and Sentence forms can be built from the same structures with delayed Labeling as Distributed Morphology suggests: (19)

CP/DP

{NP POSS}

VP/NP

V

Voice

V

Little v (39b)): (39) a.

N V Little v

V glance

cl

The lower V works in this way with Proclitic and Enclitic Lexical Projections: (39) b.

VP

Little v (out)

V

flow

Clitic {Adj (dumb) Generic Noun (ball) Dative obj (me) Part (out)}

292   In effect, now we argue that the little v projection which has been proposed by Chomsky and Kratzer as the source of transitivity, carrying AGENT, can invisibly project AGENT inside the lexical projection of verbs as well.¹⁴ If the Default projection is an AGENT, then just like the verb, it projects Agents into subject position, which therefore is blocked by particle movement.

DP

(40)

Spec

D a

NP N VP

Little v [AG]

V look

meat-eater quick-thinking, fast-moving dumb-acting up-standing

These incorporated elements all represent different categories. While the incorporated element meat could be labeled with an N, for the incorporation it is not necessary. If the incorporation rule is stated on the clitic element without naming a category, that is the First Sister (following Roeper & Siegel, 1978), then the rule is a case of move-alpha without reference to a category Label, but perhaps with some other method to indicate a constituent boundary. In general, if we follow the logic of derivational morphology, we would not want the word to be labeled until higher structure calls for it to be. In that respect choosing not to label the preposed particle fits into a larger tradition as well, but we shall not explore it further here. Now we are seeking an Unlabeled node as a means to explain another range of facts, namely, the capacity for re- to apply to words like outflow. If the rerule is stated negatively, namely, it may not attach to a Noun phrase or Adjective phrase, or a CP, then it would produce the right results. In sum, our approach captures implicit arguments in a fashion that is closely linked to the projection of verbs and argues for clitic-like projections that accompany the verb, particularly evident in nominalizations. It is worth noting that this approach receives independent support from detailed work by Legate (2014) in her study of Acehenese, a MalayoPolynesian language spoken in Sumatra, Indonesia, a language totally unrelated to those under study here. We will not explore the details, but observe her conclusion which matches ours: (58) ‘The prefix realizes the features of the Voice head that introduces the external argument.’ Altogether our model begins to separate the lexical Argument-theta projections of the verb from the conditions for projecting Maximal Projections which enter

298   into syntactic operations, while the larger pattern of subject, object, and control behavior remains consistent across the syntax and the lexicon.

12.4 Absence of impersonal passive nominalization However, as we have already observed, a further fact runs in the opposite direction: there is a sharp block on the nominalization of an important kind of implicit Agent. It comes from the existence of impersonal passives of intransitive verbs, found in many languages, but not English. It is formed precisely from intransitive verbs that do not have an object to passivize, but from which an AGENT relation emerges: (59) People danced all night => (*English) it was danced all night. => (ok: German) Es wurde die ganze Nacht getanzt [it became the whole night danced] where an expletive occupies the subject position and a generic Agent is generated, recently explored in detailed work by Pitteroff & Schäfer (2019). Now we encounter the failure of exactly what succeeded above: Impersonal passives do not allow nominalization (my German informants report) (60a–c), unlike (60e) which is derived from a transitive: (60) a. b. c. d. e.

**die getanztheit der Nacht [*the dancedness of the night] (English) ** die Gesungenheit des Treffens [*the sungness of the meeting] (English) die Auserwähltheit der Politiker [the chosenness of politicians]18

Even the translation into English seems wildly incomprehensible, in contrast to nominalizations of typical transitives such as excludedness. Why is the nominalization (46a) utterly impossible in German? One goal of this chapter is to shift attention to these facts because they constitute a striking challenge to theories of implicit arguments (see Bhatt & Pancheva, 2018, for a summary). Where do these implicit agents come from and exactly where are they projected? We advance a speculation (Section 12.4.2), but not a firm conclusion, based on nascent work on Discourse structure. ¹⁸ Thanks to L. Bauke.

    ? 299 Our analysis works for the data that we have reported, but it does not have any method to explain the fact that impersonal passives of intransitives totally disallow nominalizations (46b–d): (61) a. Die Auserwähltheit von dem Professor [chosenness of the professor] b. Es wurde den ganzen Abend getanzt => *Die Getanztheit des Abends [*the dancedness of the evening] c. Es wurde den ganzen Abend gesprochen => *die Gesprochenheit des Abends [the spokenness of the evening] d. Es wurde den ganzen Abend gelacht => *die Gelachtheit des Abends [*the laughedness of the evening] In addition, we should note that implicit arguments of impersonal passives can control in German (and the reading arises easily in English despite ungrammaticality): (62) Es wurde die ganze Nacht getanzt, um die Schulgruppe zu unterstützen. [it was danced all night to support the school group] It is noteworthy here that plausibility is not required for grammatical cases. (63) the well-preparedness of the meal only to lose his car bothered John Example (63) is grammatical even if it remains incomprehensible. Plausibility, however, as we claim below in Section 12.4.2, is a part of the larger analysis, when our analysis moves beyond sentences. If a little v is buried in passives, which are represented inside nominalizations, including a projection into the POSS Specifier, then they should be accessible to all nominalizations. This would predict that impersonal passives should be represented on the verbal structure in the nominalization in the same way, but the nominalization data indicates a complete incapacity to accommodate an impersonal passive.

12.4.1 TP and the implicit argument agenda We will ultimately sketch an approach that incorporates discourse, but our first goal is to simply alter the agenda of work on implicit arguments, and show

300   why a larger framework is necessary. Our primary suggestion here is that the project of explaining how implicit arguments variously function may force a basic bifurcation where we find ourselves needing to include larger pragmatic dimensions. Approaches to the passive have included many where the TENSE phrase plays an important role in distributing arguments (Alexiadou et al., 2013; Wegner, 2019). Van Hout & Roeper (1998) have argued for the relevance of TP for nominalizations involving progressive -ing, but not for other affixes like -tion, -ness, -ity. It is natural to argue that nominalizations exclude TP because they involve an abstraction away from time. If the presence of a mini-verb which is invoked by -ed is sufficient to engage the Agent, it provides an explanation for why they are possible for some nominalizations, but not all. If we now argue that the TP and its binding of Phi-features provides an alternative locus for an implicit Agent in impersonal passives, then we have a possible basis for explaining why nominalizations disallow them. When the Agent of the impersonal passive is generated in the TP—which Wegner’s (2019) view advocates—then arguing that the TP is above the position where nominalization occurs could exactly predict its impossibility. We regard this position as natural and probable. Moreover, if AGENT is linked directly to the -ed morphology in nonimpersonal passives, as Baker, Johnson, & Roberts (1989) originally proposed, we have one possibility for explaining the acceptability of transitive passive -ed nominalization. Another range of facts, however, must be drawn into the analysis, namely, control of secondary predication, which opens a new possible avenue of explanation.

12.4.2 Logophoricity The Logophoric approach to impersonal passives (see Landau, 2015; Pitteroff & Schäfer, 2019) allows a default instantiation of Phi-features on TP that would permit the spontaneous emergence of an Agent for intransitives that normally cannot undergo passives, by saying Unspecified Phi-features are filled pragmatically. However, Pitteroff & Schäfer provide extensive evidence of a connection to the predicative interpretation of small clauses with implicit arguments, a form of secondary predication: (64) a. the game was played naked. b. Das Spiel wurde nackt gespielt.

    ? 301 The original examples in Roeper (1987) were cases like this: (65) a. b. c. d.

the game was played barefoot. the game was played nude. the game was played angry. the game was played drunk.19

First it was suggested by some that these are really adverbs, but there is sharp evidence against this claim: (66) a. the game was played drunk but not drunkenly. It is clear that drunk modifies the implicit agent, but not the manner of playing, for which the opposite can be simultaneously asserted. Some claimed that if (65c) is grammatical, then it still does not allow complements (66b). That is, (66) b. ?the game was played angry at the umpires. Example (66b) is not ungrammatical for this speaker or many others for whom it is fine. (See Pitteroff & Schäfer for more discussion with the same conclusion).²⁰ Now we need to know why such variability should occur. Pitteroff & Schäfer (2019) in a careful study of secondary predication provide evidence of extensive variation across speakers and systematic variation across languages, engaging over a hundred speakers in evaluating many examples on a Likert scale. In particular they observed, looking at the predicates: naked, drunk, angry, together—radical variation for both individuals and types, asked to grade acceptability (from 1 to 7) with the higher numbers more acceptable:

¹⁹ Although we have not explored the matter carefully, impersonal passives are also excluded in German as small clauses: a. *Der Abend wurde getanzt genossen. [the evening was danced enjoyed] and it should not occur as a simple adjective as well: b. *der getanzte Abend [the danced evening] ²⁰ Another example was offered (Landau, 2015) which was claimed to be ungrammatical: a. the game was played shoeless. The example seems to be derivative from played barefoot which most people accept, but perhaps fewer for shoeless, although it is perfectly grammatical for this speaker. One can note that ‘barefoot’ is slightly closer to an adverb (barefootedly?) which might be a hidden reason for the substitution. This fits the contextual and speaker variability identified by Pitteroff & Schafer.

302   (67) a. the letter was written drunk [4,4,6,7,7 => average 5.6] b. the room was left angry [1,1,1,4,1 => average 1.6] c. the door was opened naked [1,2,2,4,2 => average 2.2] Many other impersonal passives provide comparable variation. All speakers allow some secondary predication, but a sharp split arises for those who allow impersonal intransitive passives ‘the languages licensing implicit predicative control are the languages licensing “strict” impersonal passives (unergative passives where no vP-internal DP/PP/CP must appear)’.²¹ Why should that be? The upshot of this discussion is that the critical result here is the surprising variability among speakers in accepting secondary predication. We need an explanation that renders variability here understandable, rather than attribute variation to ever-finer dialect differentiation. Pitteroff & Schäfer (2019) allude to the fact that contextual ‘relevance’ appears to be pertinent to the judgments.²² Chomsky et al. (2017) also suggests that sentence level adjuncts may need to be explained in terms of Discourse relations.²³ In the same vein, A. Williams (2015) argues that a general notion of ‘Responsibility’ allows control across Discourse as in: (68) The enemy was hated. To sink their ships was important.24 The claim is that general cognition operating across discourse accounts for such connections, and therefore that there is an alternative method to explain all of implicit argument control, essentially without an intricate syntactic representation. But the data here show—especially the unacceptability of impersonal passive nominalizations—that we need to have a precise representation of implicit arguments to capture the facts. Otherwise the cognitively plausible but grammatically excluded *the danced night should be acceptable. It is not sufficient to posit Pro-arb and allow general cognitions to specify or not ²¹ Bauke & Roeper (2019) in fact have shown that L2 speakers of English will transfer the impersonal passive to English even when an alternate non-intransitive passive is possible. ²² We will not discuss the approaches which involve interpreting the expletive as entailing a hidden PRO because we suspect the Discourse approach, which we can only sketch, is more promising. ²³ An alternative, developed in Ott (2016a, b,2017), denies the reality of structurally complex peripheries by analyzing dislocated elements, unlike fronted or extraposed XPs, as ‘structurally independent elliptical expressions that are interpretively related to their host clauses by principles of discourse organization and anaphora’ (Ott, 2016b). We also independently arrived at the conclusion that a system like what is proposed by Keshet (2008) is needed to account for binding relations between sentences in discourse that replicate those found in sentence-grammar is needed to capture anaphoric connections with implicit arguments for small clauses (based on Roeper, 2018): Discourse C-command where children allow anaphoric connections between sentences are ruled out for adults. In other words, people can treat independent sentences as if they were ‘adjuncts’ open to certain seemingly sentential processes, and vice-versa. ²⁴ See also Landau (2015) and earlier work for arguments against some forms of syntactic control.

    ? 303 what the subject is as we do in Shakespeare’s ‘to be or not to be, that is the question.’ Is it a question for Hamlet alone, or for all of us? We suggest that the phenomenon of relevance or ‘connectedness’ should be invoked for secondary predication broadly as an explanation for variation within languages and across them. But how can that be done while preserving precise syntactic representations? Keshet (2008) has proposed that one can build a Discourse tree in which c-command applies to account for binding in the famous telescope contexts, but with a pinpointed position for the impact of specific forms of relevance. It applies to the well-known example: (69) Each graduate1 met the dean on the stage. He1 took his diploma and sat down. Here is Keshet’s Discourse representation with an Event node that carries an if-then relation, which in turn allows each candidate to bind he (70): (70)

QPi Each candidate

∃e IP THEN

IP

tiwalked to the stage Heireceived hisidiploma Keshet points out that if the narrative connection is not plausible, then the binding fails: (71) #Each student in the syntax class was accused of cheating on the exam, and he has a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Although we have opened the door to broad inference, we have designated a narrow point for it to apply. We can now argue that if adjunct small clauses can be seen as a part of a discourse to which plausible connectedness applies, then we can explain why there is variation even among English speakers, who might find ??the game was played cheerful to be less acceptable. If a suitable context exists, we predict improved intuitions of grammaticality:

304   (72) Discourse: the team was upset. The coach brought popsicles that the team ate. Then the game was played very cheerful. (73) the game was played Small clause

(then)

SC

pro

cheerful

Here the prior context creates a happiness dimension which makes the predicated adjective much more comprehensible. We still need to explain the fact that the impersonal passive triggers the application of this discourse structure more naturally than the verb-based implicit agent. We can offer this speculation that exploits the fact that German werden ‘become’ is not a typical auxiliary, but rather a Main Verb. As such we can pursue a similar discourse binding representation. (AG₁): (74)

VP

v

AG1

V

werden.

CP C

IP

infl

VP

v

V

AG1

tanzen

    ? 305 Now we can argue that a binding relation between the AGENTS of two verbs could play a role in triggering the impersonal intransitive passive which would be a third bound element in a chain. Larger perspectives need to be brought to bear to build a full convincing theory.²⁵ One possibility comes from Charneval (2019). She argues that some features of binding in French must be explained by a silent logophoric Operator generated high in the tree which is sensitive to perspectival variation. Perspectival variation is often involved in subtle aspects of pragmatics and it shows both language variation (Speas & Tenny, 2003), and an acquisition path (Devilliers, Nordmeyer, & Roeper, 2018). Therefore, a natural connection between impersonal passives and secondary predicates seen as Discourse entities may be possible if there is a perspectival element involved. We leave this open issue as a possible direction for further research.

12.4.3 Minimize pragmatic influence Why do all grammars not allow impersonal intransitive passives? If we assume a teleology in grammar that motivates acquisition steps, then a natural goal is to: (75) Minimize pragmatic influence The acquisition process itself shows a step-by-step evolution of syntactic mechanisms that replace pragmatic reasoning. Consequently (75) maximizes the influence of a mechanical grammar with limited domains for inference. This leads to a learnability approach which favors sentence grammar over discourse reasoning. From that perspective, we can imagine that a small clause can have either (i) an adjunct status, subject to c-command, and automatic interpretation, or (ii) a discourse status which invites the inferential skills ²⁵ Van Hout & Roeper (1999) show that middles also disallow nominalizations: a. bureaucrats bribe easily =/=> *bureaucrats bribery easily This does not have an obvious discourse explanation. However, it does carry modal semantics which in turn may be linked to a higher IP node to which no nominalization morpheme can apply: b. *the bureaucrats bribeness easily. In contrast, if -able applies to the VP, then bribeable can occur, which in turn allows -ity: c. bureaucrats easy bribeability, carrying a structure of this form: d. [N- ity [A. -able [V bribe]]]

306   needed to make sense of novel discourses. Keshet’s approach connects the two with a provision for plausibility effects. Because ‘plausibility’ varies with how we build narratives, individual variation of the sort Pitteroff & Schäfer (2019) detail, is to be expected.

12.5 Conclusions Our theoretical goal at the outset was to imagine how various dimensions of grammar project across interface boundaries. In this instance, how does a theory of argument structure in syntax project into the lexicon? We developed nominalizations in terms of verbal projections as a way to dig deeper into interfaces and structure-building in the lexicon. Our basic assumption reaching back to work on compounds in the 1970s is that there is a continuous relation between the lexicon and syntax. We argued, in effect, that arguments linked to Maximal Projections are syntactic entities. In the lexicon, the same relations can be captured by Heads which in some instances can be Unlabeled while other lexical operations occur. The projection of arguments and thematic roles onto clitic positions immediately dominated by the verb should be a logical subset of how arguments are projected in syntax. All of our evidence supports the view of a continuous connection between the lexicon and syntax. In particular, we argued that bare nominalizations (a look, a glance, a comment) carry argument structure capable of motivating syntactic binding like control. And we showed that argument projections into the POSSessive of nominalizations showed predictable sensitivity to passive morphemes (-ed, -able) buried inside nominalizations. They allow only an object projection in nominalized Possessives precisely as they do in verbal structures. This entails a critical expansion of the theory of theta-role projection: it must allow projection of an AGENT either to Subject in little v, or Subject in TP, or Subject in Possessives. If acquisition is efficient, these alternatives should all follow automatically from UG, such that these consequences do not have to be separately acquired. Stating the principle that captures this uniformity across the syntax and lexicon interface remains an important challenge in grasping the fundamental architecture of UG, in keeping with what I call strict interfaces. Then we pivoted to argue that impersonal passives that appear in a subset of languages call for both special syntax and a special vision of an interface with

    ? 307 Discourse structure in order to articulate a connection between impersonal intransitive passives and secondary predication. This analysis as a whole supports a view of innate UG specific ‘strict’ interfaces that themselves show no language particular variation.

Acknowledgments Thanks to L. Bauke, R. Bhatt, H. Borer, K. Johnson, and an anonymous reviewer for comments and judgments.

13 Agent and other function nominals in a neo-constructionist approach to nominalizations Isabelle Roy and Elena Soare

13.1 Introduction Across languages, we note the existence of productive means to derive nominals denoting participants in an event (individuals as Agents, Causers, Holders, and Instruments) and that are, descriptively at least, related to an existing verb in the language. One common derivation is through -er suffixation (English driver, teacher, French -eur: chercheur ‘researcher’, plongeur ‘diver’, Romanian -tor: conducător ‘driver’, învățător ‘teacher’, among other languages). Other cases, found in some Romance languages, involve derivation with -ant and -é/-i/-u suffixes, historically related to present and past participles (French enseignant ‘teacher’ (lit. teaching), assistant ‘assistant’ (lit. assisting), marié ‘groom’ (lit. married), blessé ‘wounded person’ (lit. wounded)). Whether such nominals are syntactically derived from a verbal structure has been and continues to be the subject of much debate. Departing from early work in generative grammar which assumed that all deverbal nominals were nominalizations derived from sentences (Lees, 1960), in Remarks on Nominalization Chomsky argues that while -ing gerunds in English (e.g. John’s refusing the offer) are derived from complex verbal structures, other nominals, like refusal or growth, are not. Nominals that are not derived in the syntax are, by assumption, formed in the Lexicon. The hypothesis that (some) nominals (and putatively other formations as well) are built by lexical rules rather than syntactic rules was a crucial contribution made by Remarks. But while Remarks paved the way to lexicalism, it also made possible the syntactic approach to word formation (see Marantz, 1997, for a discussion). Following this seminal paper, two traditions thus developed,

Isabelle Roy and Elena Soare, Agent and other function nominals in a neo-constructionist approach to nominalizations In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Isabelle Roy and Elena Soare. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0013

310      which posit a strict division of labor between syntax and the Lexicon: a syntactic tradition, locating word formation in the syntax (Marantz, 1997; Harley & Noyer, 1998; Alexiadou, 2001; Borer 2005a,b; among others), and a lexicalist tradition (Aronoff, 1976; Booij, 1988; Ackema & Neeleman, 2004; among others), confining word formation to the Lexicon. In the syntactic tradition, also recently referred to as the neo-constructionist approach (Borer, 2003, in particular), all levels of projection in the internal structure of derived forms have a direct contribution to their interpretation. According to this view of the syntax-semantics interface, syntactically derived deverbal nominalizations may inherit properties from an internal (verbal and/or aspectual) structure, both syntactically (i.e. argument structure, henceforth AS) and semantically (i.e. event structure) (Grimshaw, 1990; Marantz, 1997; Alexiadou, 2001; Borer 2003, 2005a, 2013; among others). Some nominalizations may involve a complex internal structure, associated with AS and event properties (i.e. Argument Structure Nominals (Borer, 2005a)—henceforth ASNs, also referred to as Complex Event Nominals in Grimshaw (1990); e.g. the examination of the patients by the doctor). Other nominalizations lack such properties (i.e. Referential Nominals, henceforth RNs, e.g. the examination was on the table) and are putatively derived directly from roots. While an analysis in terms of complex verbal/aspectual structure is well supported for deverbal nominals denoting events (ASNs, gerunds), the question whether it is also motivated for nouns denoting Agents, or more generally participants and entities performing a role or a function (including Instruments) (henceforth referred to as function nominals), has been a subject of some debate among neo-constructionists. Morphologically, some of these nouns seem, on the surface at least, to be derived from verbs (director, driver, descendant), but some are putatively derived from nouns (violinist, florist, lawyer), and some do not seem to be morphologically derived at all (king, client, friend). The first question is, thus, to what extent do function nominals form a homogeneous class? In relation to this question, what are the morpho-syntactic properties of this class or classes? Are Agent and other function nominals simplex or complex forms? And are they, or at least some of them, syntactically derived from a full verbal structure? Two distinct views have been defended in the literature. In the first view, function nominals form a homogeneous class, and consequently share the same (absence of) internal structure correlating with the same interpretational possibilities. This view is put forward in Remarks (in a lexicalist perspective) and later by Borer (2013, in a neo-constructionist perspective). We will refer to it as the homogeneity hypothesis. In the second view, function nominals form a

    

311

heterogeneous class, some being derived syntactically from a verbal structure and some not. This view is defended by Van Hout & Roeper (1998); Alexiadou & Schäfer (2008, 2010); Roy & Soare (2014); and also to some extent McIntyre (2014). We will refer to it as the heterogeneity hypothesis. Building in part on previous work from Roy & Soare (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015), this chapter will defend a form of the heterogeneity hypothesis. Function nominals belong to different classes depending on whether they are morphologically complex or simplex, whether they are derived from a true verbal structure, and depending on the type of suffix they involve. Considering data from French and Romanian, we will argue for two distinct patterns of nominalization, namely an eventive pattern and a noneventive pattern. Eventive nominals are necessarily complex, and involve a verbal structure. Non-eventive nominals may be morphologically simplex or complex, but they do not derive from a verbal structure. These two patterns, we will argue, are distributed differently across French, Romanian, and English. In the next two sections, we will present the existing arguments for the homogeneity hypothesis (Section 13.2) and the heterogeneity hypothesis (Section 13.3). Section 13.4 addresses further arguments and supporting evidence for the existence of a syntactically derived class of complex -er nominals. Section 13.5 provides a comparison between Agent -er nominals and other function nominals, and shows that morphological derivation matters and has direct consequences on the interpretation. Section 13.6 provides some concluding remarks on the typology of function nominals across languages.

13.2 Homogeneity hypothesis Remarks on Nominalization is one of the earliest works to explore the possible relationship between derived nominals and the verb and to address function nominals in this context. In Chomsky’s view, all function nominals belong to a single class, and this class is not derived in syntax. -Er nominals (e.g. the owner of the house), which may seem remarkable because they relate to a possible verb (own), are not different from any other function nominals like dentist, secretary, vice-chancellor, which do not involve an associated verb (Chomsky, 1970: 32). And in fact, as Chomsky points out, some -er nominals may not be straightforwardly associated with a verb: the author of the book (cf. *to auth- a book). Chomsky further notes that function nominals can commonly be constructed with an of-PP, but that this does not imply an

312      underlying relation with a verbal structure either. The presence of an of-PP is not sufficient to signal the presence of an AS (cf. the general secretary of the party, the assistant vice-chancellor of the university). This issue is a pervasive one cross-linguistically. In French, for instance, de-phrases can express argumental Genitives as well as a variety of semantic notions that are unrelated to AS (possession, origin, matter, . . . ). We will come back to this issue in Section 13.4.2. Chomsky also refutes a putative argument in favor of a syntactic derivation of function nominals, namely the ambiguity of adjectival modification (e.g. good, which can have an intersective and a nonintersective reading, cf. Larson, 1998). He points out that this ambiguity equally characterizes phrases like the good owner but also the good dentist (good as a dentist vs. good as a person), and the good assistant vice-chancellor. As such, adjectival modification with good does not distinguish between syntactically built and simplex function nominals either. We will come back to adjectival modification at length in Sections 13.4.1 and 13.5.1–3 for these distinct nominal classes. Note that the original skepticism expressed in Remarks arises in the context of early generative grammar, where transformational rules were proposed to account for all nominals related to a verb. The question whether -er nominals should be transformationally derived from a verb (or a reduced clause), like it was claimed to be the case for gerundive -ing nominals in English, had not been addressed specifically, however. One of the aims of Remarks was to limit the strength of such an approach. Nevertheless, a similar skepticism remains in Borer (2013). As in Remarks, Agent and other function nominals are treated as a homogeneous class which is not syntactically derived from a verbal structure. All function nominals are derived directly from a root (including the possibility of a ‘verbalized’ root in e.g. complement-iz-er). Borer presents several additional arguments against deriving -er nominals (as opposed to, e.g., gerunds) from a verbal/aspectual structure (Borer, 2013: 606). First, -er nominals do not allow a subject argument with intransitives, cf. *the sinker of the ship, putatively derived from the ship sunk, as compared to the sinking of the ship (where the intransitive reading is available). Another fact noted by Borer relates to some of the diagnostics for CENs proposed by Grimshaw (1990). Specifically, Borer shows that -er nominals cannot take in/for-PPs and purpose clauses (cf. *the breaker of the door in seven minutes in order to retrieve the luggage), two diagnostics claimed to identify ASNs. Third, indirect and locative complements are also barred in -er nominals, as opposed to ASNs and gerunds (cf. *the dancer in the road, *the talker to animals). Accordingly, -er nominals

    

313

cannot inherit an AS or an event structure comparable to that of gerunds.¹ We interpret Borer’s position as implying that there is no fundamental distinction between Agent -er nominals and other function nominals in that none are derived from a verbal structure: Absence of AS properties and event properties equally characterizes derived -er nominals and other function nominals like secretary in English. As will become apparent in Section 13.4, a similar conclusion cannot be held for French and Romanian.

13.3 Heterogeneity hypothesis Following Remarks’ original insight, another group of works has emerged, which treat function nominals as a heterogeneous class, and claim that some, in particular -er nominals, may exhibit event and AS properties. Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1992) first pointed out a notable interpretational difference between phrasal vs. compound -er nominals in English. Phrasal nominals entail that an event has taken place, whereas compound nominals do not. Consider for instance, a saver of lives, who must have saved at least one life, and compare it with a lifesaver, who has not necessarily saved any lives. While the former implies an underlying event, the latter does not.² Furthermore, whereas compound nominals can be interpreted as Agents or Instruments (e.g. apple picker, carrot peeler), the phrasal forms can only refer to Agents (cf. picker of apples, peeler of carrots). This suggests that the morphological build-up of these nominals (phrasal vs. compound) has clear consequences on their interpretation, and more specifically on the presence of an underlying event (see also Roy et al., 2016). In a strong syntax-semantics interface, where events and AS are introduced by dedicated projections, these facts have been interpreted as showing that (a subclass of) -er nominals are derived from a complex verbal structure, the nature of which varies across different analyses. In Van Hout & Roeper (1998), event -er nominals (saver of lives) are derived from a verbal structure involving several aspectual layers (EventP, AspP, and TP) responsible for AS, event entailment and manner, purpose and instrumental modifiers; while

¹ Baker & Vinokurova (2009) provide arguments along a similar line for an impoverished structure for Agent nominals in Sakha. ² McIntyre (2014) notices the existence of compounds such as prize winner which entail that a related event of winning a prize has taken place, suggesting that event entailment may also be a property that lexically distinguishes between different classes of compounds. See Section 13.6 for more discussion.

314      noneventive nominals lack such structure. Implicitly, a distinction is drawn between phrasal deverbal -er nominals (1) and all other function nominals, either morphologically complex or simplex. (1) [NP N -ing/-ation/-er [TP T [AspP Asp [EventP Event [VP]]]]] (adapted from Van Hout & Roeper, 1998) McIntyre (2014) also argues for a class of eventive -er Ns which are sensitive to the AS of the base verb and entail an event. However, McIntyre disagrees with Van Hout & Roeper, and, in that respect, with most syntactic approaches, in claiming that eventive -er Ns do not involve a full verbal-aspectual structure, but rather a mere V. Eventive properties are linked to the projection of a (nominal) Voice, absent in noneventive -er Ns. In this respect, heterogeneity is thus postulated, and we can presume nonderived nominals to fall into the noneventive category. Alexiadou & Schäfer (2008, 2010), in a more drastic move, proposed that all -er nominals involve an underlying event associated with a verbal structure. Two classes of -er Ns are distinguished, namely episodic and dispositional nominals, based on the flavor of Aspect. Episodic nominals involve AspEpisodic, and correspond to phrasal nominals (2a). Dispositional nominals, involve Asp-Dispositional; they comprise both dispositional Agents (lifesaver, driver) and Instruments (stapler, blender) (2b), and include the compound pattern. This analysis implies that a verbal structure is required both for the episodic and dispositional meanings. Implicitly, a distinction is therefore drawn between -er nominals on the one hand, and simplex (and denominal) forms on the other. (2) a. Episodic -er nominals [nP -er [AspP Asp-EPIS [VoiceP [vP [RootP ]]]]] b. Dispositional -er nominals [nP -er [AspP Asp-DISPO [VoiceP [vP [RootP ]]]]] In Roy & Soare (2013, 2014, 2015), we have argued for a finer-grained typology that distinguishes not two but three classes of -er nominals, on the basis of French data mainly. Like Alexiadou & Schäfer (2008, 2010), we defended a contrast between episodic and dispositional -er nominals. However, contrary to Alexiadou & Schäfer, and along the lines of Rappaport Hovav & Levin’s original insight, we also argued that

    

315

Instruments form a separate class that is to be distinguished from (episodic and dispositional) Agents, since they do not involve any underlying event. All and only Agent -er nominals are derived syntactically from a verbal/aspectual structure (3a); while Instruments are not (3b). Episodic and dispositional Agent nominals are distinguished by the type of quantification over the event they involve: existential vs. generic, respectively. This distinction correlates with specificity or nonspecificity of the internal argument; see Roy & Soare (2014: 16) for details. (3) a. Eventive -er nominals (adapted from Roy & Soare, 2014)3 [NP N [AspEvP -er [AspEv ev ] [AspQP DPobject [AspQ ] [C=V √Root ]]]] b. Noneventive -er nominals [NP N -er [C=N √Root ]] What the views presented above have in common is that they recognize the special status of (Agent) -er nominals as opposed to other function nominals. They recognize event properties for Agent -er nominals and associate such semantic properties with syntactic ones, namely projection of arguments. Structurally, they are derived from a verbal (and/or aspectual) structure; and when assigned a complex derivation are treated on a par with ASNs, rather than gerunds.

13.4 More on the syntactic arguments for a class of AS Agent -er nominals 13.4.1 Testing the internal event and AS In some languages, Agent nominals are clearly complex, morphologically transparent, and have AS properties; cf. for instance Coon & Royer (Chapter 7). In languages like French or English, however, -er nominals are often ambiguous (agent/instrument, eventive/noneventive), thus creating a need for specific tests. In Roy & Soare (2014), we have developed syntactic arguments supporting the view that Agent -eur nominals in French are ASNs. ³ Roy & Soare (2014) follow Borer (2005a, 2013) in assuming that both the external argument and the internal argument (when realized) are introduced by dedicated aspectual projections, AspEvP and AspQP respectively. AspEv is responsible for introducing both the external argument and the event variable ev. Roots are, by assumption, devoid of category. They are contextually categorized as V in the presence of aspectual projections, and as N in the presence of nominal projections.

316      Table 13.1 ASNs vs. RNs: Grimshaw’s (1990) tests

i. ii. iii. iv. v.

ASNs

RNs

event reading obligatory arguments compatible with aspectual modifiers like in three hours constant, frequent with the singular by-phrase is an argument

no event reading no arguments no aspectual modifiers no constant, frequent in the singular by-phrase is an adjunct

In what follows, we will further address the syntactic tests supporting this conclusion, and show how they apply, beyond English and French, to another language as well, namely Romanian. The tests developed by Grimshaw (1990), and summarized in Table 13.1, have been argued massively to distinguish between ASNs (e.g. the destruction of the city by the enemy) and RNs (e.g. a form, an exam) (see Chapter 1). We have shown in Roy & Soare (2014) that only some of these tests apply to Agent ASNs, for the simple reason that -er, as opposed to event-denoting ASNs, nominalize an argument, i.e., an individual that realizes a participant in the event, rather than the event itself. For obvious reasons, by-phrases (test v) cannot show up in -er nominals, which already contain the external argument, namely the one which is nominalized. Likewise, unaccusative construals are ruled out in -er nominals (as opposed to gerunds), as they do not contain an Agent (e.g. the sinker of the boat; Borer, 2013: 606); and other intransitive construals do not allow the Agent to be realized as an of-phrase (e.g. the jumper (*of the boy); Borer, 2013). The compatibility with aspectual modifiers (test iii), often invoked as a crucial difference between -er nominals and event-denoting ASNs, has been discussed at length in Roy & Soare (2013, 2014). These modifiers cannot combine with -er nominals, cf. (4), because Agent -er nominals denote individuals and not the event per se. We have proposed that aspectual modifiers are adjoined externally after nominalization, i.e., outside NP. Their incompatibility with Agent -er nominals is semantic in nature and derives from a semantic mismatch between the individual-denoting NP and the modifier, a predicate of event, following the rule of Predicate Modification (Heim & Kratzer, 1998).⁴ ⁴ An aspectual in/for PP can sometimes attach inside the NP in French -eur nominals, but in that case and for reasons that need to be better understood the nominal denotes something akin to a kind: les coureurs en moins de 25 secondes (lit. the runners in less than 25 seconds) ‘sub 25 seconds runners’. Interestingly such internal aspectual modification depends on the presence of a verbal base; cf. les rois/ dentistes #pendant 5 ans (lit. the kings/dentists #for 5 years). See Roy & Soare (2013).

    

317

(4) le lecteur du livre #en/#pendant 5 minutes the reader of.the book #in/#for 5 minutes In turn, the other three tests (i/ii/iv) can apply to Agent -er nominals. The eventive interpretation (test i) has been noted since Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1992), who first mentioned event entailments for phrasal -er nominals in English (see Section 13.3). The event entailment is also there for Agent -eur nominals in French and distinguishes them from Instrument -eur nominals (Roy & Soare, 2014). Turning to obligatory AS (test ii), we have shown in the same work, that Agent -eur nominals must express their internal argument. The realization of AS with Agent -eur nominals (5a) contrasts both with Instruments -eur nominals (5b) and with other function nominals (5c). In (5b–c) de-PP is either simply ungrammatical, or it expresses a possessive and is nonargumental—as we will see in Section 13.4.2, these two types of de-PPs, which are homophonous in French, are clearly distinguishable in Romanian, one being a Genitive and the other a full PP (5) a. un défenseur *(de causes perdues / de a defend-er of causes lost of ‘an advocate for lost causes / for the reform’

la the

réforme reform (ASNs)

b. l’aspirateur (*de la poussière); le photocopieur (*de the suck-ator of the dust the copy-er of l’article) (Instruments) the.paper ‘the vacuum-cleaner of the dust’ ‘the copy machine of the paper’ c. le jardinier (*de ce parc); ‘the gardener of this park’ le client (#de ce magasin); ‘the client of this shop’

le camionneur (*du chargement) (others)5 ‘the truck-driver (lit. truck-er) of the load’ le docteur (#de ces enfants) ‘the doctor of these children’

As in the case of event-denoting ASNs, AS is obligatory in the context of the appropriate event-related adjectival modification (test iv), and the correlation between AS and adjectival modification is maintained, both for episodic and dispositional nominals, in (6a) and (6b):

⁵ Nonverb-derived nominalizations and nonderived nominals are further discussed in Section 13.5.

318      (6) a. Ce fréquent consommateur *(de drogues douces) this frequent consumer of soft drugs mal finir. badly end ‘This frequent consumer of soft drugs will end badly.’

va will

b. Ce gros vendeur *(de voitures) nous a fait une offre. this big seller of cars to.us has made an offer. ‘This big car seller made us an offer.’ The adjectival modification test (test iv) applies to -eur nominals, with two types of modifiers: frequency adjectives (FAs) (as in Grimshaw, 1990) and bigtype adjectives (BAs). However, the test should be approached with caution in the context of Agent -eur nominals because we need to make sure that we are testing the internal event, as defined by Larson (1998) and Gehrke & McNally (2015), and putatively contributed by the verbal base, and not any other kind of event originating, for instance, at the sentential level. For that reason, it is also crucial to test nominals in argument position (e.g. I bought a big grinder) rather than in predicative position (e.g. This is a big grinder). Predicative uses render an eventive reading accessible, while it is not available in argument position. Compare, for instance, I bought a big grinder (#:‘a tiny machine that grinds much’) vs. This is a big grinder (ok: ‘a tiny machine that grinds much’). Nonverbal predication contributes its own eventuality (Roy, 2013), different from the eventuality putatively contributed by the derived nominal. Hence any discussion of function nominals should focus on argumental nouns exclusively. The contrast between the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ adjectival modification is exemplified in (7). In (7a) occasional/frequent expresses the meaning of an adverb scoping over the verb inside the derived nominal, and is thus ‘internal’; while in (7b) occasional receives an external interpretation (not available for frequent, in this example): The adjective plays the role of a sentential adverb, not related to the nominal sailor, and, hence, not related to an internal event of sailing: (7) a. This claim has been made by an occasional/frequent sailor. meaning: ‘this claim was made by a sailor who sails occasionally/ frequently’. b. An occasional sailor strolled by. meaning: ‘occasionally, some sailor strolled by’.

    

319

FAs/BAs in French systematically admit the ‘internal’ interpretation, and discriminate between a class of Agent -eur nominals with internal event properties and a class of noneventive -eur Instruments. Episodic Agent -eur nominals allow both BAs and FAs (8), dispositional -eur nominals allow BAs only⁶ (9), whereas Instruments allow none (10): Eventive -eur nominals: (8) episodic Agent a. Un consommateur fréquent de plusieurs drogues douces a consumer frequent of several drugs soft a témoigné au procès. has testified at.the trial ‘A frequent user of several soft drugs testified in court.’ b. Un gros consommateur de plusieurs drogues douces a big consumer of several drugs soft a témoigné au procès. has testified at.the trial ‘A big user of several soft drugs testified in court.’ (9) dispositional Agent a. *Nous avons interviewé we have interviewed

un a

fréquent vendeur frequent seller

de voitures. of cars

b. Nous avons interviewé un gros vendeur de voitures. we have interviewed a big seller of cars ‘We’ve interviewed a car salesman who sells a lot of cars.’ Noneventive -eur nominals: (10) Instruments a. *Un broyeur fréquent nous serait utile. a grinder frequent to.us would.be.3 useful intended meaning: ‘A frequent grinder would be useful to us.’

⁶ The incompatibility of FAs with dispositional -eur nominals relates to quantification over the internal event. Dispositional nominals cannot express a frequency (cf. genericity). Nevertheless, as argued in Roy & Soare (2014), compatibility with BAs under the internal eventive reading (as in 9b), and the obligatory realization of argument structure is a sufficient indication that dispositional -eur nominals are eventive, as opposed to Instruments. BAs are necessary here to complete Grimshaw’s original test iv.

320      b. Un gros broyeur nous serait utile. a big grinder to.us would.be.3 useful meaning: #: ‘A grinder that grinds much would be useful to us.’ ok: ‘A large grinder would be useful to us.’ Instruments clearly differ from dispositional Ns as they exhibit no eventive properties whatsoever. This correlates neatly with the absence of AS with Instruments (cf. (5b) repeated below in (11)) (11) L’aspirateur (*de la poussière) / le photocopieur (*de l’article) the.suck-ator of the dust the copy-er of the.paper n’a pas bien fonctionné. not.has Neg well functioned ‘The vacuum-cleaner (*of the dust) / copy machine (*of the paper) didn’t function properly.’ According to these two criteria (internal adjectival modification and presence of AS), two subclasses have to be distinguished: eventive -eur nominals (Agents) and noneventive -eur nominals (Instruments). The question is now whether this result replicates in languages other than French. Interestingly, the internal adjectival modification tests function exactly the same way in Romanian. We find a class of Agent denoting event -tor nominals which accept FA and/or BA modifiers, contrasting with a class of -tor Instruments which do not accept any internal event-related adjectival modification.⁷ Eventive -tor nominals: (12) episodic Agent a. Acest consumator frecvent de droguri this consumer frequent of drugs halucinogene a intrat în comă. hallucinogen has entered in coma ‘This frequent consumer of hallucinogen drugs went into a coma.’

⁷ In the only study of -tor nominals in Romanian that we know of, Marchis (2008) has claimed, along the lines of Alexiadou & Schäfer (2008), that instruments have eventive properties and include a verbal structure. The tests, however (e.g. un calculator rapid ‘a fast computer’) are not based on internal eventive modification in nonpredicative positions, and therefore are, in our opinion, inconclusive.

    

321

b. Un mare consumator de droguri a big consumer of drugs halucinogene a intrat în comă. hallucinogen has entered in coma ‘A big consumer of hallucinogen drugs went into a coma.’ (13) dispositional Agent a. *Un prezentator frecvent de emisiuni tv a apărut a present-er frequent of shows tv has showed pe acest nou canal. on this new channel intended meaning: ‘A frequent host of tv shows shows up on this new channel.’ b. Un mare prezentator de emisiuni tv a apărut pe a big present-er of shows tv has showed on acest nou canal. this new channel ‘A tv-show host who hosts a lot of tv shows showed up on this new channel.’ Noneventive -tor nominals: (14) Instruments a. *Un transmițător frecvent de mesaje s-a stricat a transmitter frequent of messages se-has broken intended meaning: ‘A frequent transmitter of messages is broken.’ b. Un mare transmițător de mesaje s-a stricat a big transmitter of messages se-has broken meaning: *: ‘A message transmitter which transmits a lot is broken.’ ok: ‘A large message transmitter is broken.’ The convergence of French and Romanian strongly supports the existence of a class of eventive Agent ASNs in -eur/-tor (either episodic or dispositional), as opposed to a class of noneventive Instruments. Building upon the analysis previously developed in Roy & Soare (2014), we propose the following representations for both French and Romanian: (15) Eventive -eur/-tor nominals i. episodic ∃ [NP N [AspEvP -eur/-tor [AspEv ev ] [AspQP DPspecific [AspQ ] [C=V √Root ]]]]

322      ii. dispositional  [NP N [AspEvP -eur/-tor [AspEv ev] [AspQP DPnonspecific [AspQ] [C=V√Root ]]]] Noneventive -eur/-tor nominals [NP N -eur/-tor [C=N √Root]] AS in Romanian, however, requires further discussion; regarding, in particular, Genitive Case assignment.

13.4.2 Romanian Genitive Contrary to French and English which allow de/of-PPs across the board, Romanian exhibits a clear distinction between a true argumental Genitive and de-PPs which are modifiers. We first find that both Agent and Instrument -tor nominals can take Genitive DPs. However, there is a crucial difference between the two. With Agent -tor nominals the meaning of the Genitive is restricted to that of an argument of the underlying verb, as opposed to, e.g., a possessive (16); whereas Instruments can never take argumental Genitives (17). With Instruments, the only interpretation of the Genitive is that of a possessive, available in (17a) but not in (17b). Possessive Genitives are not related to internal AS properties; and cf. (5b) and (11) in French): (16) Aducătorul acestei scrisori va primi o recompensă. bring-er-the this. letter. will receive a reward ‘The bringer of this letter will receive a reward.’ (= ‘the person who brought the letter’) (≠ ‘the bringer who belongs to this letter’) (17) a. Copiatorul catedrei s-a stricat. copy-er-the department-the. se-has broken ‘The copy machine of the department is broken.’ (= ‘the copy machine that belongs to the department) (≠ ‘the copy machine that copied the department’) b. Copiatorul (*acestui articol) s-a stricat. copy-er-the this. article se-has broken ‘The copy machine of this paper is broken.’

    

323

Instrument -tor nominals, in turn, take de-PP modifiers (18), something that episodic Agent -tor nominals never allow (19): (18) Un transmițător de semnale s-a stricat. a transmitter of signals se-has broken ‘A transmitter of signals is broken.’ (19) *Vindecătorul de acest bolnav lucrează cu hipnoza. healer-the of this sick works with hypnosis ‘The healer of this sick person works with hypnosis.’ The same contrast in the distribution of the argumental Genitive cannot be shown with dispositional Agent -tor nominals for reasons that are independent of the realization of AS. In Romanian, Genitive requires a determiner and thus cannot appear on bare DPs (20a), (21a). Since dispositional Agent nominals are intrinsically constructed with nonspecific DP complements (cf. Roy & Soare, 2014, for French), and nonspecific DPs are bare in Romanian, dispositional Agent -tor nominals can never take Genitives (21a). This is, however, not particular to argumental Genitives, but is visible across the board, including with possessive ones, cf. (20a,b). (20) a. *proprietarul case a pus-o în owner-the house./. has put-it on

vânzare sell

b. proprietarul acestei case a pus-o în owner-the this. house.. has put-it on ‘The owner of this house offered it for sell.’

vânzare sell

Instead of the Genitive (21a), nonspecific arguments of dispositional Agent -tor nominals must be realized as de-PPs (21b): (21) a. *un vânzător a seller

case a propus house./. has proposed

b. un vânzător de case/casă a a seller of house. /. has ‘A seller of houses proposed a visit.’

propus proposed

o a

vizită visit o vizită a visit

Nevertheless, and just like in French (6), an ASN structure is supported even in the case of dispositional -tor nominals by the correlation between AS realization and BA modification:

324      (22) un mare vânzător *(de case) a big seller (of house.) ‘A big seller proposed a visit.’

a propus has proposed

o vizită a visit

13.4.3 More on AS: oblique and locative PPs Further evidence for AS properties of Agent -eur/-tor nominals, as opposed to Instruments, comes from the possibility to realize oblique complements expressing, for instance, indirect objects, and locatives, in both French (23) and Romanian (24). (23) a. les pêcheurs sous la glace;8 un porteur de message aux enfants the fishers under the ice a bearer of message to.the children ‘under-the-ice fishers’ ‘a message-bearer to the children’ b. *les aspirateurs dans les angles; *un sécateur à la racine; the suck-ators in the corners a prun-er at the root ‘the vacuum-cleaners in the corners’ ‘pruning shears at the root’ *un transmetteur aux radio-amateurs; a transmitter to.the radio-amateurs ‘a transmitter to radio-amateurs’ (24) a. un ghicitor în stele; a guess.er in stars ‘a reader in the stars’ b. *un a *un a

transmițător transmitter aspirator în suck-ator in

un purtător de mesaje către autorități a bearer of messages to authorities ‘a bearer of messages to authorities’

la ascultători; to hearers colțuri corners

*un secator la rădăcină; a prun.er at root

We conclude that AS properties are clearly restricted to Agent -eur/-tor nominals, and thus to eventive nominals. Despite the restriction on nonspecific DPs, Genitive in Romanian Agent -tor nominals signals argumenthood. By analogy, and building upon the overall similarities between Romanian and French, we assume that de-PPs found with eventive (Agent) -eur nominals in French are arguments as well, while they are modifiers when they appear with noneventive (Instrument) nominals.

⁸ Example due to Kerleroux (2007).

    

325

As argued in Roy & Soare (2014), but also in Alexiadou & Schäfer (2008, 2010) and others, -er nominals can be integrated in a larger view of deverbal nominals in a syntactic approach to complex word formation that distinguishes nouns derived from roots and ASNs derived from full verbal phrases. Thus, we contribute to a view in which the correlation between event reading and AS (as commonly assumed for event-denoting deverbal nominals since Grimshaw, 1990) is uniformly maintained. Eventive -er nominals are syntactically derived from a full verbal/aspectual structure, while noneventive -er nominals are root-derived. The requirement for an internal verbal structure (assumed to be the source for eventive and AS properties), and consequently for a verbal base, remains, however, to be fully demonstrated. Specifically, what remains to be addressed, is the issue of heterogeneity in morphological complexity (bases and suffixes) across function nominals. This question is addressed in Section 13.5.

13.5 Derivation and morphology Are eventive properties specific to (Agent denoting) -eur/-tor nominals among function nominals? Are such eventive properties associated with the presence of a verbal structure as claimed? How is this related to morphological derivation? To answer these questions, we need to compare Agent denoting -eur/-tor nominals with the following three subclasses of function nominals: Subclass (i) simplex nominal forms, that are not derived at all: French: secrétaire ‘secretary’, capitaine ‘captain’, avocat ‘lawyer’ Romanian: secretar ‘secretary’, doctor ‘doctor’, căpitan ‘captain’, şofer ‘driver’ including relational nouns, which have an argumental structure: French: ami ‘friend’, mère ‘mother’, voisin ‘neighbor’ Romanian: prieten ‘friend’, mamă ‘mother’, vecin ‘neighbor’ Subclass (ii) nominals that are morphologically derived, but not from a verbal base French: -iste: dentiste ‘dentist’, étalagiste (lit. window-ist) ‘window dresser’, -ier: pompier ‘fireman’, voiturier (lit. car-ier) ‘valet parking’ Romanian: -ist, -giu, -ier: dentist ‘dentist’, camionagiu ‘truck-driver’, pompier ‘fire-fighter’ including -eur/-tor denominal nouns: French: camionneur (lit. truck-er) ‘truck-driver’, basketteur (lit. basketer) ‘basket ball player’, chroniqueur (lit. chronicle-er) ‘columnist’,

326      Romanian: controlor (lit. control-er) ‘controler’, senator ‘senator’, aviator (lit. plane-er) ‘aviator’ Subclass (iii) deverbal nominals with other suffixes French: -ant: habitant ‘inhabitant’, votant ‘voter’, enseignant ‘teacher’, soignant ‘carer’ -é/-i/-u: marié (lit. married) ‘groom’, blessé (lit. wounded) ‘wounded person’, pendu (lit. hanged) ‘hanged person’, insoumis (lit. unsubmitted) ‘rebel’ Romanian: -tor vs. -aș: ucigător/ucigaș ‘killer’ To the best of our knowledge, such comparison, although part of the program initiated by Remarks, has not been undertaken in any systematic manner for French or Romanian.

13.5.1 Simplex nominals Contrast between subclass (i) function nominals like secrétaire ‘secretary’, capitaine ‘captain’, parent ‘parent’, and Agent -eur nominals like conducteur ‘driver’, accompagnateur ‘chaperon’, confirms that eventive properties require a complex form to begin with. All simplex nominals (leaving aside putative etymological complexity) reject FA/BA internal modifications, in French (25) as well as in Romanian (26): (25) a. Un (*fréquent/*gros) capitaine a frequent/ big captain a abandonné le combat. has abandoned the fight

de of

bateau de guerre ship of war

b. Une (*fréquente/*grosse) mère d’élève nous a fait des aveux. a frequent/ big mother of a pupil has admitted guilt (26) a. *Un frecvent/mare căpitan de vapor rămâne la bord. a frequent/ big captain of ship stays on board b. *Un frecvent/mare părinte de copii înțelege problema. a frequent/ big parent of children understands problem-the The same restriction holds for underived -eur nominals in French (e.g. borrowings like docteur ‘doctor’, auteur ‘author’) and Romanian (e.g. șofer

    

327

‘driver’, spectator ‘spectator’) which cannot be analyzed as complex forms either. We agree here with Remarks, that simplex words like auteur ‘author’ or docteur ‘doctor’ are not derived syntactically and do not relate to an existing verb (*auter ‘to auth’, *docter ‘to doct’). They contrast, however, with derived Agent -eur nominals: (27) a. Un (*fréquent/*gros) docteur est apparu à a frequent/ big doctor is appeared on ‘A frequent/ big doctor appeared on a tv show.’

la the

télé. tv

b. Un (fréquent/gros) guérisseur de maladies bizarres a frequent/ big heal-er of diseases strange est apparu à la télé. is appeared on the tv ‘A frequent/big healer of strange diseases appeared on a tv show.’ (28) a. Un (*frecvent/*mare) doctor de boli incurabile a a frequent/ big doctor of diseases incurable has apărut pe acest canal. shown on this channel ‘A frequent/big doctor of incurable diseases has shown up on this channel.’ b. Un (frecvent/ mare) vindecător de boli incurabile a a frequent/big healer of diseases incurable has apărut pe acest canal. shown on this channel ‘A frequent/big healer of incurable diseases has shown up on this channel.’ Moreover, whereas deverbal Agent -eur/-tor nominals take true arguments (Genitive-only in Romanian, cf. Section 13.4.2), simplex function nominals take de-PP modifiers. In turn, this confirms that AS properties are necessarily related to a complex derived form as well: (29) a. Conducătorul *(acestui tren) s-a declarat în grevă. conductor-the this. train se-has declared in strike ‘The conductor of this train declared to be on strike.’ b. Șeful (de tren) s-a declarat în grevă. chief-the of train se-has declared in strike ‘The chief of the train declared to be on strike.’

328      As expected, when available, Genitives with simplex forms, including underived -tor nominals, can only denote a possessive (30): (30) prietenul copiilor; friend-the child-the.. ‘the children’s friend’ doctorul copiilor doctor-the child-the.. ‘the children’s doctor’ (meaning: ‘doctor that is attributed to the children’) In sum, the possibility of eventive and AS properties is correlated with a complex, morphological derivation both in French and in Romanian.

13.5.2 Internal make-up: verbal base Comparing now Agent -eur/-tor nominals with subclass (ii) function nominals, which are morphologically derived, but not from a verbal base, we find that eventive properties and AS properties require derivation from a verbal base. Function nominals derived on a nominal base systematically lack AS, cf. (31) and (32) for French and Romanian, respectively: (31) a. *Le camionneur de ce chargement est en grève. the truck-er (i.e. ‘truck-driver’) of this shipping-load is on strike b. *Le chroniqueur the chronicle-er (i.e. ‘columnist’) gouvernement ment. government is lying c. *le fleuriste the florist *le pompier the fireman

du bouquet; of.the bouquet de l’incendie of the.fire

de la réforme du of the reform of-the

*l’artiste the.artist

de ce of that

tableau; painting

d. *le criminel de la vieille dame (vs. le tueur de la vieille dame) the criminal of the old lady (vs. the killer of the old lady)

(32)

a. *Cenzorul acestui censor-the this.

articol a tăiat article has cut

b. *Controlorul acestui bilet a control-er-the this. ticket has

un paragraf. a paragraph

detectat detected

o fraudă. a fraud

     c. *artistul acestui tablou; artist-the this. painting *pompierul incendiului fireman-the fire.the.

*grădinarul gardener-the

acestui this.

329 parc; park

Oblique arguments that can sometimes be found with Agent -eur/-tor nominals (cf. Section 13.4.2), are simply not possible in function nominals with no verbal base—compare (33) with (23) for French, and (34) with (24) for Romanian. (33) *les dentistes au cabinet; the dentists at.the office à travers la France; through the France

*le the

camionneur truck.er (i.e. ‘truck-driver’)

(34) *cosmonautul pe lună; *doctorul la spital; cosmonaut-the on moon doctor-the at hospital *camionagiul pe autostradă truck-er-the on highway Similarly, the absence of a verbal base renders eventive adjectival modification impossible in denominal function nouns. This is expected given the correlation between AS properties and eventive properties; and the relation between such properties and the presence of a verbal base:⁹ (35) Ce (*fréquent/ *grand) camionneur/ this frequent big truck-er/ jardinier est en grève. gardener is on strike (36)

fleuriste/ pompier/ florist/ fireman/

Acest (*frecvent/ *mare) controlor/ grădinar/ pompier e în vacanță. this frequent big controler/ gardener/ fireman is on vacation

Denominal nouns clearly support the correlation between eventive and AS properties and their shared dependence upon a verbal base.

⁹ Instrument nominals which include a ‘verbalizing’ suffix (e.g. -ize/-ify, catalisateur, humidificateur, in French or catalizator, umidificator in Romanian) do not exhibit eventive nor AS properties. These may be based on a verbalized root (cf. Borer, 2013) without involving a true verbal-aspectual structure. See also Roy & Soare (2014, fn. 9).

330     

13.5.3 More on the internal make-up of individual-denoting eventive nominals We finally address a comparison between Agent -eur/-tor nominals and other individual-denoting deverbal nominals as grouped together in subclass (iii). In Roy & Soare (2012, 2015), we have addressed two types of nominalizations, namely -ant nominals, historically related to a present participle form (e.g. enseignant (lit. teach-ing) ‘teacher’) and -é/-i/-u nominals, historically related to a perfect/passive participle form (e.g. blessé (lit. wound-ed) ‘a wounded person’). We have argued that some of them, at least, may exhibit ASproperties and eventive properties. The contrast between animate and inanimate (e.g. instruments, products) nouns, already discussed in the case of -eur nominals, also exists with -ant nominals. Only animate -ant nominals exhibit eventive properties, visible with FA/BA modification. (37) les fréquents/gros publiants vs. *un fréquent/gros assouplissant the frequent/ big publish.ing a frequent/big soften.ing ‘the frequent/big publishing fellows’ ‘a frequent/big softener’ However, and unlike -eur nominals, -ant nominals do not nominalize an external argument. They do not allow modifiers like deliberate, obstinate, which identify agentivity: (38) l’agresseur (délibéré) vs. l’attaquant (*délibéré) the.agressor deliberate the-attack-ing (i.e. ‘attacker’) deliberate de la vieille dame of the old lady What these nominals nominalize, in fact, is the subject of a stative predication. They are derived from a predicative participial clause and are interpreted as ‘someone who has the property of V’. We refer the reader to Roy & Soare (2012) for a full discussion. Turning to -é/-i/-u nominals, they are deverbal nominalizations of internal arguments. They denote the participant which corresponds to the internal argument (Patient/Theme). (39) a. Un invité fréquent du président a fait scandale. an invited frequent of.the president has made scandal ‘A frequent guest of the president made a scandal.’

    

331

b. Un détenu occasionnel de la prison s’est évadé. a detained occasional of the prison se-is escaped ‘An occasional prisoner at the Detention Center has escaped.’ As in the case of -eur and -ant nominals, we note a clear contrast between animate and inanimate -é/-i/-u nominals: The latter do not accept internal adjectival modification: (40) un grand blessé/ brûlé a big wounded/ burned ‘a person who suffers a serious wound/burn’ (41) un (*fréquent/gros) soufflé/ arrondi a frequent/big blow-ed (‘soufflé’)/round-ed (‘angle/corner’) Interestingly, animate -é/-i/-u nominals are only interpreted as episodic, a fact also noted by Barker (1998) for English -ee nominals (absentee, employee, refugee). The episodic interpretation of -ee nominals is explained by Barker by their being semantically linked to an episodic event. In Roy & Soare’s (2012) account of -é/-i/-u nominals in French, this is a consequence of the nominalization of the internal argument, which is by default specific. Romanian offers another, but limited, example of deverbal derivation with varying suffixes forming function nominals with distinct properties. In (42), ucigător, derived with -tor, exhibits eventive and AS properties, while, ucigaș, although derived from the same verb, does not. (42) a. ucigătorul killer.the

*(animalelor) (animal-the..)

b. un ucigaș în serie/ a killer in series ‘a serial killer’

(*al animalelor) (of animal-the..)

Another nominal, namely criminal (43), which is a borrowing in Romanian, also contrasts, as expected, with the corresponding -tor nominal in (42) in not allowing eventive nor AS properties—and cf. the French example in (31d). (43) *criminalul celor criminal-the the.GEN

trei three

fete girls

332      In conclusion, and as predicted in a neo-constructionist approach, different (verbal) syntactic structures may nominalize differently, leading to the observed contrasts between -eur/-tor nominals and, e.g. French -ant nominals and -é/-i/-u nominals. French and Romanian strongly support our claim that eventivity and AS properties correlate and are dependent upon complex morphological derivation from a verbal base, in function nominals as it is the case elsewhere for event-denoting ASNs.

13.6 Typology of Agent and other function nominals: concluding remarks Two patterns of function nominals are available across the board: one that exhibits eventive and AS properties and one that does not. Although we have suggested that the eventive/non-eventive patterns are equally available, it is also true that they are distributed differently across the three languages considered here. French is certainly the language in which the eventive pattern is the most common. In this language, -eur is rather productive and shows full evidence for AS. Consider the grammaticality of the following examples, some already discussed above: (44) a. le the

lecteur reader

du livre aux enfants of.the book to.the children

b. les chanteurs de the singers of

l’hymne the.anthem

c. le the

réparateur du repairer of-the

d. le the

démolisseur wrecker

briseur e. ce this breaker

à la at the

fête holiday

chauffe-eau dans water-heater in

de votre of your

la the

nationale national cuisine kitchen

argument argument

de coeur of heart

These examples are clearly episodic, i.e., they relate to specific events of reading, singing, repairing, and so on; and they require full argument structure, as already discussed.

    

333

In Romanian, the eventive pattern is also largely productive, and is, similarly, clearly visible with episodic Agent -tor ASNs and their systematic compatibility with argumental Genitives: (45) a. organizatorul acestui colocviu organizer-the this. conference ‘the organizer of this conference’ b. conducătorul acestui autovehicul driver-the this. vehicle ‘the driver of this vehicle’ c. purtătorul acestor mesaje bearer-the this.. messages ‘the bearer of these messages’

către autorități to authorities

d. cititorul acestei povești reader-the this. story ‘the reader of this story’ Romanian Agent -tor ASNs, however, may appear at times more constrained than in French. In particular, few attested cases of French Agent -eur ASNs are not grammatical in the language: Consider, e.g. ??cititorul de povești copiilor ‘the reader of stories to the children.’. It is highly plausible that such cases are degraded for reasons of case. They involve a Dative oblique complement, and Dative oblique complements seem more constrained in -tor nominals than in event-denoting ASNs (compare, for instance, with the supine in cititul de povești copiilor ‘the reading of stories children.the.’). We leave the precise reasons for this restriction aside for further research. We also note the absence of productive -ant formations in Romanian, beyond borrowings, e.g. manifestant ‘demonstrator’, opozant ‘opponent’, rezident ‘resident’. This might relate to the absence of a present participle in this language, which has, as opposed to French, a true gerund. It seems reasonable to consider morphology as the main source of variation here between French and Romanian—in the fact, for instance, that Romanian, as opposed to French, has morphological case, and a supine and no present participle. Turning to English, we would like to suggest that morphology is also responsible for the restrictions on the distribution of the eventive pattern. We would like to suggest that the relative rarity of the eventive pattern in English comes from a large (if not exclusive) preference in this language for the compound pattern over the phrasal one.

334      (46) a. *the sitter of my cats b. *this breaker of hearts c. *the breaker of racial barriers

vs. my cat-sitter vs. this heartbreaker vs. ?racial barriers breaker

Synthetic compounds are noneventive (Borer, 2013). This is shown not by the absence of event entailment (Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 1992; and see McIntyre, 2014, on the existence of event-entailing compounds, e.g. prize winner, beer drinker, fn. 2), but more specifically by their incompatibility with event modifiers, e.g. *My frequent cat-sitter charges 10$ per hour, and also *This frequent beer drinker had fun at the party, *The big prize winner was congratulated by his teammates. Even though episodic Agent -er nominals are rather marginal (46), a few examples are nevertheless attested (47). These nominals are phrasal, must include AS and are interpreted as eventive (i.e., the person who reads the book, the person who leads this group, the person who organized this meeting, the person who smuggled the drugs). (47) the reader of the book; the leader of this group; the organizer of the meeting; california smuggler of erectile dysfunction drugs gets prison (internet) Interestingly, oblique complements and locatives seem restricted in English in a way somewhat reminiscent of Romanian (e.g. the reader of the book (*to the children); the talker (*to animals); the dancers (*in the dark)). Eventive nominals contrast nicely with noneventive ones, i.e., denominals, instruments, and nonderived forms: (48) *the dentist of the patient; *the pianist of the sonata; *the ventilator/fan of the air. Such contrasts clearly indicate that the two patterns are available in English as well, and that although the facts are not the same, the correlations retain. Putting the results in this chapter in the more general perspective of syntactic deverbal word formation, we find a continuum of eventivity from -ing nominals to -ation to -er (and -ant where available), with only subsets of properties that these nominals have in common, as detailed in Section 13.4.1. A distinction between eventive—complex derived function nominals—and

    

335

noneventive—root-derived function nominals—is grounded across the languages studied here. A theory of nominalization can straightforwardly integrate Agent and other function nominals once we draw the appropriate distinction between the two patterns, in line with the program initiated by Remarks.

14 Polish psych nominals revisited Bożena Rozwadowska

14.1 Introduction For a long time in current linguistic theorizing one of the intriguing problems has been the question whether psych verbs (often referred to as experiencer verbs) and their nominalizations differ from those of other predicates, in particular from action nominals. Since the publication of Chomsky’s Remarks on Nominalization the literature on derived nominals has featured different views and with time the explanations of various puzzles connected with psych verbs and psych nominalizations have shifted from purely syntactic approaches in terms of constraints on movement, via thematic constraints of various forms to constructivist accounts often correlated with event structures of predicates. Here the focus is on Polish psych nominals from the perspective of the most recent approaches that link the argument structure of derived nominals to the type and complexity of the eventuality they describe as well as to the type of participants. The constraints on the expression of participants and the interpretation of psych nominals may shed some light on the current debate concerning the nature of psych eventualities and verify recent claims that deverbal nominals are sensitive to subevent composition of complex eventualities that those nominals describe, including the difference between eventive and stative nominals. At the same time, as Alexiadou (Chapter 5) and Borer (Chapter 6) re-iterate, the literature on derived nominals acknowledges that derived nouns are derived from acategorial roots and can include some but not necessarily all the verbal layers found within verbal clauses. Following the empirical conclusions found in cross-linguistic literature, Alexiadou emphasizes that nominalizations come in different sizes both within and across languages. This chapter falls within this cross-linguistic endeavor and demonstrates that Polish psych nominals provide yet another piece of evidence for varying sizes of the verbal structure embedded also in psych nominals. So far, it has been widely recognized that psych nominals denote states (see Grimshaw,

Boz˙ ena Rozwadowska, Polish psych nominals revisited In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Bozė na Rozwadowska. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0014

338 ż  1990; Pesetsky, 1995; Alexiadou, 2011a; Fábregas & Marín, 2012; Melloni, 2017; Iordăchioaia, 2019a; inter alia). In this chapter, I argue that in addition to stative psych nominals, Polish systematically has eventive nominalizations with a rich verbal structure that describe the inceptive psychological events, i.e., boundary events which denote the beginning of the psychological state, in the absence of process nominals in the psych domain. I analyze a whole variety of Polish psych nominalizations as compared to nonpsych eventualities to verify whether psych nominals are ASNs (Argument Structure Nominals) in the sense of Borer (2014). Related to this is another important question as to the presence of causation and change of state in psych eventualities, both in the verbal and the nominal domains. With respect to causation, constraints on deverbal nominalizations are subject to crosslinguistic debates (see Grimshaw, 1990; Pesetsky, 1995; Harley & Noyer, 2000a; Alexiadou & Rathert, 2010a, b; Borer, 2013; inter alia). Pesetsky (1995) argues that there is a ban on causative psych nominals. This constraint has been re-formulated in the literature in various ways (Harley & Noyer, 2000a; Sichel, 2010). Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) argue that in Greek and Romanian causative psych nominalizations do exist and that they are related to the causative/anticausative alternation. They suggest that causative psych nominals in those languages are derived from the ES (Experiencer Subject) anticausative alternants of EO (Experiencer Object) psych verbs. In this chapter, I explore the pattern of Polish psych nominalizations, focusing on the alternating EO/ES verbs, to contribute to the debate on the (non)existence of causative psych nominals. Polish EO verbs systematically have a reflexive ES variant (arguably anticausative, a claim which will be challenged) both in the perfective and in the imperfective, and they systematically nominalize, preserving aspectual distinctions. The constraints on argument realization in nominalizations are often argued to be closely related to the event structure. In view of an ongoing debate on the presence/absence of the causative subevent in the event structure of EO psych predicates, I look at Polish psych nominals to find out what kinds of events they express, whether those nominals qualify as causative and what nominalizations can tell us about the event makeup of EO and ES psych predicates. In short, in this chapter I argue that there are eventive inceptive psych nominals with a rich verbal structure embedded in them, but at the same time they are not causative. The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 14.2 I provide a brief overview of the distribution of arguments in psych nominals. Section 14.3 provides a general introduction to the variety of derived nominals in Polish. Section 14.4 contains the crucial data from the domain of Polish psych

   

339

nominals. In Section 14.5 I present Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia’s (2014a) argumentation for the existence of psych causative nominals in Greek and Romanian. In Section 14.6 I attempt to provide a syntactic representation of Polish psych nominals within the most recent trends assuming the layered internal structure in nominals. Section 14.7 concludes.

14.2 The constraint on participants in psych nominals As is well known cross-linguistically, in nominals related to psych verbs, both to EO verbs and ES verbs, it is the experiencer which must be realized in the position that otherwise accommodates agents or possessors. This constraint is illustrated for English in (1): (1) a. b. c. d. e.

John’s enjoyment of the movie *the movie’s enjoyment by John *the book’s amusement of the children the children’s amusement (at/with the book) the amusement of the children

Single argument nominals related to transitive psych verbs or mental state verbs do not permit the expression of the nonexperiencer as the sole argument, as in (2). (2) a. *history’s knowledge b. *the parents’ respect (where the NP the parents is the object of respect) c. *Mary’s hatred (where Mary is the object of hatred) Instead, in such single argument nominals it is the experiencer which must be expressed, which is illustrated for English in (3): (3) a. John’s fear/hatred b. John’s embarrassment/amazement Note also that with ES nominalizations the experiencer cannot be expressed in the by-phrase in nominals, as illustrated in (4): (4) a. *fear of flying by many people b. *dislike of flying by many people

340 ż  In Polish we observe similar constraints related to psych nominals, even though the structure of the Polish NP is slightly different. The pattern for ES verbs and their nominalizations is illustrated in (5), whereas (6) presents an example of an EO verb and its nominalization. (5) a. Jan podziwia John. admires ‘John admires Mary.’

Marię. Mary.

b. podziw Jana dla Marii admiration. John. for Mary. ‘John’s admiration for Mary’ c. twój your

podziw dla admiration. for

Marii Mary.

d. *podziw Marii przez admiration. Mary. by ‘*Mary’s admiration by John.’

Jana/ John./

przez by

ciebie you.

(6) a. Dzieci zdumiewają rodziców (swoją inteligencją). Children. amaze parents. (their intelligence.) ‘Children amaze parents (with their intelligence).’ b. zdumienie rodziców inteligencją amazement. parents. intelligence. ‘parents’ amazement at the children’

dzieci children.

c. twoje zdumienie inteligencją dzieci your amazement. intelligence. children. ‘Your amazement with the children’s intelligence.’ d. *zdumienie dzieci rodziców amazement. children. parents. ‘*The children’s amazement of the parents.’ In Polish, as in English, the possessor, expressed by the postnominal genitive as in (5b) and (6b) or by the prenominal possessive pronoun as in (5c) and (6c), must accommodate the experiencer in both ES and EO nominalizations, and does not allow the expression of the target/stimulus/subject matter/cause.¹ ¹ I am using all these labels, because such a variety of terms appears in the literature. This varied terminology in itself shows that the thematic status of the nonexperiencer participant in EO verbs is far from obvious.

   

341

This is an important observation in view of the fact that in the dominant literature the puzzle of psychological predicates is usually associated with EO verbs only, whereas ES verbs and their nominals are often ignored as unproblematic and well behaved. Recently, Iordăchioaia (2019a), recognizing the distributional facts reviewed above, takes the position that nominalizations related to EO verbs are in fact ES nominalizations, because the structure such as (7a) is related to the structure (7b), quoted after Lakoff (1970) as an ES structure, rather than to the EO structure in (7c). This is similar to the pattern in (8), where the nominalization in (8a) is related to the ES structure in (8b), not to the EO structure in (8c). (7) a. my amusement/surprise at what he did (SE) b. I was amused/surprised at what he did. (SE) c. What he did amused/surprised me. (EO) (8) a. my enjoyment of movies. (SE) b. I enjoy movies. (SE) c. Movies are enjoyable to me. (EO) Iordăchioaia (2019a, Chapter 10) notes that the constraints on psych nominalizations are independent of the presence of the suffix and that English ZNs (zero nominals) are particularly frequent for both ES and EO verbs (e.g. ES love, hate, dread, mourn, grudge, regret, like, dislike; and EO worry, daze, surprise, anger, concern, baffle, insult, hurt, trouble, torment). The examples found in the English TenTen15 corpus quoted from Iordăchioaia (2019a) in (9) demonstrate that ZNs realize the experiencer as a possessor and the stimulus as a PP. This shows that ZNs behave similarly to derived nominals. Iordăchioaia (2019a) takes it as evidence supporting root derivation of both. (9) a. b. c. d.

Peggy’s love for our community women’s dread of childbirth Mary’s surprise at the news the main character’s torment over losing her standing in the LDS church

Interestingly, Siloni & Preminger (2009: 368) take the nominals headed by the noun interest in Hebrew, French, and Hungarian as ES nominals, noting at

342 ż  the same time that their verbal counterparts in French appear with the se morpheme.²

14.3 Polish derived nominals Before I turn to the analysis of Polish psych nominals, I provide a brief overview of the variety of derived nominals in Polish in general. Following Puzynina (1969), traditional grammar descriptions divide Polish verb-noun transpositions into substantiva deverbalia (Sdev), i.e., deverbal nouns, and substantiva verbalia (Sv), i.e., verbal nouns. Both have the external distribution of NPs and are headed by nominal heads, but Svs embed a richer verbal structure. Sdev are similar to English derived nominals with argument structure of the destruction type: Grimshaw’s (1990) CENs (Complex Event Nominals), Borer’s (2014) ASNs, or ATK, i.e., -ation and Kin nominals. They are derived by means of some nominalizing suffixes or can be suffixless. Svs, formed with the suffix -nie/-cie, also qualify as CENs, but on top of the argument structure inherited from the verb, they also possess many other unexpected verbal properties (discussed in detail in Rozwadowska, 1995, 2000). Namely, -nie/-cie nominals systematically preserve aspectual contrast between the perfective and the imperfective readings, may be negated and may include reflexive clitics (SE-reflexives according to the widely assumed typology). Still, they combine with a complement in the genitive case (in contrast to the accusative case assigned by the verb). They are virtually categorial, i.e., they can be formed from almost every verb with a few exceptions. In short, Polish features two types of CENs, both of which can also have Grimshaw’s result or object reading. The pattern is illustrated in (10) for an example verb (za)prezentować (‘to present’). In (10a,d) there are examples of Sdev derived by means of the suffix -acja (corresponding to ATK nominals, in particular to the English suffix -ation), whereas in (10b,c,e,f) are nominals derived by the productive nominalizing suffix -nie/-cie. This nominalizer attaches both to the prefix-less imperfective verb stems, as in (10b) or to the prefixed perfective verb stems as in (10c,e,f). ² On the other hand, Siloni & Preminger (2009: 381) treat Hebrew equivalents of verbs such as impress, sadden, puzzle, amaze as EO verbs and note that they do not form event nominals. It is thus not clear what the criterion of the division into ES and EO nominals is in their analysis, since crosslinguistically interest is a prototypical EO verb. The implication seems to be that state nominals, despite their relation to EO verbs, are treated as ES nominals, whereas event nominals related to EO verbs are treated as EO nominals.

   

343

(10) a. Prezent-acja *(systemu) przez studentów/ przez ciebie present-ation. system. by students./ by you. trwała dwie godziny/ zajęła dwie godziny. lasted two hours/ took two hours ‘The presentation of the system by the students/by you lasted/took two hours.’ b. Prezentowa-nie *(systemu) przez studentów trwało 2 godziny. present-nie. system. by students. lasted 2 hours ‘The presenting of the system by the students lasted two hours.’ c. Za-prezentowa-nie *(systemu) przez studentów zajęło za-present-nie. system. by students. lasted 2 godziny. 2 hours ‘The presenting of the system by the students took two hours.’ d. Prezent-acje studentów/ Twoje prezent-acje present-ations. students./ your present-ations. były niezwykle interesujące. were extremely interesting ‘The students’ presentations / Your presentations were very interesting.’ e. Nie-za-prezent-owa-nie *(systemu) przez studentów -za-present-owa-nie. system. by students. miało wpływ na ocenę. had influence on grade ‘Not presenting the system by the students affected the grade.’ f. Za-prezentowa-nie się od najlepszej strony za-present-owa-nie.  from best side pomoże ci w znalezieniu nowej pracy. will help you. in finding new job ‘Presenting yourself from the best side will help you in finding a new job.’ Another detail relevant for the distribution of satellites within an NP is the distinction between the so called objective and subjective genitive. They are distinct for personal pronouns, where the objective postnominal genitive is different from the possessive pronoun. In the case of full NPs, both genitive complements and possessors are realized as postnominal genitives. Thus,

344 ż  the examples (10a,b,c,e) contain the genitive complement systemu, whereas in (10d) the noun studentów is a genitive possessor, which can be verified by replacing the noun with a possessive pronoun. In nominals derived from transitive verbs the internal argument is expressed as the postnominal genitive (not the possessor), whereas the external argument is expressed in the PP headed by the agentive preposition przez (‘by’). In result/object nominals, the satellite is expressed as the possessor (either a prenominal possessive pronoun or a postnominal possessive genitive). Moreover, in nominals derived from all types of intransitive verbs, the sole argument (agent, or theme, or any other type) is expressed as a possessor. Note also that in the majority of cases, Polish Sdevs related to action verbs are aspectually ambiguous (see 10a), i.e., they can occur in contexts compatible with both the ‘completed’ (telic) and the ‘durative’ (atelic/process) readings (Puzynina, 1969; Rozwadowska, 2000). The variety of Polish nominals presented above ties well with cross-linguistic evidence that the size of verbal projections embedded under the nominalizing head is diversified and richer than the binary division into ASNs and Result Nominals (see Alexiadou & Rathert, 2010b, for various cross-linguistic contributions).

14.4 Polish psych nominals Given the above background, let us now look at Polish nominals related to psych verbs and their possible interpretations. I will start with EO verbs, which systematically alternate with ES reflexive variants. Their nominalizations provide a good testing ground for various proposals concerning the event structure of psych verbs suggested in the literature. Assuming with others (e.g. Pesetsky, 1995; Arad, 1998a,b, 1999; Biały, 2005) that among EO verbs there are two subclasses, namely stative and eventive verbs, some of which are polysemous and allow both interpretations, let us start with the stative group. Stative EO verbs are illustrated in (11): (11) a. Matematyka/Maria interesuje Maths./ Mary. interests.. ‘Maths interests Mark.’

Marka. Mark.

b. Marek interesuje się *(matematyką)/*(Marią). Mark. interests..  *(maths.)/ *(Mary.) ‘Mark is interested in maths/in Mary.’

    c. Muzyka klasyczna fascynuje music classical. fascinates.. ‘Classical music fascinates Ann.’

345

Anię. Ann.

d. Ania fascynuje się *(muzyką Ann. fascinates..  *(music. ‘Ann is fascinated with classical music.’

klasyczną). classical.)

The perfective variants of (11) are presented in (12). I call them inceptive events, since they denote the onset of the state, and have temporal entailments opposite to COS (change of state) verbs, as extensively argued in Rozwadowska (2012, to appear).³ (12) a. Matematyka/Maria za-interesowała Marka. maths/Mary. za-interest.. Mark. ‘Maths started to interest Mark.’ b. Marek za-interesował się *(matematyką)/ *(Marią). Mark. interest..  *(maths.)/ *(Mary.) ‘Mark got interested in maths/in Mary.’ c. Muzyka klasyczna za-fascynowała Anię. music. classical. za-fascinate.. Ann. ‘Classical music started to fascinate Ann.’ d. Ania za-fascynowała się *(muzyką klasyczną). Ania. za-fascinate..  *(music. classical.) ‘Mark got fascinated with classical music.’ The reflexive ES cognates of stative EO verbs take an obligatory complement marked by the instrumental case. In Rozwadowska & Bondaruk (2019), we argue that the reflexive ES alternants of the EO verbs are not an instance of the causative/anticausative alternation, because the expression of the target/ stimulus is different from the expression of the cause in the nonpsych

³ For similar verbs in Spanish, Marín & McNally (2011) use the label ‘inchoative states’. They argue that Spanish reflexive psychological verbs (SRPVs) are different from COS verbs in being left-bounded. Polish psych verbs qualify as left-boundary eventualities as well. The term ‘inceptive’ is less ambigous, but to be consistent with the ‘received’ terminology, I will refer to left boundary eventualities as ‘inceptive/inchoative’ throughout this chapter.

346 ż  causative/anticausative alternation. In the latter case it is not the instrumental case marked NP/DP but a specialized PP (here the od-phrase), as in (13): (13) a. Podmuch wiatru złamał gałąź. gust. wind. break.. branch. ‘The gust of wind broke the branch.’ b. Gałąź złamała się (od podmuchu wiatru). branch. break..  from gust wind. ‘The branch broke from the gust of wind.’ c. Gałąź złamała się (*podmuchem branch. break..  gust. ‘The branch broke (*from the gust of wind).’

wiatru). wind.

Interestingly, there are two types of psych nominals related to EO verbs, one without the reflexive clitic, and the other one with the reflexive, as illustrated in (14). Thus, in Polish, in contrast to other languages (see Fábregas et al., 2012; Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia, 2014a; Melloni, 2017) the reflexive morphology is inherited in nominalizations.⁴ In (14) there is a sample of examples containing additional contextual elements which serve as diagnostics for the available interpretations. (14) a. Za-interesowa-nie Janka *(historią) ujawniło za-interest-nie. John. history. became visible się już po pierwszym wykładzie.  already after first. lecture. ‘John’s interest in history became visible already after the first lecture.’ b. #Za-interesowa-nie Janka *(historią) zdarzyło za-interest-nie. John. history. happen.. się/ miało miejsce wczoraj. / take place.. yesterday ‘#John’s interest in history happened yesterday.’ c. Za-interesowa-nie się klientów *(tą ofertą) 5 minut za-interest-nie.  customers. this offer. 5 minutes

⁴ Siloni & Preminger (2009) and Medova (2009), following Hron (2005), note that Czech allows reflexive and reciprocal event nominals as well. This fact presents a challenge to the Lexicon-Syntax parameter advanced in Siloni & Preminger’s approach.

   

347

po jej ogłoszeniu nie było zaskoczeniem. after its announcement  was surprise. ‘*The customers’ getting interested in this offer 5 minutes after its announcement was not a surprise.’ d. #interesowa-nie klientów (tą ofertą) przez interest-nie. customers. this. offer. for 5 minut 5 minutes ‘#interesting of customers with this offer for 5 minutes.’ All the above nominals (with the perfectivizing prefix and without it, with the reflexive clitic and without it) require a complement in the instrumental case, as in the corresponding verbal structures (see (11)–(12)), which is different from the marker of the causer in the causative alternation with COS verbs (see (13)). This suggests that there are no causative nominals related to stative EO verbs. This is not surprising, since stative EO verbs do not participate in the psych causative alternation in the first place (similarly to Romanian and Greek stative experiencer verbs, cf. Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia, 2014a). The distribution of nominal satellites in terms of their morphological marking is identical to the distribution of arguments in verbal structures with the experiencer in the subject position (cf. (11b,d), (12b,d)), which is compatible with the pattern presented in Iordăchioaia (2019a) for English psych nominals. Iordăchioaia (2019a) argues that the psych nominals which fail to realize nonagentive causers (cf. English example in (1c)) are derived from the root and not from the verbal structure, in contrast to the ones that realize agents, which are built on the agentive verb structures. Her claim is that the realization of the two arguments must follow the configuration of the root, in which the experiencer is the higher argument, while the subject matter or target of emotion is realized by a root-specific preposition (in my understanding it could also be a specific case marker). Such nominalizations are thus treated as ES nominals. Iordăchioaia concludes that ‘true’ psych nominals do not include any event structure. Psych roots are dyadic state predicates (in contrast to the roots of COS verbs, which on her account are monadic) and take two arguments—the experiencer and the stimulus. The net result of this reasoning is that for psych verbs, the categorizing vP has no meaning contribution and will not be visible in the nominalization, leading to stative nominals built from the root. The two arguments of the root may be realized, but they follow the hierarchy of the root predicate, in which the experiencer is the holder of the emotion and the

348 ż  stimulus is realized as a specific PP. The occasional agentive readings are the result of coercion under strong contextual conditions, where the original experiencer argument (the holder of the state) in mapped onto a patient in a COS event. Iordăchioaia’s account captures the fact that the experiencer is always realized as the possessor and the stimulus/target as some sort of complement. It is also compatible with the generalization that psych nominals have the state interpretation cross-linguistically. However, it misses the observation that psych nominals are identical with their verbal counterparts in the complementation patterns, independently of whether they are ZNs or ATK nominals. Moreover, the nonagentive inceptive/inchoative readings of Polish nominals with the reflexive clitic constitute a challenge for this root-based approach, which admits only stative psych nominals. At this point, we can already see that in Polish there are two types of psych nominals related to stative EO verbs: stative and inceptive/inchoative. Although, as mentioned earlier, the latter cannot be treated as psych causative nominalizations, they are eventive nevertheless. Additionally, they share quite a lot of properties with verbal structures beyond mere argument distribution. Moreover, the pattern illustrated above for psych nominals related to stative EO verbs obtains also for eventive EO verbs and their nominalizations, which is illustrated in (15) with the least controversial eventive EO verb (z)denerowować (‘annoy’). Deliberately, the examples below are selected in such a way as to make them as similar as possible to the examples in (10) and (14). The only difference is that with eventive EO verbs the instrumental NP/DP is optional. (15) a. Z-denerwowa-nie Janka (zachowaniem Marii) z-annoy-nie. John. behavior. Mary. ujawniło się podczas ich wspólnej podróży. became visible  during their joint travel ‘John’s annoyance with Mary’s behavior became visible during their joint travel.’ b. #Z-denerwowa-nie Janka (zachowaniem Marii) z-annoy-nie. John. behavior. Mary. zdarzyło się/ miało miejsce wczoraj. happen..  took place yesterday ‘#John’s annoyance with Mary’s behavior happened / took place yesterday.’

    c. Z-denerwowa-nie się klientów z-annoy-nie.  customers. minutes po jej ogłoszeniu było minut after its announcement was ‘The customers’ getting annoyed with this after its announcement was a big surprise.’

349

tą ofertą 5 this. offer. 5 dużym zaskoczeniem. big. surprise. offer 5 minutes

d. *denerwowa-nie rodziców zachowaniem dzieci interest-nie. parents. behavior. children. przez 5 minutes for 5 minutes ‘*annoying the parents with the children’s behavior for 5 minutes.’ To summarize the data in (14) and (15), both interesować ‘to interest’ and denerwować ‘to annoy’ give rise to similar nominals, the only difference being that the nominals related to stative EO verbs take the target/stimulus obligatorily, like the corresponding verbs, whereas nominals corresponding to EO verbs that belong to the eventive subclass take the instrumental satellite optionally, also like their verbal counterparts. This is in contrast to nominals of anticausative alternants of COS verbs in (16): (16) a. Z-łama-nie się gałęzi (od podmuchu wiatru). z-break-nie.  branch. (from gust. wind.) ‘The breaking of the branch (from the gust of wind).’ b. Z-łama-nie się gałęzi (*podmuchem z-break-nie.  branch. ( gust. ‘The breaking of the branch (*with the gust of wind).’

wiatru). wind.)

Note also that the nominalizations of COS verbs without the reflexive clitic disallow the od-phrase (accommodating the causer participant). Instead, they co-occur with the przez ‘by’ phrase accommodating the agent and marginally the causer, as illustrated in (17): (17) złamanie gałęzi przez ogrodnika/ ?przez z-break-nie. branches. by gardener/ by podmuch wiatru gust wind. ‘the breaking of branches by the gardener / by the gust of wind’

350 ż  So far, we have seen that, in contrast to Romanian and Greek, there is no difference in nominalization patterns between stative and eventive psych verbs. None of them marks the target/stimulus in the same way as the causer is marked in the nonpsych causative/anticausative alternation. Moreover, in contrast to other languages (except Czech), the anticausative morphology (here the reflexive clitic) is inherited by the nominal. For those other languages which also mark the transitive/intransitive alternations morphologically in verbs, but where this marking is absent in derived nominals, there is a debate which form of the verb (or root) is the source of psych nominals. Therefore, quite often merely on the basis of the distribution of nominal satellites as compared to related verbs, it is concluded that psych nominals are related to concrete verbal forms. For example, Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) argue that there are causative psych nominals in Greek and Romanian, related to ES anticausative alternants of eventive EO verbs, because they combine with causers in the same way as ES verbal alternants of those verbs. For similar reasons, as noted by Fábregas et al. (2012), Picallo (1991, 1999) argues that psych nominals in Catalan are derived from reflexive psych verbs (se verbs). Fábregas et al. (2012) in turn, contra Picallo, claim that psych nominals are derived from verb stems (not from their reflexive alternants) and are stative, because psych roots are stative, as are psych nominals. In this way they defend the Aspectual Preservation Hypothesis between verbs and their nominalizations. Polish is different from all these languages, because the reflexive morphology is retained in nominalizations and carries the eventive interpretation. In Polish -nie/-cie nominals the two interpretations are overtly distinguished. The reflexive psych nominals have the eventive interpretation, while the nonreflexive ones have the stative interpretation, as illustrated in (15). Still, in contrast to action nominals, there is a gap in the nominalization pattern, because the imperfective nominals without the reflexive clitic are absent. If they were available, they would correspond to the process reading of transitive activity verbs (arguably causative, see Pesetsky, 1995). To complete the picture, let us look at psych nominals which are formed by means of other suffixes (different from -nie/-cie) or which are ZNs. Let us take the verb fascynować ‘to fascinate’ introduced in (11c,d). The nominal fascynacja ‘fascination’ has the interpretation similar to the nominal zafascynowanie.⁵ Compare the following examples in (18a) and (18b):

⁵ The nominalization pattern for the verb fascynować is exactly the same as for the verb interesować presented in (14).

   

351

(18) a. Fascyn-acja młodzieży *(muzyką klasyczną) ujawniła fascin-ation youth. music. classical. became visible się dopiero po roku regularnego jej słuchania.  only after year regular. its. listening. ‘Young people’s fascination with classical music became visible only after a year of regular listening to it.’ b. #Fascyn-acja młodzieży *(muzyką klasyczną) zdarzyła fascin-ation youth. music. classical. happened się/ miała miejsce dopiero po roku jej słuchania. / took place only after year its. listening. ‘#Young people’s fascination with classical music happened only after a year of listening to it.’ It follows from the above examples that both the derived nominal (Sdev) fascynacja and the prefixed -nie/-cie nominal (Sv) zafascynowanie have the stative interpretation, because they are compatible with the predicate ujawnić się (‘to become visible/known’), but are incompatible with the predicates such as zdarzyć się (‘happen’) or mieć miejsce (‘take place’) that diagnose events and their location in time and space. As expected, since only the -nie/-cie nominals can contain the reflexive clitic, the derived nominal fascynacja cannot replace the eventive reflexive nominal zafascynowanie się in (19a), which denotes an onset to a state. (19b) is not acceptable. (19) a. Za-fascynowa-nie się młodzieży *(kulturą starożytną) za-fascinate-nie.  youth. culture. ancient. nastąpiło już po pierwszym wykładzie. occurred already after first lecture ‘Young people’s getting fascinated with ancient culture occurred already after the first lecture.’ b. #Fascyn-acja młodzieży *(kulturą starożytną) nastąpiła fascin-ation youth. culture. ancient. occurred już po pierwszym wykładzie. already after first lecture ‘#Young people’s fascination with ancient culture occurred already after the first lecture.’ From example (19) it follows that psych Sdev are unambiguous and denote states, not events. In contrast, psych nominals with the reflexive clitic

352 ż  (similarly as derived action nominals with the reflexive clitic) are unambiguously eventive, not stative. The eventive nature of those nominals and the rich verbal structure embedded under the nominal head are further confirmed by the interaction with sentential/verbal negation.⁶ The negative element nie- is an exponent of sentenial (verbal) negation in Polish, as illustrated in (20): (20) a. Janek za-fascynował Marysię swoją inteligencją. John. za-fascinate.. Mary. self’s. intelligence. ‘John fascinated Mary with his intelligence.’ b. Janek nie za-fascynował żadnego mężczyzny John.  za-fascinate.. none. man. swoją inteligencją. self ’s. intelligence. ‘John did not fascinate any man with his intelligence.’ c. *Janek za-fascynował żadnego mężczyznę John. za-fascinate.. none. man. inteligencją. intelligence. ‘*John fascinated any man with his intelligence.’

swoją self ’s.

As seen in (20), the exponent of verbal negation is the negative particle nie ‘not’, preceding the verb, which may co-occur with the word żaden ‘none’. Example (20c) shows that this word is a negative polarity item, as it is incompatible with the declarative nonnegative sentence. Let us look now at the co-occurrence of nie with nominals, including also nominals with the word żaden, illustrated in (21). (21) a. Nie-za-fascynowa-nie się studentów składnią -za-fascinate-nie.  students. syntax. generatywną nikogo nie zdziwiło. generative. nobody.  surprise.. ‘Students’ not getting fascinated with generative syntax did not surprise anybody.’

⁶ I am grateful to Joanna Błaszczak (p.c.) for drawing my attention to the usefulness of the sentential negation test involving the negative polarity item żaden (‘none’).

   

353

b. *Nie-za-fascynowa-nie studentów składnią generatywną -za-fascinate-nie. students. syntax. generative. nikogo nie zdziwiło. nobody.  surprise.. ‘*Students’ nonfascination with generative syntax did not surprise anybody.’ c. *Nie-fascyn-acja studentów składnią generatywną -fascin-ation students. syntax. generative. nikogo nie zdziwiła. nobody.  surprise.. ‘*Students’ nonfascination with generative syntax did not surprise anybody.’ d. Nie-za-interesowa-nie się Janka żadną dziewczyną -za-interest-nie  John. none. girl. zaniepokoiło jego rodziców. worry.. his parents. ‘John’s not getting interested in any girl worried his parents.’ e. *Nie-za-interesowa-nie Janka żadną dziewczyną -za-interest-nie John. none. girl. zaniepokoiło jego rodziców. worry.. his parents. ‘*John’s noninterest in any girl worried his parents.’ Example (21b) shows that the stative psych nominal zafascynowanie does not tolerate the negative particle nie. (21c) demonstrates that the stative nominal fascynacja cannot be negated with this negative particle either. The examples in (21a) and (21d,e) confirm the conclusion that negation is possible only in reflexively marked psych nominals. Additionally, example (21d) confirms that the negative polarity item żaden diagnosing verbal negation is possible in reflexively marked nominals. Thus, it can be concluded that in the domain of psych nominals only reflexively marked nominals have a rich verbal structure embedded in it. Note also that in nonpsych (action) nominals derived with the suffix -nie/-cie from transitive verbs sentential negation is possible (22a), whereas it is not possible with other nonpsych derived nominals (22b):⁷ ⁷ Example (21e) becomes acceptable only on the interpretation related to the agentive verb zainteresować kogoś czymś (‘to interest somebody with something’), which takes three arguments: the agent, the experiencer, and the subject matter, as in Profesor zainteresował Janka matematyką (‘The

354 ż  (22) a. Nie-zaproponowa-nie żadnego sensownego rozwiązania -suggest-nie. none. reasonable. solution. sporu przez władze uczelni doprowadziło dispute. by authorities. university. lead.. do strajku nauczycieli. to strike. teachers. ‘Not suggesting any reasonable solution to the debate by the university authorities led to the strike of the teachers.’ b. *twoja/*Piotra nieumiejętność rozwiązania żadnego your/Peter. inability solution. none. sporu dispute. ‘*your/Peter’s inability to solve any dispute’ c. twoja/Piotra nieumiejętność rozwiązania sporu your/Peter. inability solution. dispute. ‘your/Peter’s inability to solve any dispute’ Clearly, example (22a) is an instance of sentential (verbal) negation, whereas example (22b) illustrates lexical negation. Omission of the negative polarity item makes the nominal in (22b) acceptable, as shown in (22c). The above discussion shows that there is a clear difference between action -nie/-cie nominals and psych -nie/-cie nominals. Action -nie/-cie nominals embed a rich verbal structure, while nonreflexive psych nominals do not. This correlates with the fact that the former describe an event, and have an external agent argument in the syntactic structure they embed, whereas the latter describe a state without such structure. The presence of the reflexive clitic makes psych nominals eventive and structurally richer, for which syntactic evidence has been provided. Also evident is the fact that in Polish only two types of psych nominals are available: stative and inceptive/inchoative. None of them shows any indication of the presence of the causative meaning. With all these facts, let us consider what they tell us about the syntax and event structure of psych nominals. We can conclude that state psych nominals, independently of whether they are derived by the suffix -nie/-cie or by another word formation process (including ZNs), are compatible with what Iordăchioaia (2019a) or Fábregas et al. (2012) propose for psych nominals in professor made/got John interested in mathematics’ ). This reading is not relevant for our discussion. In fact it only confirms the conclusion that action nominals are different from psych nominals, since the verb zainteresować becomes an agentive action verb on this interpretation.

   

355

other languages. These nominals always denote states and always require the experiencer, as if it were the only participant of the psych eventuality. In addition to state psych nominals, in Polish there are also inceptive/inchoative reflexively marked psych nominals. In search for their syntactic representation, let us recall the approach to psych nominals developed for Greek and Romanian by Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a).

14.5 Psych causative nominalizations Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) claim that most EO verbs that take nonagentive causers in Greek and Romanian also build nominalizations that can realize nonagentive causers (see (23) and (24)). (23) enervarea Mariei de către Ion/ de la joc (Romanian) annoy. the Maria. by John/ from game ‘John’s annoying Maria/Maria’s getting annoyed with the game’ (24) i enohlisi tis Marias apo to Jani/ me ta nea (Greek) the bothering the Maria. by the John/ with the news ‘John’s annoying Maria/Maria’s getting annoyed with the game’ As indicated by the prepositions, (23) and (24) may have both agentive and causative readings with de către/apo ‘by’ and de la ‘from’ / me ‘with’ respectively. However, the nonagentive causer seems to only be allowed with nominalizations from EO verbs that have an ES counterpart. In other words, the nominalizations that realize nonagentive causers in (23) and (24) must be derived from the ES verb form, i.e., they nominalize the anticausative psych verb, because the preposition that introduces the nonagentive causer is the same as with anticausative verbs. Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) take the presence of a causative preposition to be suggestive of the causative nature of these verbs. According to them, Greek and Romanian shed more light into the realization of nonagentive causers in psych verbs, as they employ prepositions to mark nonagentive causers in eventive readings that are different from those that they use in stative readings to mark the target or subject matter roles documented in Pesetsky (1995). This difference can only be observed with ES verb forms, since in the EO version, as Pesetsky notices, these theta roles are all realized as subjects. The few psych verbs that have a stative ES variant, however, use a different preposition to realize the target/subject matter

356 ż  arguments that surface as a subject in the EO version (see (25) and (26)). The verbs interest in Greek and gladden in Romanian are stative on both EO and ES uses. (25) a. Ta fita endiaferun to Jani the plants interest the John ‘Plants interest John.’ b. O Janis endiaferthike ja/*me ta fita the John interested. for/*with the plants ‘John was interested in plants.’ (26) a. Succesul Mariei îl bucură pe Ion. success the Maria. him gladdens  John ‘Mary’s success makes John glad.’ b. Ion se bucură de (*la) succesul John RF gladdens of (at) success ‘John is glad at Maria’s success.’

Mariei. Maria.

Greek systematically uses the preposition ja ‘for’ to mark the subject matter argument with the ES verb, while Romanian employs a few such prepositions (depending on the verb) including de ‘of ’, which differs from the complex preposition de la ‘from’, which is used for nonagentive causers. A nonagentive causer PP is completely ruled out in (25b) and (26b), which Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) relate to the fact that these verbs are unambiguously stative (like other stative ES verbs). Moreover, the nominalizations of stative ES verbs reject nonagentive causer PPs, too: (27) to endiaferon tu Jani ja ta fita/ *me ta fita the interest the John for the plants/ with the plants ‘John’s interest for plants’ (28) bucuria lui față de/ *de la succesul joy his towards/ from success ‘His joy towards Maria’s success’

Mariei Maria.

Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) conclude that Greek and Romanian me / de la prepositions mark nonagentive causers in COS verbs. Thus, the eventive ES verb form is just as causative as the corresponding eventive EO form. This

   

357

concerns only the eventive reading of alternating EO/SE verbs. Because of the realization of nonagentive causer PPs, the conclusion is that in Greek and Romanian there is a psych causative alternation, and that EO verbs behave like COS verbs. Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia (2014a) have shown that Greek and Romanian can realize nonagentive causers in psych nominalizations, despite previous predictions that psych nominalizations might lack causative force cross-linguistically (Landau, 2010c). This is under the assumption that anticausatives also involve causation (Doron, 2003, 2011; Chierchia, 2004; Levin & Rappaport, 2005; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, & Schäfer, 2006). The prediction is thus that every language whose EO psych verbs alternate (or which has inchoative ES verbs) should be able to derive causative psych nominals, just like Greek and Romanian. The relevant representations are presented in (29). (29) a. [VoiceP [vP [RootP]]) agentive: de către / apo ‘by’ b. [vP [RootP]] anticausative: de la ‘from’ / me ‘with’ The input to causative psych nominals is the structure in (29b), which realizes nonagentive causer PPs and disallows agents. This solution cannot be adopted for Polish without modifications, because the ES reflexive alternants of Polish EO verbs do not seem to be analogous to anticausatives of COS verbs.

14.6 In search for a solution The obvious conclusion from the foregoing discussion is that Polish psych nominals come with verbal layers of various sizes. Therefore, the most reasonable analysis would be in terms of what Alexiadou (2019) calls n-based nominalizations, i.e., there is a nominalizer that embeds a set of verbal functional layers.⁸ These nominalizations come with a mixed internal structure. For all types of EO verbs in Polish, whether eventive or stative, the corresponding nonreflexive nominals have only the stative interpretation and realize the experiencer as the possessor. At first sight, the solution proposed by Iordăchioaia (2019a) to the effect that psych nominals are rootderived might seem to be appropriate for Polish nonreflexive psych nominals, ⁸ For similar phenomena in Czech involving the reflexive marker in nominals, Saloni & Preminger (2009) adopt Hron’s (2005) claim that these nominals in Czech are formed by syntactic reflexivization/ reciprocalization of two-place nominals, and not by nominalization of reflexive/reciprocal verbs. Such an account does not seem to be right, at least for Polish, in view of the shared patterns and correlations discussed in this chapter.

358 ż  which always denote states. However, in adopting such an approach, we encounter serious problems. First, we lose the generalization that psych nominals corresponding to EO verbs always have an existing verbal counterpart, exactly like ASNs corresponding to nonpsych verbs and discussed at length in Borer (2014). Second, their target/stimulus satellites have the same morphological realization as with the corresponding ES reflexive alternants or as with their adjectival passive structures (see Bondaruk & Rozwadowska, 2019a). Finally, these state psych nominals contain the perfectivizing prefix, which also suggests that some verbal aspectual projection should be embedded under the nominalizer. Still, state psych nominals are clearly less verbal than the eventive reflexive psych nominals. Therefore, the size of the verbal layers should be bigger in the reflexive psych nominals. I believe that the most promising direction to accommodate the facts presented above is to follow the idea that reflexive markers represent the so called expletive Voice. One such solution is offered in Alexiadou et al. (2015), who point out that across languages both anticausatives derived from transitive verbs and naturally reflexive verbs are marked with SE-reflexives. The typology of Voice developed by them includes anticausatives and naturally reflexive verbs. The account developed in Alexiadou et al. (2015: 97–143) assumes that marked anticausatives involve a nonthematic Voice-projection, expletive Voice, which does not add any semantics to the verbal phrase it combines with. It differs thereby from thematic Voice, which introduces an external argument variable for the event expressed by the verb phrase. Alexiadou et al., following Schäfer (2008), argue that SE-reflexives and only SE-reflexives qualify as legitimate Aexpletives. Among them they distinguish between semantically reflexive verbs and reflexively marked anticausatives as in (30). (30) a. [TP T [VoiceP DP Voice [vP v REFL]]] (semantically reflexive verb) b. [TP T [VoiceP REFL Voice [vP v DP]]] (reflexively marked anticausative) In a similar vein, Marelj & Reuland (2016) analyze reflexive ES verbs in a number of languages, including Dutch, Serbo-Croatian, and Italian and they also argue that the SE-type reflexive found with ES verbs is a kind of expletive which has no other role than to check the residual accusative case. For Marelj & Reuland (2016: 206), the nonargumental SE-reflexive, placed in Spec, K(ase)P, is merged with the verb, whereby it checks the verb’s accusative case feature. Bondaruk & Rozwadowska (2019b) argue that się found with Polish reflexive ES verbs is not an argument, and that these verbs are unergative. Since Polish

   

359

ES verbs are neither anticausative/unaccusative nor semantically reflexive, following Marelj & Reuland (2016), Bondaruk & Rozwadowska consider it to be an expletive blocking the assignment of the accusative case by the verb. These two approaches to expletive reflexives seem to be mutually compatible, although they differ in execution. For our considerations here, I will follow the spirit of Alexiadou et al. (2015) and propose the structures as in tree (a) for the eventive nominal in (31a) and the structure in tree (b) for the stative nominal in (31b).⁹ The expletive się is a filler of the expletive Voice head. (31) a. Janka/twoje za-fascynowa-nie się składnią John’s/your za-fascinate-nie.  syntax. ‘John’s/your getting fascinated with syntax.’ b. Janka/twoje za-interesowa-nie składnią John’s/your za-fascinate-nie. syntax. ‘John’s/your fascination with syntax.’

(a)

(b)

nP

DP Janka/twoje

nP

DP nP Janka/twoje

n Voice P (za)fascynowa-nie DP

nP

n (za)fascynowa-nie

Voice P

Voice{ Ø,Ø} (za)fascynowa-się

za-fascynowa v

AspP vP

za-fascynowa v

√

AspP vP √

DP √ fascynowa składnią fascinate syntax

√ DP fascynowa składnią fascinate syntax In (31a) there is a structure where the expletive Voice head is filled with the Polish reflexive marker się, whereas (31b) is a proposed structure for stative nonreflexive psych nominals. The representation in (31a) is modeled on ⁹ For ease of exposition I am choosing here simple examples, both with the experiencer expressed prenominally. The possibiity to realize the lexical possessor phrase postnominally does not affect the main argument of this chapter.

360 ż  (30). As argued in Bondaruk & Rozwadowska (2019b), Polish reflexive ES verbs are neither anticausative nor semantically reflexive, but still they are unergative. Therefore, the proposed structure for the embedded verbal projections is similar to (30a) rather than (30b). The structure in (31a) can be supplemented with more verbal projections on top of Voice P, in particular the NegP (negation phrase), responsible for negation. AspP (aspect phrase) is introduced to accommodate the prefix which is a perfectivizer. Structure in (31b) is intended to represent Polish stative psych nominals. Even though stative psych nominals in other languages have been analyzed as root-derived, in Polish there are at least two reasons for analyzing them as computed in syntax: argument realization and the presence of the perfectivizing prefix. Note also that these structures are valid both for psych verbs which have been classified as strongly stative and for those that can be eventive. The difference lies in the obligatoriness vs. optionality of the target/stimulus argument. The configurations that are proposed here need verification in future research. It is also important to note that v-level introduced in (31b) does not carry any event implications. It is just a verbalizer. When combined with stative roots, it does not carry an event variable. On the other hand, the use of the mechanism of expletive Voice (as a type of Voice, but different from thematic Voice which introduces the external argument of agentive verbs) allows us to capture the eventivity of the ES verbs and their nominalizations. Note that what these two types of Voice share is eventivity. The difference lies in the internal event composition. With thematic Voice the external argument is introduced which carries event implication and complex event structure consisting of the causing subevent and the result state. In contrast, the absence of process nominals in the psych domain seems to support the view that there is no causing subevent in the psych eventuality and no result phrase. Instead psych eventualities consist of the inceptive left boundary event followed by the state. Both are attested systematically in Polish. So, as a final result of this discussion what they can tell us about the event composition of EO verbs is that the event structure of those predicates consists of the left boundary inceptive event and the state following it, without the process part.

   

361

14.7 Conclusions The analysis of Polish psych nominals leads to the following conclusions, which contribute to the cross-linguistic debate about the event structure of psych predicates and the constraints on derived nominals. I have looked at the -nie/-cie nominals, focusing on nominals related to the most puzzling class of EO predicates. The -nie/-cie nominals in the action domain allow a variety of interpretations. Still, despite this potential, only stative interpretation and inceptive/inchoative interpretation are possible within the psych domain. I have argued, following Rozwadowska & Bondaruk (2019), that the EO/SE alternation despite the reflexive morphology typical of the causative/anticausative alternation is not an instance of the psych causative alternation. Accordingly, the nominals related to the ES reflexive psych verbs are not causative psych nominals, although they are eventive. Thus, the evidence from Polish psych nominals suggests that eventivity is not necessarily correlated with causativity. Moreover, it seems to be the case that psych nominals in Polish denote states or inceptive events, rather than causative events. Thus, Pesetsky’s (1995) claim that there are no causative psych nominals seems to be confirmed by the Polish data. This is easy to verify because the contrasts in Polish nominals are overt. At the same time, it seems that EO verbs are not lexically causative. Psych roots are stative (as argued by Fábregas et al., 2012, and by Iordăchioaia, 2019a). Apparent causation is triggered by the appearance of the stimulus in the subject position in verbal structures. In view of this, further research is needed to verify if indeed the realization of the stimulus argument in the causative phrase is sufficient evidence for its status as a causer in languages such as Romanian or Greek. Because of space limitations I have not discussed other ES verbs and their nominalizations, which are claimed to be stative cross-linguistically (and root derived). Moreover, in view of the difference between inceptive/inchoative and anticausative verbal and nominal alternations, a need arises to tease apart that difference as well. Polish provides evidence that these two interpretations are distinct not only semantically but also syntactically.

Acknowledgments This research was funded by grant 2014/15/B/HS2/00588 from the National Science Centre, Poland. I am most grateful to the editors and the reviewer for invaluable detailed and inspiring comments, which helped me improve the final shape of this chapter. All mistakes and inadequacies remain my own responsibility.

15 Nominalizations, case domains, and restructuring in two Amazonian languages Andrés Pablo Salanova and Adam Tallman

One of the most influential points made by Remarks on Nominalization concerns the parallelism between nominal and verbal projections, an idea that opened the way to the development of X̄-theory and to much subsequent work on the decomposition of lexical categories. The importance of this point is lost on many linguists that work with languages of lowland South America and elsewhere, where the parallel between the projections headed by nouns and those headed by verbs is often a given. Though rarely addressed explicitly in the literature, researchers working in the Amazon would not bat an eyelash at the identity between clausal and nominal categories of case and agreement, for instance: Systems where nominal possessors are expressed in the same way as ergative subjects, or where they are expressed in the same way as the absolutive arguments of at least some verbs, are in this area of the world, if not outright the norm, at least as widespread as cases where they are completely distinct. We illustrate the identity in the inflection of nouns and verbs with the two langauges that are examined in this chapter.¹ In Mẽbêngôkre (Jê), person indices indicating the possessor of inalienable nouns are the same as those used for objects of most verbs and for subjects of stative and nonfinite verbs. The morphological case corresponding to these indices (as well as the morphologically unmarked case of nouns appearing in the same function) could equally correctly be called absolutive or genitive.

¹ Following standard practice for these languages and others in the region, we treat bound person indices as pronouns rather than as agreement. When we discuss case categories we are talking as much about the form of these indices as about any overt case marking on independent noun phrases.

Andrés Pablo Salanova and Adam Tallman, Nominalizations, case domains, and restructuring in two Amazonian languages In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Andrés Pablo Salanova and Adam Tallman. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0015

364 ´       In the glosses, we leave it unmarked (as opposed to the explicit marking of , , and other cases): (1) i-kamy 1-brother ‘My brother.’ (2) ga i-pumũ 2 1-see. ‘You see me.’ In Chácobo, subjects of transitive verbs are expressed by means of the same case category that is used to indicate possession within a noun phrase: (3) yoʂa= 0 tsi kiá tʃaȿo woman= 5  deer ‘The woman saw the deer.’

tsaya=kɨ see=

(4) yoȿa= 0 tʃaȿo woman= deer ‘the woman’s deer’ The absence of a strong morphological differentiation between nouns and verbs as far as marking of some dependents goes does not mean that the languages do not differentiate clearly between nouns and verbs, however. In Mẽbêngôkre, for instance, the difference between nominal and verbal lexemes hinges on the presence, in the paradigm of the latter, of two distinct forms, one finite and the other nonfinite (actually, as we will see later, nominal), that are associated with two different alignment patterns. In Chácobo, different clausetyping morphemes are used according to whether the predicate is verbal or nonverbal. In fact, Chácobo and Mẽbêngôkre use nominalization to a far greater extent than what is known from the languages of Europe. Event nominalizations are used whenever verbal clauses are subordinated. This includes many structures that don’t involve subordination in other languages, such as manner modification. In Mẽbêngôkre, for instance, a verbal predicate subordinated to a predicate of direct perception appears in its nominal form; in such a form, its first

,  ,  

365

argument is expressed by means of a genitive or absolutive person index, while its ergative argument is expressed by an oblique case, much in the way the rare external argument of a nominal predicate would (see (6)): (5) djãm nẽ ga [kubẽ kute ibê djudjê oàkĩnh] pumũ?   2 barbarian 3 1 bow steal. see. ‘Did you see the white guy walking away with my bow?’ (6) djãm nẽ ga [kubẽ kum rop pyma] pumũ   2 barbarian 3 dog fear() see. ‘Did you see the white guy (being) afraid of dogs?’ In this chapter, we examine two constructions that involve embedding a nominalizations under another predicate for aspectual effect. Though the identity in inflection between nominal and verbal predicates makes it difficult to untangle such complex constructions, embedding of nominalized clauses may be seen in the unusual alignment patterns that arise in them. We claim that category-changing morphology has a crucial role in creating separate case-assignment domains. The structure of this chapter is as follows. In Section 15.1 we introduce the main empirical phenomenon examined here as it has been dealt with by previously published literature. Section 15.2 offers a description of the relevant facts in Mẽbêngôkre, a Northern Jê language spoken in central Brazil, and sketches an analysis of the construction and of the nominals that appear in it. Section 15.3 offers a description of similar facts in Chácobo, a Panoan language spoken in northern Bolivia. Section 15.4 proposes a general analysis of constructions with two case domains, and reflects on the relevance of nominalization for the delimitation of case domains.

15.1 Complex constructions and case domains A number of theories of case rely on the idea that case is assigned in specific structural domains. This is no doubt most obvious in dependent-case theories where two noun phrases compete for case within a single domain, such as Marantz (1991); Bittner & Hale (1996); Baker (2015); among others. It is

366 ´       also implicit in more traditional theories of case involving some formalization of Burzio’s generalization (Burzio, 1986), in the sense that the possibility of accusative case assignment by a verb, which is assigned locally to a complement, is dependent on there being a thematic relation between the verb and another argument, which is hence also local to the assigner (mutatis mutandis for ergative constructions). In the functional-typological literature, the notion of a case-assigning domain is evoked implicitly when it is argued that case marking serves to differentiate participants within a clause (Payne, 1997: 140; Kibrik, 2012: 212; Comrie, 2013; inter alia). When we talk about a case domain, we mean something equivalent to a clause in the sense just sketched, and will use the two terms interchangeably. However, in certain circumstances a prima facie simple clause will actually contain more than one case domain. For concreteness, we sketch of a theory of case involving competition for case within a clause loosely based on Marantz (1991). In the simplest case, one has a clause with a transitive verb, where the case domain (CD), which ex hypothesi corresponds to the clause, contains the verb’s two arguments. (7) [NP V NP]CD The presence of two argument chains in the same case domain triggers the assignment of a ‘dependent case’. That is, one of the two arguments will receive a case which is only assigned when there is another argument chain present in the same domain. Two options, specified as a feature of the head of the domain, exist for dependent case assignment: Dependent case can be assigned to the ‘lower’ argument (with P grammatical role), yielding what is normally called nominative-accusative alignment (i.e. accusative is the dependent case, as it only appears when there is more than one argument in the clause), or dependent case can be assigned to the ‘higher’ argument (with A grammatical role), yielding what is called ergative-absolutive alignment (i.e. ergative is the dependent case). Nominative and absolutive cases, to the extent that they are overtly expressed at all, are elsewhere cases (not necessarily the same as the default case) that are assigned after the assignment of dependent case. Across nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive languages, but primarily in the latter, dependent case theories need to contend with

,  ,  

367

constructions where dependent case does not surface, even in the presence of a co-argument. This situation can be seen in the following Basque examples, taken from Laka (2006), which are an instance of a more general situation observed by Coon & Preminger (2017) regarding aspect-based splits: (8) a. Emakume-a-k ogi-a jaten woman-- bread- eating ‘The woman eats the bread.’ b. Emakume-a ogi-a jaten woman- bread- eating ‘The woman is eating the bread.’

du. has

ari da.  is

(9) a. Emakume-a hurbiltzen da. woman- approach is ‘The woman gets closer.’ b. Emakume-a hurbiltzen ari woman- approach  ‘The woman is getting closer.’

da. is

Dependent case (ergative) shows up on the subject in the aspectually unmarked construction (8a) whenever another noun phrase argument is present in the clause. Absolutive case is unmarked. Another pattern, specific to progressive aspect, is one where both arguments have unmarked (absolutive) case. In (8b), the way each individual argument is marked does not depend on the presence of another argument in the clause, as can be seen by comparing that transitive sentence to the intransitive (9b). We begin our exposition of what we consider a typical analysis of such splits by considering Laka’s (2006) analysis of Basque progressives. Ergative alignment in the aspectually unmarked construction is straightforwardly dealt with by a domain-based theory of case: the A argument is assigned dependent ergative case in an ergative clause because it is in a domain that contains another NP, as shown schematically in (10). (10) One domain, dependent ergative is assigned to A argument: [NPA-erg V NPP]CD

368 ´       In Basque, it is possible to assume that marked case is assigned to the higher argument in all case domains, i.e., alignment is always ergative in simple clauses. For progressives, Laka follows Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (1987) in claiming that ‘ari [ . . . ] is a main verb with its own auxiliary which may take a nominalized clause as its complement’ (Laka, 2006: 174; and Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina, 1987: 428). This allows her to claim that ‘[t]he contrast [between (8a) and (8b)] results from the fact that the ari progressive involves a biclausal syntactic structure [ . . . ]’ (Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina, 1987: 428). This gives a structure as in (11) to the sentences above. In our terms, (8b) is partitioned into two case domains, as in (11b): (11) a. [[emakumeak]DP [[ogiajaten]VP du]]IP b. [[emakumeai]DP [[[[proi ogia jate-]VP –n]PP air]VP da]]IP

The claim that the split is caused by a difference in structure would be circular if no evidence independent of the case marking itself were brought to bear in establishing the domains. Thus, Laka (2006) provides the following arguments for the existence of such a biclausal structure in Basque (some arguments ultimately come from Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina, 1987): 1. ari is a verb meaning ‘be engaged’; this can be seen in its morphology and in that it can be nominalized with -tze and can receive aspectual suffixes -ko , -tzen , and -tu . 2. Constructions with ari always co-occur with the intransitive auxiliary, irrespectively of the transitivity of the lexical verb with which it is combining. In the unmarked aspect, the auxiliary agrees in transitivity with the main verb. 3. ari selects a PP headed by -n; this is seen not only in the morphology, but also in the fact that the complement of -n can be a noun; furthermore, -n may be replaced by other Ps without resulting in ungrammaticality. 4. In western dialects, the verb ari may be replaced by two other verbs ibili and egon (both unaccusative and both taking a locative complement), with similar meaning. In sum, the morphology is strongly suggestive of a biclausal analysis. However, not all of the syntactic facts point in that direction. There are some reasons to believe that the structure of (8b) does not involve two

,  ,  

369

syntactic domains (or, in Laka’s terms, is not biclausal); the following counter arguments are mentioned by Laka: 1. When subject wh-movement occurs, there is inversion of verb + auxiliary to second position. In progressive constructions, it is possible to move just ari + da (supporting a biclausal approach) or V + ari + da (supporting a restructuring approach). 2. With certain verbs that have dative subjects or objects, auxiliaries will agree with both the higher absolutive argument and the dative argument (see Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina, 1987, (8d’,f ’)). 3. In some eastern varieties, progressive constructions with ari have ergative rather than double absolutive alignment. Laka’s answer is to propose that restructuring occurs in those dialects where ergative-absolutive alignment arises, but argues against the other two phenomena being reasons to be forced to accept a monoclausal structure. We do not need to go into the merits of the proposal for Basque here. What we are interested in is the question that such argumentation raises, which is central in this chapter, namely the extent to which case domains can be defined independently of the case phenomena that they are called upon to explain. If they are not defined independently, then the analyses based on them are circular and amount to a redescription of the facts, being at best a good schema to describe the etymology or historical evolution of a construction that is synchronically no more complex than other clause types (see, e.g., Gildea, 2008). But even if there is independent evidence for the domains that are relevant for case, one must ask the question of how much convergent evidence is needed in order to claim that a given construction has two distinct structural domains. We return to this question in the last section of this chapter, after considering the evidence for biclausality in two constructions in Mẽbêngôkre and Chácobo.

15.2 Complex constructions in Mẽbêngôkre Mẽbêngôkre is a Jê language spoken by approximately 10,000 people in central Brazil. Mẽbêngôkre has clauses with both ergative and accusative alignment, as well as clauses with a nominative-absolutive alignment. The language is not alone in the family in having these alignments (cf. Gildea & de Castro Alves, 2010, where nominative-absolutive is analyzed as one of the basic monoclausal

370 ´       patterns, contrary to what we do here). Embedded clauses other than quoted speech are always headed by nonfinite (or nominal) forms of the verb, and are always ergative, while in independent clauses one may find all three types of alignment. The following examples illustrate these various surface patterns in independent clauses: (12) show ergative-absolutive, (13) show nominativeaccusative, while (14) show nominative-absolutive. (12) a. A O.V ije krẽn kêt 1 3.eat..  ‘I haven’t eaten it.’ b. S-V i-tẽm kêt 1-go.  ‘I don’t go.’ (13) a. A O-V ba ku-krẽ 1 3-eat.. ‘I (’m going to) eat it.’ b. S ba tẽ 1 go. ‘I (’m going to) go.’ (14) a. A O.V ba krẽn o=nhỹ 1 3.eat.. OBL=sit.. ‘I’m eating it.’ b. S S-V ba i-tor 1 1-dance. ‘I’m dancing.’

o=dja =stand..

Nominative-absolutive alignment is associated with the progressive construction, initially described by Reis Silva (1996), and reexamined in Salanova (2008). In this construction, while the person marker on the verb is always absolutive, there is a further nominative pronoun which either stands for the external argument or redundantly cooccurs with an absolutive index if the

,  ,  

371

latter indexes an intransitive subject (nominative is unmarked on nonpronominal NPs). That is, while in (14a) the index on the verb and the nominative subject index two different arguments, in (14b) the reference of the two person indices is the same. The morphosyntax of this construction resembles the Basque progressive construction in many ways: 1. The lexical main verb is in a nonfinite or nominal form, glossed here as ; the nominal character of the nonfinite form is argued for in Salanova (2007). 2. This form is subordinated to the auxiliary by means of an adposition, o, glossed as  and used variously as an instrumental (with transitive verbs) or as the marker for applicative themes. 3. The auxiliary is in its finite form, glossed here as . The differences that the construction in Mẽbêngôkre has with its equivalent in Basque are not directly relevant to the definition of case domains, but we note them here: 1. Auxiliaries in Mẽbêngôkre are chosen from a small set, and encode posture (sit, stand, etc.). 2. Absolutive is distinct from nominative: It is in fact the same as genitive, as was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter; the reason for this is that the two case domains in Mẽbêngôkre have distinct elsewhere cases, contrary to what happens in Basque. The construction can nevertheless be considered as parallel to the Basque progressive because neither of the cases are dependent: Both are the case that is assigned in a domain where no other argument chain is present. 3. Differently from Basque, intransitive subjects are not empty in the lower clause: an absolutive person prefix, coindexed with the nominative subject of the matrix clause, is obligatory on subordinate verbs. 4. Finally, an ergative pronoun may be redundantly present next to the nominative subject of a transitive clause even in the progressive construction. This is a general property of ergative in this language. We sketch a formal representation of (14a), on which we will attempt to represent the various properties that we identify in the construction.

372 ´       (15)

VFP

thematic relation VʹF

SubjNOM

…

bai

VʹF

HIGHER CASE DOMAIN

PP LOWER CASE DOMAIN

VNP

control ijei

P

nhy˜

o

VʹN

SubjERG

VF

ObjGEN

VN

∅

˜ kren

Arguments in favor of this structure are numerous. The postural verbs used in the Mẽbêngôkre progressive construction are chosen from a small but possibly extensible class that includes at least the following: nõ/nhikwã (lie sg./pl.), dja/ ku’ê (stand sg./pl.), nhỹ/krĩ (sit sg./pl.), wajêt/jarij (hang sg./pl.), tẽ/mõ (go sg./pl.). Though the determination of postural verb is somewhat conventionalized for many verbs, some choice is possible, and this choice is based exclusively on the position of the subject while carrying out the action.² Minimal pairs for intransitive and transitive verbs may be seen in (16) and (17), respectively. (16) a. a-bãm nẽ õt o=nõ 2-father  3.sleep. =lie.. ‘Your father is sleeping (on a bed or mat).’ b. a-bãm nẽ õt o=wajêt 2-father  3.sleep. =hang.. ‘Your father is sleeping (on a hammock).’

² One could insist that the determination of the postural verb according to the lexical requires a selectional relation. This is not a problem: a thematic relation may be said to exist between the postural verb and the lexical verb. The adposition o would be transparent to thematic relations in this case.

,  ,  

373

(17) a. ba pi’ôk jarẽnh o=nhỹ 1 book say. =sit.. ‘I’m reading (sitting down; i.e. studying).’ b. ba pi’ôk jarẽnh o=dja 1 book say. =stand.. ‘I’m reading (standing up; i.e. lecturing).’ A further index of a selectional relation between postural verbs and subjects may be seen in number alternations. A few verbs in Mẽbêngôkre come in mostly suppletive pairs that are chosen based on the number of one of the arguments or on iterativity or durativity of the action. Postural verbs are among the verbs that reflect the number contrast. In progressive constructions, the subject of the action is the only relevant argument for determining the choice of postural verb based on number (cf. (18)). In cases where the verb is chosen based on iterativity or durativity rather than on number of one of the participants, number reflects the iterativity of the overarching situation, in which the subject is repeatedly engaged. This may be seen in (19): (18) a. mẽ’õnire nẽ mry bôr o=dja woman.one  meat roast.. =stand.. ‘A woman is/was roasting meat.’ b. mẽnire nẽ mẽ mry bôr o=ku’ê woman   meat roast.. =3.stand. ‘Women are/were roasting meat.’ (19) a. i-bãm nẽ ujarẽnh o=nhỹ 1-father  3..say. =sit.. ‘My father is / was telling a story / stories.’ b. i-bãm nẽ ujarẽnh o=krĩ 1-father  3..say. =3.sit. ‘My father was sitting for a long time / sits frequently to tell stories / a story.’ In short, the evidence strongly suggests that the subject of the clause is also the postural verb’s logical subject. One further morphosyntactic fact confirms this. Postural verbs are intransitive, and, like other intransitive verbs, do not inflect for person in their finite forms, as the person indices in finite verbs are for the P argument. In nonfinite forms, required in subordination, in negation

374 ´       and a few other contexts, the postural verbs inflect for the person of the subject, like any intransitive verb, irrespective of the transitivity of the lexical verb: (20) a. ba pi’ôk jarẽnh 1 book say. ‘I’m reading.’ b. ba pi’ôk jarẽnh 1 book say. ‘I’m not reading.’

o=nhỹ =sit.. o=i-nhỹr kêt =1.sit.. 

Contrary to the nominative subject, the absolutive noun phrase is an argument of the embedded lexical verb, which is in a nominal form. Diagnostics similar to those applied to the auxiliary can be applied to the lexical verb to show that there is a selectional relation between it and the absolutive argument. Beyond the identity between this argument and the S or P argument of a verb in a nonprogressive construction, number on the lexical verb scopes over it, as the following examples show: (21) a. ba tep kur o=nhỹ 1 fish eat.. =sit.. ‘I’m eating (many) fish.’ b. ba tep krẽn o=nhỹ 1 fish eat.. =sit.. ‘I’m eating (one) fish.’ To conclude, there is strong evidence that points to considering that the Mẽbêngôkre progressive (‘nominative-absolutive’) construction is one where the S or P is an argument of the lexical verb, while the A or S is an argument of the postural verb or ‘auxiliary’, an S argument being indeed an argument of both. This is suggestive of a control construction.³ A morphological quirk of Mẽbêngôkre forces a controled ergative subject to be zero, while a controled absolutive subject appears as a genitive person prefix on the lexical verb. Are there any pieces of evidence that point to a reanalysis, or at least to the embedded clause being something other than a normal nominalization? There are two places to look: (i) test the nominalized embedded clause for the ³ For arguments that the Mẽbêngôkre locative construction also involves control, see Beauchamp (2017).

,  ,  

375

properties that are associated to objects (i.e. compare its external properties to those of undisputed nominal objects), (ii) verify whether the nominalized embedded clause has the same constructional possibilities as nominalizations elsewhere. One could also look for the traditional evidence of restructuring (apparent cross-clausal agreement, case assignment, or movement phenomena). By our discussion so far in this section, however, it should be apparent that the latter type of evidence is not found in Mẽbêngôkre. Salanova (2015) examines the properties of objects as opposed to adjuncts in detail. If we apply the diagnostics from that paper, we find that there are a number of differences between the embedded nominalized clauses in the progressive construction and simple nominal objects. First of all, nominal objects can be moved to the first position of the clause for contrast, stranding the adposition; Nominalized embedded clauses cannot without a change in meaning (see (23)): (22) a. ba kẽn o=nhỹ 1 stone =sit.. ‘I’m sitting with a stone.’ b. kẽn nẽ ba o=nhỹ stone  1 =sit.. ‘I’m sitting with a stone.’ (23) a. ba tep krẽn o=nhỹ 1 fish eat.. =sit.. ‘I’m eating fish.’ b. (ije) tep krẽn nẽ ba o=nhỹ 1 fish eat..  1 =sit.. ‘I’m sitting with the fish eaten (by me).’ Furthermore, while the subject of nominalized transitive clauses, if unexpressed, is interpreted as a generic agent, the subject of nominalized clauses in the progressive construction is necessarily referential, even if controled by the subject of the higher clause. Compare the complement clauses in (24) with (25), where no possibility of having a generic subject exists: (24) a. Ba [a-bãm kute tep djonhwỳr] pumũ. 1 2-father 3 fish pierce. see. ‘I saw your father fishing (with arrow)’, ‘I saw the fish your father caught with an arrow.’

376 ´       b. Ba [tep djonhwỳr] pumũ. 1 fish pierce. see. ‘I saw (people) fishing with arrows’, ‘I saw a fish caught with an arrow.’ (25) Ba tep djonhwỳr o=dja. 1 fish pierce. =stand.. ‘I’m fishing with arrows.’ In a sense, this diagnostic complements (23): If the nominalized clause is moved to the beginning of the clause, a generic subject interpretation becomes possible (see (23b)); however, the progressive meaning is lost. To sum up, in Mẽbêngôkre the morphology tells us, apparently even more clearly than in Basque, that a particular construction with unusual alignment is synchronically complex. Some syntactic facts seem to argue against this, however, though it is not clear whether those facts diagnose complexity of structure. What is seen in (23) most likely has to do with the fact that the first position of the clause is reserved for referential expressions, as it is a topic position. What is seen in (25), on the other hand, only tells us that there is obligatory control in the progressive construction; it is not currently clear whether obligatory control should be used as a diagnostic for restructuring into a single domain. We postpone evaluating the weight of the various arguments surrounding the interpretation of the Mẽbêngôkre progressive construction until we have considered the somewhat more ambiguous case of Chácobo.

15.3 Complex constructions in Chácobo Chácobo is a Panoan language spoken by approximately 1,500 people in northern Bolivia. Simple clauses in Chácobo display ergative alignment with full noun phrases, where ergative is marked as final high pitch, and accusative alignment with pronouns, where accusative is marked with a suffix. This is illustrated in the following examples: (26) a. mi paβí=kɨ 2. dance=. ‘You were dancing / You danced.’

,  ,  

377

b. tʃaʂo paβí=kɨ deer. dance=. ‘The deer was dancing / danced.’ c. tʃaʂo=0 mi-a tsáya=kɨ deer= 2- see=. ‘The deer saw you / was watching you.’ Verbal predicate constructions in Chácobo are characterized by having a verbal root and a clause-type morpheme. In examples (26a–c) the clause-type morpheme is kɨ ‘declarative, past’. All clause-type markers encode clause-type (declarative, imperative, interrogative, reportative), while some also encode tense (e.g. past, nonpast, future). Order in verbal predicate constructions is fairly free, but the subject cannot follow the clause-type morpheme.⁴ Clauses where the predicate is nonverbal (henceforth ‘nonverbal predicate [NVP] constructions’) are clearly distinct in Chácobo. Like verbal predicate constructions, NVPs are marked with a clause-type morpheme. The clausetype morphemes of NVPs are not the same as those from verbal predicate constructions, although there is some overlap in form and function. In contrast to verbal predicate constructions, the canonical order of NVPs is rigidly predicate-subject, with the clause-type morpheme occuring between the predicate and the subject. Furthermore, noun phrases do not receive ergative case in NVPs, and pronouns never appear in the unmarked nominative case, but rather appear with case markers that are nearly homophonous to the accusative forms used in verbal predicate constructions:⁵ (27) a. tʃaʂo ʂo mi-a deer . 2- ‘You are a deer.’ b. tʃaʂo ki mi-a deer . 2- ‘You will be a deer.’ Certain properties of NVPs can be seen in an intermediate construction, exemplified in (28), which displays predicate-subject order and no ergative

⁴ If the subject comes between V and the clause-type marker, an auxiliary may appear, as in (32). ⁵ We gloss the marker on pronouns in NVPs , following the argument in Tallman (2018) that the {-a} is inserted there in order to satisfy bisyllabic minimality.

378 ´       case marking on full noun phrases. We refer to this construction here as the V-C-Subj construction. (28) tʃaʂo tsaya =ki honi deer. see =. man. ‘The man sees the deer.’ Given the rigid predicate-subject order also found in NVPs, it would be natural to suppose that the verb in the V-C-Subj construction is a type of nonverbal predicate, despite the absence of clearly nominalizing morphology. The case facts in this construction are also suggestive in that direction: an analysis of V-C-Subj constructions where they are assimilated with NVPs is compatible with the idea that two domains exist in the construction, in a way that we will make explicit below. The most plausible biclausal analysis one could apply to V-C-Subj constructions is one where the verbal predicate appears embedded inside a nonverbal predicate construction. The structure we propose for a sentence such as (28) would be (29), where we consider the clause marker to be a predicative element that heads the NVP. The label X given to the head of the lower domain is a placeholder, and nothing hinges on it at present. Note that we are also agnostic as to the mechanism that coindexes the overt subject of the predicative phrase with the unexpressed subject of the XP; presumably the element X turns precisely that argument into the predicate’s referential argument. (29)

PredP higher case domain Subj

Predʹ lower case domain Pred

XP PROi

=ki

Xʹ VP t∫aʂo

honii

X

tsaya

This analysis solves the problem of neutral case assignment by making the A subject the subject of an NVP construction, and having the subordinated

,  ,  

379

clause define a separate domain for case assignment. Since NVPs are copular constructions that do not assign ergative case, the subject of this construction stays in the neutral absolutive. In contrast to the analysis presented for Mẽbêngôkre, we propose that Chácobo has no main verb in the V-C-Subj construction, only a subordinate verb. Analyzing the dependent-absolutive construction as an NVP entails as much. Before moving on to the syntactic arguments in favor of such an analysis, we consider whether, like in Mẽbêngôkre, the morphology presents prima facie reasons for us to believe that the idea that V-C-Subj constructions are complex is on the right path. The evidence is suggestive but inconclusive. The clause-type markers across the verbal predicate, nonverbal predicate, and V-C-Subj constructions overlap in form and function, but they are not the same. An overview of the clause-type markers across the three constructions is presented in Table 15.1. There are between two and three pairs of clause-type markers that provide evidence that the V-C-Subj construction should be treated as a type of NVP. The partial identity in the reporative forms (kiá and Ɂi kiá) can be considered evidence of identity between V-C-Subj constructions and NVPs, as Ɂi can be shown from other constructions to be a subordinator. The pair Ɂi ní and ní of interrogative forms is evidence for the same reason, even if Ɂi does not occur consistently across all clause-type markers in the V-C-Subj construction. On the other hand there are also three clause-type markers that are identical in form and nearly identical in meaning across the verbal predicate construction and the V-C-Subj construction: kɨ ‘declarative, past, anterior’, ní ‘interrogative, remote past’, and Ɂá ‘declarative, past, anterior’. It is nevertheless relevant that an aspectual (‘anterior’) rather than temporal reading is associated with these markers in the V-C-Subj construction.

Table 15.1 Clause-type markers across different clause-types

Declarative

Verbal predicate

V-C-Subj

kɨ ‘declarative, past’

kɨ ‘declarative, anterior’ ki ‘declarative, non past’

Nonverbal predicate

ki ‘declarative, future’ ʂo ‘declarative, present’ Interrogative ní ‘interrogative, ní ‘interrogative, remote past’ ní ‘interrogative’ remote past’ Ɂá ‘interrogative, anterior’ Ɂá ‘interrogative, past’ Ɂi ní ‘interrogative, non past’ (ní ‘interrogative’) Imperative wɨ ‘imperative’ Reportative Ɂi kiá ‘reportative’ kiá ‘reportative’

380 ´       The fact that apparently identical clause-type markers have very different interpretations depending on whether they occur in verbal predicate constructions or V-C-Subj constructions has been discussed in Tallman (2018) and Tallman & Stout (2016). Here we provide a brief synopsis. In verbal predicate constructions, the marker kɨ encodes past tense in the sense that it relates utterance time to topic time. In its default interpretation it advances narrative time, although it cannot be considered perfective because it does not always have this function (Tallman, 2018; Tallman & Stout, 2018). These properties of kɨ are shown in the following examples. (30) a. hatsi ɨ-a=rí then 1-= ‘Then, I ate as well.’

pi=kɨ eat=.

b. pi=Ɂá hɨnɨ nami-na=Ɂá=ka ɨ eat=. chicha thick-.=.= 1 bótɨ=kɨ descend=. ‘After I ate, I lowered the chicha that had thickened.’ c. ha-tó=bɨta=ʂó ɨ-a=rí náka náka=kɨ 3-== 1-=too chew~chew=. tsɨmo=kana ha =kɨ darken=go.. 3 =. ‘With them I was chewing (on the yuca) as well, while it got darker.’ However, in V-C-Subj construction kɨ can only have an anterior or relative past interpretation. It cannot advance narrative time. The examples in (31), taken from a narrative, illustrates this: (31) a. bɨpana=0 panɨ =kirí i=ní=kɨ large_house= wall = be==. ‘He (the vampire) was beside the wall of the large house.’ b. . . . nii nobá=na=ki yabo-ko=kɨ kiá ʂatʃi stop/stand 1.== tie-=.  grass ‘He was standing, the stock of grass already tied around his arm [lit., our body part].’ Details on all the semantic differences between kɨ and Ɂá in verbal predicate constructions as opposed to V-C-Subj constructions can be found in Tallman

,  ,  

381

(2018: 715–845). A full analysis of these semantic differences and how they relate to the constructions in which they appear is beyond the scope of this chapter. Note, however, that if due to their semantic differences we analyze kɨ and Ɂá as pairs of homophonous but semantically distinct morphemes, then the morphological evidence points less ambiguously to identifying the V-CSubj construction with the NVP. To summarize, rather than clearly supporting a biclausal analysis, the form of clause-type markers suggest that the V-C-Subj construction occupies some intermediate status between verbal clauses and NVPs. There is suggestive syntactic and semantic evidence that points to a biclausal analysis of the former, however, which we will go through now. The first argument comes from fronting. Chácobo has a VP-fronting construction where the NP object plus the verb stem front to a focused position (see Tallman, 2018: 322–7, for discussion). Prima facie both V-CSubj and the verbal predicate constructions should allow the VP to front: Both involve a VP, and there is no clear functional or pragmatic reason for V-CSubj constructions to behave any differently from verbal predicates. However, only the verbal predicate construction allows VP-fronting:⁶ (32) a. yoʂa= 0 tsi kiá tʃaʂo woman= 5  deer ‘The woman saw the deer.’

tsaya=kɨ see=.

b. [tʃaʂo tsaya] tsi kiá yoʂa= 0 wa=kɨ [deer see] 5  woman= =. ‘The woman saw the deer / ~ As for the seeing of the deer, the woman did it.’ (33)

* tʃaʂo tsaya tsi kiá =kɨ yoʂa deer see 5  = woman Intended: ‘it is said that the woman has been seen by the deer’

The landing position for fronted constituents is in the matrix clause, as is signaled by the position of the tense morpheme (tsi ‘position 5’). VP-fronting, being clause bound, cannot place the VP outside this clitic. Even if the tense clitic seeks to be in second position, it cannot break up the subordinate clause

⁶ Note that the morphemes tsi and kiá are Wackernagel clitics which always occur following the first constituent (NP or VP) (Tallman, 2018).

382 ´       to appear after the subordinated VP. This explains the ungrammaticality of (33). An alternative analysis where V-C-Subj constructions are posited to have the same structure as regular verbal clauses would not be able to capture this restriction on VP-fronting other than by stipulation. A second argument for a biclausal analysis of V-C-Subj constructions comes from the observation that there is tighter constituency between a verb and its complement, as attested by the lack of object-subject permutation in such constructions. In Chácobo verbal predicate constructions with ergative alignment, the subject and object can be variably ordered with respect to each other, allowing SOV, OSV, OVS orders (SVO is possible but somewhat marked and less common). Examples of SOV and OVS are provided in (32) above. An example of OSV can be seen in (34): (34) tʃaʂo tsi kiá yoʂa=0 deer 5  woman= ‘The woman saw the deer.’

tsaya=kɨ see=.

However, in V-C-Subj constructions, not only is the subject obligatorily after the clause-type marker, but in addition the object and subject cannot be freely permuted. The construction displays a fixed OVS order. VOS is completely banned and VSO requires an utterance pause and is most felicitously translated into two sentences. These facts are illustrated in (35). (35) a. * tsaya=ki tʃaʂo yoʂa see=. deer woman Intended: ‘The woman sees the deer.’ b. #tsaya=ki yoʂa . . . tʃaʂo see=. woman deer Intended: ‘The woman has seen it . . . The deer.’ The impossibility of the subject intervening between the object and the verb in V-C-Subj constructions, as opposed to the free order in standard verbal predicate constructions, receives a straightforward explanation if verb and object are contained in a separate domain that cannot be interrupted by the subject. A third argument for a biclausal structure comes from the syntax and semantics of the reportative marker. The reportative marker can occur in

,  ,  

383

the verbal predicates, nonverbal predicates, and V-C-Subj constructions. Its position and scope in these three types of clause reveals that V-C-Subj constructions align with NVPs. In verbal predicate constructions the reportative must occur before the obligatory clause-type rank morpheme. For instance, the sentence in (36) is a verbal predicate construction; the reportative marker occurs before the verb and the clause-type morpheme. (36) hatsi kiá yobɨka=0 romɨ pí=kɨ and  shaman= tobacco eat=. ‘[It is said that] then the shaman chewed on the tobacco.’ A minimally contrastive V-C-Subj construction would be as in (37), where the subject noun phrase is moved to a position after the clause-type/rank morpheme and does not have ergative case. (37) a. * hatsi kiá romɨ pí=kɨ yóbɨka and  tobacco eat= shaman Intended: ‘[It is said that] the shaman has chewed the tobacco.’ b. * hatsi kiá romɨ pí=ki yóbɨka and  tobacco eat=. shaman Intended: ‘[It is said that] the shaman is chewing tobacco.’ However, such sentences are ungrammatical unless the reportative also moves to a position to the right of the clause-type morpheme, right before the subject. This is illustrated in (38). (38) a. hatsi romɨ pí=kɨ kiá yóbɨka and tobacco eat=  shaman ‘[It is said that] the shaman has chewed the tobacco.’ b. hatsi romɨ pí=Ɂi kiá yóbɨka and tobacco eat=  shaman ‘[It is said that] the shaman is chewing tobacco.’ One way of understanding the distributional restriction on reportatives would be to postulate that the candidate low domain of the V-C-Subj construction cannot be modified by the reportative. This would follow from the analysis presented in (29), as it is common for embedded clauses to

384 ´       have restrictions on modal or evidential modification. Reportatives are thus associated to the main predicate across clause-types in Chácobo. In the V-CSubj constructions, in particular, the reportatives must occur in the candidate high domain as markers in the nonverbal predicate construction. A distributional fact about reportative markers in NVP constructions corroborates this interpretation. In nonverbal predicate constructions, reportative marker kiá is in contrastive distribution with other clause-type markers (see Tallman, 2018: ch. 4, for details). This is illustrated in (39). (39) a. kaɁɨ=ʂɨni tsi ʂo yobɨka know= 5 . shaman ‘The shaman is/was wise.’ b. kaɁɨ=ʂɨni tsi kiá yobɨka know= 5  shaman ‘It is said that the shaman is wise.’ Notice that the typical order of the reportative in relation to the subject is identical to its order in the V-C-Subj construction. Understanding the V-CSubj construction as an NVP construction naturally accounts for this fact. A fourth argument comes from the exponence of subject plurality. Like in Mẽbêngôkre, even though the construction in question is biclausal, it is nevertheless impossible for two coreferential subjects to occur in the low domain and the high domain, as illustrated in (40). (40) a. ha/yoʂa= 0 tʃaʂo tsaya=kɨ 3/woman= deer see=. ‘She / The woman saw the deer.’ b. * haii tʃaʂo tsaya=ki 3 deer see=. ‘The woman sees the deer.’

yoʂaii woman

Though an overt subject cannot precede the verb in V-C-Subj constructions in the candidate low domain, there are exponents of subject plural marking which can occur in the candidate low domain that suggest that it is a separate domain from the high domain with regard to number marking. First, note that in Chácobo the third person plural subject pronoun ha . . . =kan displays extended exponence. One part of the pronoun occurs prior to the verb and the other part occurs between the verb root and the clause-type morpheme. This is illustrated in (41). The first part of the pronoun is optional.

,  ,  

385

(41) (ha) tsaɁo=ká(n)=kɨ 3 sit==. ‘They sat down.’ This cannot be regarded as number agreement because it is ungrammatical for kán to appear when an overt NP is in place. This is illustrated in (42). (42) a. * hóni=bo tsaɁo=ká(n)=kɨ man= sit==. ‘The men sat down while going.’ b. honi=bo tsaɁo=kɨ man= sit=. ‘They men sat down while going.’ While kán cannot occur with an overt preverbal subject in the verbal predicate construction, the kán must occur when the subject is plural in the V-C-Subj construction. Thus, the distribution of kán in the V-C-Subj construction is the mirror image of its distribution in verbal predicate constructions; compare (42) with (43): (43) a. tsaɁo=ká(n)=kɨ hóni=bo sit==. man= ‘The men sat down while going.’ b. * tsaɁo=kɨ hóni=bo sit=. man= Intended: ‘The men have sat down while going.’ It should also be noted that the distribution of kán in V-C-Subj constructions is identical to its distribution in nonverbal predicate constructions, as shown by the following examples: (44) a. tɨtɨka=bo =ka(n) ʂo/kiá/ní honi=bo long= = // man= ‘The men are long/tall. / It is said that the men are tall. / Are the men tall?’ b. ʂobo katʃa rɨa-mɨ=tí=kan=kiá isko ʂokɨ=bo house outside fill-=== gorse= ‘The gorses filled the outside of the house.’

386 ´       Another exponent of plural marking is verb root suppletion. In Chácobo, verb roots undergo suppletion when they have a plural pronominal subject. The pattern they follow is identical to the one that describes the contribution of kan described above. A full NP cannot co-occur with the plural allomorph in a regular verbal clause, as may be seen in (45c). However, in the V-C-Subj construction, the plural form of the verb has to appear, as (46) shows. (45) a. honi=bo ka=kɨ man= go./=. ‘The men went.’ b. ha bo=ka(n)=kɨ 3 go./==. ‘They went.’ c. * honi=bo bo(=kan)=kɨ man= go./==. ‘The men went.’ (46) a. * ka=kɨ honi=bo go=. man= ‘The men went.’ b. bo=kan=kɨ honi=bo go==. man= ‘The men went.’ In conclusion, the exponents of plurality function as if there was no overt NP subject in the candidate low domain of the V-C-Subj construction. If the V-C-Subj construction was monoclausal we would not expect the marking of plurality to operate differently than it does in the normal verbal predicate construction. However, the distribution of the plural pronominal element in the V-C-Subj construction is the same as in the NVP, which is predicted by the analysis sketched in this section.

15.4 When is there reanalysis? In both Mẽbêngôkre progressives and Chácobo V-C-Subj constructions, a number of diagnostics support the idea that two distinct domains exist, with effects on case assignment and in a number of other operations. We have

,  ,  

387

postulated that in both cases what is responsible for the separation of the clause into domains is a nominalizing element, whether overt (as in Mẽbêngôkre and Basque) or covert (as in Chácobo). We propose the following reference structure, uniting both the Chácobo V-C-Subj construction and the Mẽbêngôkre progressive: (47)

VP

higher case domain

Subji

Vʹ nP

lower case domain

V n

√P √ʹ

Subji Obj

√

The primary elements represented in this structure are the following: 1. The ‘main verb’ is a categoriless root, with its arguments, one of which is covert. The association of arguments to roots is a simplifying assumption whose motivation we cannot discuss for reasons of space. 2. The root’s projection merges with a n category head (or possibly an underspecified category head, standing for n and a). 3. The subject is actually subject of a higher predicate, represented as V. It is coindexed with the covert subject of the ‘main verb’, but in neither case discussed here does it form a movement chain with it. The basic properties of the two constructions follow almost trivially from this representation: The absence of dependent case is a consequence of the separation of two domains by n, and the facts surrounding constituency and the distribution of pronouns in Chácobo are unproblematically represented in the structure. The differences between the constructions are of course numerous, but they do not affect the account: 1. In the Mẽbêngôkre progressive there is a thematic relation between V and the higher subject, while in Chácobo V is simply a copula.

388 ´       2. The morphology of n is overt in Mẽbêngôkre, but not in Chácobo. 3. While in Mẽbêngôkre the nP is licensed by means of a P, in Chácobo it is directly licensed by the copula. 4. Specifiers are left-branching in Mẽbêngôkre, and thus subjects are initial. A number of traits of the constructions that seemed to contradict the basic analysis do not force us to change this account: 1. The fact that in Mẽbêngôkre the nP cannot be fronted like other objects while retaining its meaning is a consequence of the obligatory control construction in which it sits: The only way in which the covert subject can be coindexed with the overt matrix clause subject is by being ccommanded by it; this constraint also applies to other constructions that involve coindexing between an overt matrix subject and a covert subject of a nominalized clause. 2. That not all the clause-type markers are the same between the Chácobo V-C-Subj construction and nonverbal predicates most likely has to do with semantic rather than categorial selection between the clause-type markers and the predicate: Though nominal, V-C-Subj constructions do not always encode stative notions, like other nonverbal predicates. It is to be expected that temporal and aspectual markers be sensitive to that difference. To conclude our exposition, we need to address three interrelated questions: (i) what is the relationship between nominalization and case domains, (ii) when can restructuring be said to have transformed a construction with two domains into a simple clause, and (iii) can diagnostics establish this in a manner that avoids circularity. Despite the many parallels between n and v in Mẽbêngôkre, there are a number of differences which we can generalize to both of the constructions focalized in this chapter. In addition to not tolerating merging with tense, n has the property of heading a phrase from which phrasal movement is impossible: n is not only a phase, but a phase without an escape hatch. This property of n is responsible for the fact that the two arguments in the constructions that we have examined here are in distinct case domains: The subject, associated with the higher domain, cannot form a chain with the thematic position inside the root phrase. We consider that restructuring consists precisely in changing this structure in (47) into one that allows a single chain to be formed between the two

,  ,  

389

domains, either by emptying out V to become an Aux (and simultaneously shifting n into a nonfinite v), or by incorporating n into the selecting V (e.g., as Hale & Keyser, 1993, propose for unergative verbs). Both of these processes should have as an automatic consequence the fusing of the two domains into a single one, and reverting to the alignment found in simple clauses. The trees in (48) represent these two restructured constructions.

VP

(48)

V’ nP √P ...

VP Subj

ni+V ti

Subj

Vʹ nP √P ...

V→Aux

n → υnfin

The types of diagnostics that would serve as good tests for the occurence of this reanalysis follow from these structures: 1. Morphological incorporation between the lower and higher predicate, and functioning of these as a unit (e.g. in inversion). 2. Agreement across domains. 3. Loss of any thematic interaction between the higher predicate and the subject. 4. Acquisition of verbal features by the lower predicate. Interestingly, if diagnostics such as these are applied to Basque as described by Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (1987), they suggest that reanalysis has in fact taken place in that case. It is not surprising that in many varieties of Basque the progressive construction behaves as a single domain for case assignment. In the presence of clear evidence for reanalysis, taking double-nominative alignment as the sole diagnostic for the partition of the clause into domains is circular, however. The Mẽbêngôkre and Chácobo constructions examined here, on the other hand, don’t pass any of the diagnostics for restructuring. We conclude that there is no reason to conclude that restructuring has taken place in either of them.

390 ´      

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank their Mẽbêngôkre and Chácobo consultants as well as the editors of the volume, Andrey Nikulin, and an anonymous reviewer for extremely helpful comments. Work on this chapter was supported by Insight Grant number 435-2018-1173 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (PI Andrés Salanova).

16 Prepositional prefixing and allosemy in nominalizations Jim Wood

In Icelandic, some verbs allow or even require a preposition to attach to them as a prefix. This is illustrated in (1), where prefixing is optional. (1)

Ϸeir (að-)laga meðferðina að they (to-)adapt treatment.the. to ‘They adapt the treatment to the patient.’

sjúklingnum. patient.the.

Some verbs do not allow prefixing when they stay verbs but require prefixing when they are nominalized (cf. Kvaran, 2005: 152–3; Bjarnadóttir, 2005: 119–20).¹ This is illustrated with hlynna ‘tend to’ in (2).² (2)

a. Prefixing impossible on verb Guðrún (*að-)hlynnti að sjúklingnum. Guðrún (*to-)tended to patient.the. ‘Guðrún tended to the patient.’ b. Prefixing obligatory on deverbal noun *(að-)hlynn-ing Guðrúnar að sjúklingnum *(to-)tend- Guðrún. to patient.the. ‘Guðrún’s tending to the patient’

A common analysis of P-prefixing cross-linguistically claims that such prefixes originate in the complement of the verb, and attach to the verb by movement (e.g. Svenonius, 2004; Biskup, 2007; Acedo-Matellán, 2010; Myler, 2011, 2013;

¹ The same thing happens with deverbal adjectivization, but I do not discuss this in this chapter. ² Icelandic has various nominalization affixes, including -ing, -un, -sla, -ð, and -a, which can be considered equivalent for the purposes of this chapter. Jim Wood, Prepositional prefixing and allosemy in nominalizations In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by: Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Jim Wood. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0016

392   Biskup & Putnam, 2012; Wood, 2015). In this chapter, I will suggest that another approach is possible, and in some cases, necessary: The preposition may adjoin directly to the complex head, without ever heading a phrase (cf. McIntyre, 2018). More broadly, I discuss how Icelandic prepositional prefixing supports three main points. First, prepositions play a dual role in constructing verb meaning—they may have meanings of their own, but they may also condition special meanings of the verbal root. Second, the patterns of prefixation we find support claim that deverbal nouns, even in the Complex Event Nominal (CEN) reading, can be built by combining heads together directly, without any phrasal material below the nP level. This is in contrast to what I call the ‘Phrasal Layering’ analysis, where what is nominalized is a full verb phrase, perhaps with a VoiceP or other extended vP layers.³ The two analyses for (2b) are shown in (3) and (4). (3)

(4)

Complex Head Analysis nP

n P að ‘to’

PP að . . . ‘to’

n v √ HLYN ‘tend’

n v

Phrasal Layering Analysis nP n

(VoiceP) (Voice)

vP PP

v √ HLYN ‘tend’

v

P að ‘to’

...

Third, adjunction and complementation define distinct domains for the conditioning of idiosyncratic meaning, and both are available for the syntactic assembly of words and phrases. The crucial pattern is that a preposition heading a PP complement can condition a special meaning on a verb without having to be a prefix, but in a nominalization of that verb, this same meaning requires that the preposition is prefixed to the derived noun.

³ See, for example, Borer (1997, 2012, 2013, 2014, Chapter 6), Roeper & van Hout (1999, 2009), Fu et al. (2001), Alexiadou (2001, 2017d, Chapter 5), Roßdeutscher & Kamp (2010), Bruening (2012), Pross (2019), Ahdout & Kastner (Chapter 4); Iordăchioaia (Chapter 10); see Coon & Royer (Chapter 7) for a root-based analysis of derived nominals in Ch’ol and Chuj.

   

393

16.1 Background 16.1.1 The basic patterns The empirical focus of this chapter is on several patterns of what happens when a P-selecting verb is nominalized, illustrated in (5)–(7). Notice that for each of these cases, prefixing is not possible for the non-nominalized verb itself. (5)

Pattern 1 (Prefixing and Doubling) a. að {*um}-ræða {um} ϸetta to {*about}-discuss {about} this ‘to discuss this’ b. um-ræð-a um ϸetta about-discuss- about this ‘discussion about this’

(6)

Pattern 2 (Prefixing Only, No Doubling) a. að {*við}-gera {við} bílinn to {*with}-do {with} car.the ‘to repair the car’ b. við-ger-ð {á bílnum / bílsins / *við bílinn} with-do- {on car.the. / car.the. / *with car.the} ‘repair of the car’

(7)

Pattern 3 (No Prefixing, PP only) a. að {*um}-hug-sa um ϸetta to think- about this ‘to think about this’ b. hug-s-un Guðrúnar um ϸetta think-- Guðrún. about this ‘Guðrún’s thinking about this’

In the first pattern, the P selected by the verb gets prefixed to the nominalization, and may be repeated as the head of a PP to introduce the argument. In the second pattern, the P selected by the verb gets prefixed to the nominalization, but the argument it would have introduced is introduced by some other means (usually one of the more general strategies for themes, an á-PP or a genitive). In the third pattern, there is no prefixing, and the noun selects the same P that the verb does.

394   The basic intuition guiding the general proposal is that these patterns reflect the ‘dual role’ of prepositions for verb meaning. On the one hand, prepositions may have their own semantics (so ‘to’ means something different from ‘at’ or ‘from’), or not (so some prepositions may serve a purely formal purpose). On the other hand, prepositions may condition allosemy on the root. For example, pick means something different in pick on someone ‘tease someone’ and pick someone ‘choose someone’. I will propose that in nominalizations, a prefixed P serves the latter function, whereas a P heading a PP complement serves the former function. I will derive this pattern by proposing that prefixed prepositions adjoin to the derived, complex n head, and that this adjunction creates a locality domain for special meaning different from complementation (cf. Harðarson, 2016). When the preposition is in the complement of the derived nominal, it is too far away from the root to condition special meaning. This explanation entails that deverbal nominals can be built as complex heads directly, without any phrasal structure, as proposed by Wood (2020). As we will see, it is unclear how this could be derived in an analysis where what is nominalized is a full verb phrase, since the locality between the root and the preposition would be identical for all cases on such an analysis.

16.1.2 Borer’s Generalization and the CEN reading I assume that the presence of a verbalizing v head in a noun is diagnosed either by its overt phonological realization (as in (7b)), or by the availability of a CEN interpretation (see Chapter 1). It is thus important to observe that all three patterns are possible with a CEN reading, as briefly illustrated in (8) and (9) for patterns 1 and 2, respectively (see (45b) for pattern 3). In these examples, we see telicity PPs ((8a) and (9a)), eventive modifiers ((8b) and (9a)), an agentive modifier (the instrument phrase in (9b)), and an external argument interpretation of the genitive (all examples). (8)

a. að-hlynn-ing Guðrúnar að sjúklingnum í to-tend- Guðrún. to patient.the for ‘Guðrún’s tending to the patient for 10 years’

10 ár 10 years

b. endurtekin á-bend-ing nemandans á skekkjurnar repeated on-point- student.the. on errors.the. ‘the student’s repeated pointing out of the errors’

    (9)

395

a. {stöðug / endurtekin} við-vör-un Guðrúnar á {constant / repeated} with-warn- Guðrún. on hættunni (í tíu ár) danger.the. (for ten years) ‘Guðrún’s {constant/repeated} warning of the danger (for ten years)’ b. við-ger-ð Guðrúnar á bílnum mínum with-do- Guðrún. on car.the. my sleggju sledge.hammer ‘Guðrún’s repairing of my car with a sledge hammer’

með with

It is the CEN reading that Phrasal Layering analyses generally derive by nominalizing a full (extended) vP. One fundamental reason for this has to do with what I call ‘Borer’s Generalization’ in Wood (2020). Although the observation is not originally due to Borer (see e.g. Alexiadou & Grimshaw, 2008, for discussion), Borer (see especially Borer, 2014) has emphasized the generalization that CENs are always built off of an existing, morphologically related verb with the same meaning. She points out that categorized verbs often lack argument structure and complex event meaning (e.g. in Result Nominals), so the connection between eventive meaning and argument structure must stem from functional layers in the extended verb phrase. Borer’s generalization is derived if the CEN reading can only be derived in a verb phrase, and CENs are built by nominalizing verb phrases. In Wood (2020), I raise a variety of problems for the Phrasal Layering analysis as applied to Icelandic CENs, and argue that Borer’s Generalization follows from the presence of a little v with a particular alloseme, even if it is contained in a complex head and never projects a vP. That is, once we recognize that one and the same syntactic little v is compatible with several semantic denotations via allosemy, we no longer require vP-internal functional heads to explain why verbs only sometimes occur with arguments and complex event meaning. As we will see, this analysis allows for an explanation of why selected prepositions sometimes prefix only to the nominal, and even then, are only sometimes doubled/repeated in the PP complement.⁴ But equally important is the fact that on the CEN reading, the derived noun still appears to inherit its meaning and argument structure from the ⁴ See Wood (2020) for more detailed discussion of how the modifiers diagnosing CENs are sensitive to the allosemy of v rather than the presence of a vP; in short, diagnostics that are sensitive to an event variable introduced by v are expected to be grammatical with derived nominals in the CEN reading, whereas diagnostics that are sensitive to the presence of a syntactic vP are predicted to be ungrammatical with derived nominals.

396   underlying verb; that is, Borer’s Generalization holds of the P-prefix derived nominals discussed in this chapter, even when an idiosyncratic meaning of the root is conditioned by the presence of the preposition. Consider, for example, the noun við-ger-ð ‘repair’. Here, við conditions a special meaning of the root; however, this is the same special meaning that exists in the verb phrase (gera við ‘repair’) where við is not a prefix, but heads its own PP. Thus, the noun viðgerð in the CEN reading seems to inherit its meaning from the verb phrase.

16.1.3 Allosemy An important idea underlying the proposal in this chapter is that the meanings of lexical items are underdetermined in the absence of syntactic structure, something referred to as allosemy. Allosemy is like allomorphy, only in the semantics: The meaning of a terminal node is determined post-syntactically. (10) Morphology

form1

Syntax Semantics

form2

form3

Allomorphy

F MEANING1

MEANING2

MEANING3

Allosemy

This can apply to roots or functional heads. In the present chapter, the focus will mostly be on roots and prepositions.⁵ However, it is clear that the meaning contribution of little v is influenced by both the preposition and the root. Like allomorphy, allosemy can be conditioned by surrounding elements. Harley (2014: 244), for example, describes the various interpretations of the English word throw as a set of post-syntactic interface instructions. (11)

PF Instructions LF Instructions √ 77$/θrow/ √ 77$ ‘vomit’ / [v[[__]√ [up]P]]vP $ ‘a light blanket’ / [n[__]√] { . . . other meanings in other contexts . . . } $ ‘throw’ / elsewhere

⁵ For allosemy of functional heads, see Wood (2012, 2015, 2016); Marantz (2013); Myler (2014, 2016); Kastner (2016, 2017); Wood & Marantz (2017); Nie (submitted); and Oseki (submitted); among others.

   

397

There is an important question of what the locality constraints on such conditioning are, a question that will drive much of the discussion below.

16.1.4 Icelandic nominalizations To follow the discussion below, it is worth reviewing the basic patterns of nominalization in Icelandic. First, note that the direct object theme in the verb phrase can be expressed by a genitive DP or by an á-PP in the nominalization (Jóhannsdóttir, 1995), where the object of á is assigned dative case. (In other uses, such as when it is selected by particular verbs, á in Icelandic may assign accusative case.) (12)

a. Ϸau eyðileggja they. destroy ‘They destroy cities.’

borgir. cities.

b. eyðilegg-ing borgarinnar destroy- city.the. ‘the destruction of the city’ c. eyðilegg-ing-in á borginni destroy--the on city.the. ‘the destruction of the city’ The genitive DP generally follows the head noun. Note that when an á-PP is used, the noun often takes a definite suffix. When a genitive DP is used, the noun usually cannot take a definite suffix, although it may still be considered definite. (Some dialects do allow a definite suffix in this environment.) This works exactly as ordinary possessive genitives work: (13)

bók stelpu-nnar book girl-the. ‘the girl’s book’

(14)

* bók-in stelpu-nnar book-the girl-the. ‘the girl’s book’

16.2 Proposal: structural constraints on allosemy The basic picture that I propose is one where adjunction to a complex head and complementation to a complex head create different locality domains for

398   the conditioning of special meaning. First, I will present the basic claim schematically. Consider the verb structures in (15): (15)

b. P in Complement vP

a. P in Complex Head v P

v

v √ ROOT

v

√ ROOT

PP P ...

v

In (15a), P is adjoined to the complex v head, whereas in (15b), P heads a PP complement of the complex v head. In both of the structures in (15), P can condition special meaning on the root—whether it is adjoined to the complex v head or heads the complement PP.⁶ Now consider the derived nominal structures in (16). (16)

a. P in Complex Head n P

b. P in Complement nP n

n v √ root

n v

n

v √ root

PP

v

P ...

X

In (16), P can condition special meaning on the root only when it is in the complex head, not when it heads the complement PP.⁷ Let us try to flesh out why this is, by turning to our assumptions about special meaning. First, we assume that the complement of a verb must be able to affect the meaning of the verb root. This seems to be a basic empirical fact that any theory must be able to reckon with. Second, we assume that special meaning is subject to some kind of phase locality (Marantz, 2013), and that n and v are ⁶ A reviewer asks if more than one element can condition allosemy at the same time, and Anton Karl Ingason asks if adjunction to a complex head is recursive. In principle, the answer to both questions is yes, although there may be stricter conditions on the locality of allosemy beyond phase-locality, an issue which I cannot explore here. ⁷ As currently formulated, a truly denominal or de-adjectival verb should not be able to get a special meaning conditioned by a PP complement; I have not examined this prediction closely.

   

399

phase heads. As for the nature of the phase locality, Embick (2010) argues that a morphological dependency may cross no more than one phase head, and I assume that allosemy should work the same way. The question now is what it means for a dependency to ‘cross’ a phase head (or two), and why adjunction should be different from complementation. We can make sense of the latter question if we assume that adjunction creates segments of a category, and that, following Kayne (1994: 16), segments do not enter into c-command relations. (17)

X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y. (Kayne, 1994: 16)

Given this, the crucial difference between (16a) and (16b) is that n c-commands P in (16b) but not in (16a). (18) a. C-command relations in (16a) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P »  » v » n pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  » v » P

b. C-command relations in (16b) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  » v » n » P

If we assume that locality is defined by c-command, there are two phase heads pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi intervening between  and P in (16b), so allosemy is not possible. In pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (16a) and (15b), only one (at most) phase head intervenes between  and P, so allosemy is possible. Adjoining P to n means that n does not pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi c-command P, and thus does not intervene between P and the . The empirical consequences of this proposal are as follows. First, when pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P and  must be visible to each other for conditioning root meaning, prefixing will be obligatory in nominalization. If (19a) is not an option, (19b) will be required. (19)

a.

b.

n v P

n

P

n v

v √ root

n

v

√ root

n v

Second, (16b) will only be possible when P makes its own semantic contribution, and does not condition special meaning on the root. Third, doubling will arise when P makes its own semantic contribution and conditions special meaning on the root. This involves separate uses of the same P.

400  

nP

(20)

n

PP

P

P ...

n v √ root

n v

I now turn to a brief discussion of prefixing to verbs, in order to set the stage for the argument for taking P to adjoin to the n head directly.

16.3 Prefixing to verbs I first note that Icelandic does not freely or productively prefix prepositions to verbs. Moreover, prepositional prefixing is not ‘separable’ in the Germanic sense; once something is a prefix, it stays with the verb. It is a very common phenomenon, but it is also very ‘lexicalized’—whether it happens depends on the particular verb and preposition in a rather unpredictable manner. I suggest two basic structures for prefixing of prepositions to verbs, which are shown in (21). Drawing inspiration from the analysis of Greek synthetic compounds in Iordăchioaia et al. (2017), I assume that (21a) predicts the existence of an independent verb (without the prefix), whereas (21b) does not. In both cases, P may condition a special interpretation of the root. (21)

a.

b.

v P

v √ root

v P

√ root

v

v

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi I assume that the availability of (21a–b) for a given -P pair is essentially idiosyncratic and listed. What is important here is that if either of these two structures exist in the language, then we expect the prefixed verb to be well formed whether it is part of a deverbal noun/adjective or not. So when the verb is not possible, it must be the case that the prepositional prefix attaches higher, such as to the n level.

   

401

In principle, a large number of prepositions—maybe all simplex ones—can be prefixed at least sometimes. Some examples are presented in (22) below. (22)

Verb Prefix a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

að af á eftir frá fyrir upp um úr við yfir

‘to/at’

að-vara ‘warn’ ‘from’ af-henda ‘deliver’ ‘on’ á-kveða ‘decide’ ‘after’ eftir-láta ‘leave behind’ ‘from’ frá-biðja ‘reject’ ‘for’ fyrir-bjóða ‘forbid’ ‘up’ upp-fylla ‘fulfull’ ‘about’ um-orða ‘paraphrase’ ‘out of ’ úr-elda ‘decommission’ ‘with’ við-hafa ‘use’ ‘over’ yfir-drífa ‘exaggerate’

Deverbal Only að-dáun ‘admiration’ af-lestur ‘reading’ á-bending ‘indication’ eftir-vænting ‘expectation’ frá-saga ‘story’ fyrir-lestur ‘lecture’ upp-lestur ‘recital’ um-fjöllun ‘discussion’ úr-felling ‘omission’ við-ræða ‘conversation’ yfir-drottnun ‘dominancy’

I now turn to the patterns we find in nominals derived from verbs that take PP complements.

16.4 Prefixing to derived nominals 16.4.1 Pattern 1: Prefixing and doubling In the first pattern, the noun derived from a P-selecting verb must prefix P to the noun. The preposition may then be doubled to express the argument of the original PP. Consider the verb benda, which has a compositional meaning ‘point at’ (physical gesture) and a more idiosyncratic meaning ‘indicate/point out’. (23)

a. Ϸað er dónalegt að benda á ókunnugt it is rude to point on unknown ‘It is rude to point at strangers.’8 b. Nemandinn benti á skekkjuna. student.the. pointed on mistake.the. ‘The student pointed out the mistake.’

⁸ This example is taken from the online dictionary at https://snara.is.

fólk. people.

402   The physical gesture meaning can occur with or without á, but the non gesture meaning requires á. In (24), without the preposition, the meaning can only refer to the gesture. (24)

Ekki benda! not point ‘Don’t point!’ = ‘Don’t make the pointing gesture’ ≠ ‘Don’t make observations’

The preposition cannot be prefixed to the verb, whether we repeat it or not. (25)

* Nemandinn á-benti (á) skekkjuna. student.the. on-pointed (on) mistake.the. ‘The student pointed out the mistake.’

According to the view adopted here, this means that neither of the structures in (21) can be contained in the derived nominal structure. When the verb is nominalized, the nongesture meaning requires the preposition to prefix to the nominal. (26)

* Bend-ing-in á skekkjuna kom sér point--the on mistake.the. came  fyrir kennarann. for teacher.the

(27)

Á-bend-ing-in á skekkjuna kom sér vel on-point--the on mistake.the. came  well fyrir kennarann. for teacher.the ‘The pointing out of the mistake was good for the teacher.’ (Jóhannsdóttir, 1995: 71)

I propose the structure in (28) for the noun phrase in (27):

vel well

   

403

nP

(28)

PP

n P á ‘on’

á skekkjuna ‘on the mistake’

n v

√ bend ‘point’

v

n -ing

The prefixing conditions the appropriate meaning of the root. Without the prefix, the noun bending exists, but it refers only to a gesture. As shown in the above examples and represented in the structure in (28), the prefixed preposition can also be repeated. But in effect, this is not really doubling; when prepositional selection seems to be inherited in a complement PP, that is only because the P is contributing some meaning of its own. This leads us to expect that in some cases, we will simply see distinct prepositions. And in fact, Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (p.c.) points out to me that for him, while (27b) is possible, another option is (29), with the distinct preposition um ‘about’. (29)

á-bend-ing-in um skekkjuna on-point--the about mistake.the. ‘the pointing out of the mistake’

This makes sense: if á ‘on’ is prefixed, then it is not strictly necessary in the PP for the purposes of constructing verb meaning. Nevertheless, the prefixing of á ‘on’ is necessary, and um ‘about’ cannot serve this function. (30)

* {bend-ing / um-bend-ing} {point- / about-point-}

um skekkjuna about mistake.the

What this shows is that um can serve the secondary, semantic role of introducing the argument, but it is not involved in conditioning root meaning.

404   For a related version of this doubling pattern, consider the verbs in (31): (31)

a. Ϸeir laga sig *(að) they adapt . *(to) ‘They adapt to the changes.’

breytingunum. changes.the.

b. Ϸeir að-laga sig (að) they to-adapt . (to) ‘They adapt to the changes.’

breytingunum. changes.the.

In this case, we see that the P must be overtly realized somewhere, but it need not be prefixed to the verb. If it is not prefixed, it is obligatorily overt as the head of a separate PP. If it is prefixed, it may or may not also be realized overtly as the head of a separate PP. Now consider what happens if it is nominalized, as illustrated in (32). (32)

a. að-lög-un *(að) breytingunum to-adapt- *(to) changes.the. ‘adaptation to the changes’ b. *lög-un (að) breytingunum to-adapt- (to) changes.the. c. *lög-un breytinganna to-adapt- changes.the.

Here, in the nominal—unlike the verb—we see that prefixing and doubling is obligatory: The only acceptable structure is the one with the prefix and the overt PP head. Why might this be? Consider the structure of the verb phrase without prefixing: (33)

vP v

√ lag ‘adapt’

PP v

að breytingunum ‘to the changes’

In this structure, the preposition að determines/conditions the meaning of the pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi root  and contributes its own meaning. Without að, the root  can still form a verb, but with the meaning ‘fix/repair’.

    er bilað, geturðu lagað ϸað Hjólið bike.the is broken can.you fix it. ‘The bike is broken, can you fix it for me?’9

(34)

405

fyrir mig? for me

Likewise, the nominal lögun, without prefixing, is possible (most commonly meaning ‘form/shape’), but it cannot mean ‘adapt’. Consider what the structure would look like, according to the present proposal.

*nP

(35)

n v

PP n -un

v

√ lag ‘adapt’

að breytingunum ‘to the changes’

X In this structure, the preposition is too far away from the root to condition the ‘adapt’ meaning. In contrast, adjunction—either to v as in (36) or to n as in (37)—brings it close enough.¹⁰ nP

(36)

PP

n n -un

v P að ‘to’

v √lag ‘adapt’

v

nP

(37)

að breytingunum ‘to the changes’

n P að ‘to’

PP n v

√lag ‘adapt’

v

n -un

að breytingunum ‘to the changes’

Once again, the preposition can be doubled in the PP because að, in addition to conditioning special meaning, has clear directional meaning of its own. This doubling is not necessary in (33), because one instance of að can do both things: The interpretation of the root can be sensitive to its presence, and it can contribute its own directional meaning. In this case, the directional meaning is

⁹ This example is taken from the online dictionary at https://snara.is. ¹⁰ Since v is an option, (36) may seem the most likely option. However, since prefixing to v is not obligatory, (37) is just as possible, and it is also possible that the word is arbitrarily ambiguous between the two structures.

406   important enough to the overall meaning that the argument of P cannot be expressed without the preposition. (38)

*að-lög-un to-adapt-

breytinganna changes.the.

16.4.2 Pattern 2: Prefixing only In the second pattern, we also see cases where the nominal forces prefixation, but doubling does not occur. In these cases, the preposition’s sole (semantic) purpose is to condition the interpretation of the root. Consider the examples in (39): (39)

a. Guðrún gerði við bílinn. Guðrún did with car.the. ‘Guðrún repaired the car.’ b. * Guðrún við-gerði (við) bílinn. Guðrún with-did with car.the. : ‘Guðrún repaired the car.’

Here the verb gera ‘do’, when combined with the preposition við ‘with’, means ‘repair/fix’. This meaning is only available with the preposition, and the preposition cannot be prefixed to the verb. As in Pattern 1, however, in the nominalization, prefixation of the preposition is obligatory for this meaning to obtain. (40)

a. *ger-ð {á bílnum / bílsins / við bílinn} do- {on car.the. / car.the. / with car.the} : ‘repair of the car’11 b. Við-ger-ð {á bílnum / bílsins / *við bílinn} with-do- {on car.the. / car.the. / *with car.the} tók langan tíma. took long time ‘Repair of the car took a long time.’

It is important to note that while the relationship between the root and the preposition is noncompositional in a sense, it is not a noncompositionality specific to the noun. The same noncompositional meaning applies to the verb ¹¹ This string may be grammatical with other readings.

   

407

phrase, the only difference being that the preposition is not prefixed to the verb, but rather heads the complement PP. The noun, however, still inherits all of its meaning from the verb and, as can be seen from the above examples, forms a CEN. Unlike in Pattern 1, however, the preposition may not be repeated. Instead, its argument can be expressed in one of the ‘default’ nominalization ways, such as with semantically vacuous á-PP or with a genitive DP (for some speakers).¹² According to the present proposal, this is because við does not contribute anything semantically in gera við ‘fix’; rather, it conditions the meaning of the verb(al root). As before, the nominal gerð is well formed with other meanings, such as ‘make (of a car)’, ‘design’, ‘structure’, ‘version’, ‘act’. To emphasize the main point, the head of a complement PP is close enough to the root in the vP structure to have this meaning effect, but not in the nominal. (41)

a. P may condition root meaning b. P may not condition root meaning vP *nP PP

v √ ger ‘do’

v

PP

n

við bílinn ‘with the car’

v √ ger ‘do’

v

n -ð

við bílinn ‘with the car’

Adjunction of P to n, as shown in (42), brings P close enough to the root to condition special meaning. (42)

P may condition root meaning nP n P við ‘with’

PP á bílnum ‘ofthe car’

n v

√ ger ‘do’

v

n -ð

¹² Not all speakers accept the genitive here, but most of the speakers I have asked do, and attested examples can be found.

408   Two more examples of this pattern involve the verbs dást að ‘admire (to)’ and annast um ‘take care of ’, which are nominalized as aðdáun and umönnun, respectively.¹³ For both, P must be prefixed to the noun, but cannot be repeated in the complement of the derived noun. (43)

a. Guðrún (*að-)dáðist (að) Maríu. Guðrún (*to-)admired (to) Mary ‘Guðrún admired Mary.’ b. að-dá-un Guðrúnar {á to-admire- Guðrún. {on ‘Guðrún’s admiration of Mary.’ c. * dá-un Guðrúnar {á admire- Guðrún. {on

(44)

a. Hún {*um-}ann-aðist (um) she {*of-}take.care- (of) ‘She took care of the child.’

/ *að} Maríu / *to} Mary / að} / to}

Maríu Mary

barnið. child.the

b. um-önn-un-in {á barninu / *um barnið} of-take.care--the {on child.the. / *of child.the.} ‘the taking care of the child’ c. * önn-un-in {á barninu / um take.care--the {on child.the. / of

barnið} child.the.}

d. um-önn-un barnsins of-take.care- child.the. ‘the taking care of the child’ e. * önn-un barnsins take.care- child.the.

16.4.3 Pattern 3: Nominal selects the same PP In the final pattern that we see, the derived noun selects the same preposition that the verb it is based on selects, but there is no prefixing at all. In such cases, ¹³ Note that most speakers prefer to leave the preposition um out with the verb annast, and some find um better with a verb phrase like annast um málið ‘take care of the issue’. Some report a possible meaning difference, where the event is more of an activity when the preposition is present. One possibility is that the preposition is actually always present syntactically, but sometimes null, as proposed for certain other transitive -st verbs by Wood (2015: 285–90); see especially the discussion of the - verbs forðast ‘avoid’, undirgangast ‘undertake’, umgangast ‘associate with’ and áfellast ‘blame’ (Wood, 2015: 289). The judgments of the nominal form umönnun are consistent across speakers.

   

409

the preposition only contributes meaning of its own, and does not condition any special meaning on the root. We see an example of this pattern with the verb hugsa ‘think’ in (45). (45)

a. Guðrún hug-sa-ði um ϸetta. Guðrún think-- about this ‘Guðrún thought about this.’ b. hug-s-un Guðrúnar um ϸetta (í tvo tíma) think-- Guðrún. about this (for two hours) (truflaði vin hennar) (bothered friend her) ‘Guðrún’s thinking about this (for two hours) (bothered her friend)’

The verb hugsa ‘think’ may select a PP headed by um ‘about’, like ræða ‘discuss’ above. But unlike ræða ‘discuss’, when hugsa ‘think’ is nominalized, the preposition is not prefixed to the derived noun.¹⁴ The reason is that the preposition, in this context, is not needed to condition any special meaning on the verb. The meaning of the preposition um ‘about’ in this use, is quite general, found with many verbs and nouns, in uses corresponding fairly well to the English preposition ‘about’. Moreover, hugsa ‘think’ can occur without the preposition and happily retain its basic meaning. (46)

Guðrún er ennþá að hug-sa. Guðrún is still to think- ‘Guðrún is still thinking.’

Similar observations can be made about other examples. The verb færast ‘move’ may select a directional preposition like í ‘into’, with a predictable meaning. When nominalized, this preposition may head the complement of the derived nominal without prefixing to it. (47)

a. Ákveðniliðir færast í frumlagssæti. determiner.phrases move into subject.position ‘Determiner phrases move into subject position.’ b. fær-sla ákveðniliða í frumlagssæti move- determiner.phrases. into subject.position ‘the movement of determiner phrases into subject position’

¹⁴ We will see in the discussion surrounding (52) that prefixing um ‘about’ is in fact not ungrammatical, but it results in a different meaning.

410   As above, the verb has no special meaning that depends on the preposition. The same holds for traðka ‘trample’ with locative á ‘on’. (48)

a. Þeir tröð-ku-ðu á vilja þingsins. they trample-- on will parliament.the. ‘They trampled on the will of the parliament.’ b. Tröð-k-un á vilja þingsins er óþolandi. trample-- on will parliament.the. is intolerable ‘Trampling on the will of the parliament is intolerable.’ c. tröð-k-un almennings á vilja ϸingsins trample-- public. on will parliament.the. ‘the public’s trampling on the will of the parliament’ d. * tröð-k-un vilja ϸingsins trample-- will parliament.the. : ‘the trampling on the will of the parliament’

Consider also the case of the verb langa ‘want’. It may select a PP object headed by í ‘in’. When it is nominalized, this preposition is retained, along with the same basic meaning of the verb, without any prefixing. (49)

a. Guðrúnu langar í vín. Guðrún. wants in wine ‘Guðrún wants wine.’ b. löng-un hennar í vín want- her. in wine ‘her desire for wine’

From an English perspective, this may seem different from the cases above, with the use of í ‘in’ seeming more idiosyncratic. However, it is less surprising within the general system of Icelandic. First of all, note that just like um ‘about’, the í ‘in’ is not necessary for the basic meaning of the verb. (50)

Guðrúnu langar að fara. Guðrún. wants to leave ‘Guðrún wants to leave.’

This supports the present explanation for why prefixing is not needed: The verb root does not need to ‘see’ the preposition to get its meaning. Moreover, í

   

411

‘in’ is used much more generally in Icelandic than in English to introduce (generally unaffected) themes. (51)

a. að sparka í vegginn to kick in wall.the ‘to kick the wall’

b. að pota í einhvern to poke in someone ‘to poke someone’

c. að hringja í einhvern to call in someone ‘to call someone’

d. að ná í myndirnar to get in pictures.the ‘to get the pictures’ (Hilmisdóttir, 2007: 103)

Thus, the preposition í ‘in’ is not getting a special use or meaning conditioned by the verbal root of langa ‘want’; its use reflects a more general use that is found in the language. As mentioned in fn. 14, prefixing is not necessarily ungrammatical with nominals of this sort. The preposition um ‘about’ can be prefixed to hugsun ‘thinking’, but then it gets a different meaning. Instead of general thinking, it refers to ‘pondering’—really thinking, reflecting, taking one’s time, etc. The preposition um generally cannot be prefixed to the verb, however.¹⁵ (52)

a. * Guðrún um-hug-sa-ði (um) Guðrún about-think-- (about) : ‘Guðrún pondered (about) this.’

ϸetta. this

b. um-hug-s-un Guðrúnar um ϸetta about-think-- Guðrún. about this ‘Guðrún’s pondering about this’ This reading is possible with a nonnominalized verb phrase að hugsa sig um, literally ‘to think . about’, which means ‘to ponder’. Here, um is a particle which does not prefix to the verb, and the direct object is a reflexive pronoun. For examples which do not have an established special meaning, speakers’ reactions to the prefixing for derived nouns where it is unnecessary are revealing. Consider first færsla ‘movement’, which as we saw in (47) does not need a prefix. When asked whether prefixing was nevertheless possible, ¹⁵ Sigríður Sæunn Sigurðardóttir has reported encountering examples like (52a), and finds herself ‘nearly ready to accept them’. All other speakers I have asked reject this, however. Another, for present purposes irrelevant use of um- as a prefix may be possible, where umhugsa þetta would mean ‘rethink this’. This use of um- is fairly productive, and means something like ‘do again in a different way’. Its distribution has not been studied, as far as I know, and I also do not know how widely accepted its use with hugsa ‘think’ is. Halldór Sigurðsson, for example, rejects this usage, although he accepts it with umorða ‘rephrase’ and umskrifa ‘rewrite (in a different way)’.

412   speakers gave a variety of reactions. Some simply rejected it outright. Others said it was weird, but not necessarily impossible. One speaker said they felt like it meant something ‘more specific’, but could not say exactly what. Another said one ‘could make it mean something new’ if one needed to. Yet another, after rejecting it, said it would be ‘a separate noun’ and suggested that maybe it would be better in a separate context. (53)

(?? í)-fær-sla ákveðniliða í frumlagssæti (?? in)-move- determiner.phrases. into subject.position ‘the movement of determiner phrases into subject position’

Essentially the same range of reactions was found for prefixing of á ‘on’ to tröðkun ‘trampling’ and í ‘in’ to löngun ‘wanting/desire’. In fact, í-löngun is attested and can be found in the online dictionary at http://snara.is. The speakers I consulted found it unusual, however, some rejecting it, others saying it was strange but grammatical, etc. This is in sharp contrast to the reactions speakers gave to examples where prefixing is needed to condition special meaning. There, speakers judged examples without the prefix, such as (54a) (repeated from (40a)), as sharply unacceptable. (54)

a. * ger-ð {á bílnum / bílsins / við bílinn} do- {on car.the. / car.the. / with car.the} : ‘repair of the car’16 b. Við-ger-ð {á bílnum / bílsins / *við bílinn} with-do- {on car.the. / car.the. / *with car.the} tók langan tíma. took long time ‘Repair of the car took a long time.’

This general picture makes sense from the present perspective. From a purely syntactic standpoint, prepositional prefixing is a general option in the language: P may adjoin to n (or v or a, for that matter), and create another n. However, the interpretation of this operation involves the negotiation of root meaning. To put it plainly, there has to be a reason to do it: if there is no established (or computable) root semantics depending on the relation between P and the root, the result will seem strange, superfluous, and even totally unacceptable. This is essentially the same sort of issue revolving around any root-derived word. If a given root adjoins to n, to form a noun, the speaker and ¹⁶ This string may be grammatical with other readings.

   

413

the speech community must negotiate what this root + n combination will mean. According to the present proposal, prepositional prefixing is a way of fixing/establishing root meaning, so it is subject to the same kinds of conditions, despite being a generally available syntactic option.¹⁷ In contrast, speakers reject the absence of prefixing when it is necessary because there, the system does not generate the appropriate form-meaning pair. Even if speakers can easily figure out what *gerð við ϸetta ‘repair of this’ or *brögð við ϸessu ‘reaction to this’ should mean, the forms are ungrammatical. This is because the prepositions are too far away from the root to condition the appropriate meaning, so the intended meaning is not built.

16.4.4 Mixed patterns: doubling optional I have argued that apparent ‘doubling’ of a preposition indicates that the preposition has two functions. First, it expresses its own meaning, which is realized by heading a PP complement. Second, it conditions special root meaning, which is realized as prefixing of P to the derived noun. It may seem surprising, then, that in some cases, the preposition is only optionally repeated. With hlynna ‘tend’, for example, the preposition may be repeated or the relevant argument can be expressed as a genitive. (55)

að {*að}-hlynna {að} to {*to}-tend {to} ‘to tend to the patient’

sjúklingnum patient.the

a. *(að-)hlynning að sjúklingnum *(to-)tend- to patient.the. ‘tending to the patient’ b. *(að-)hlynn-ing sjúklingsins *(to-)tend- patient.the. ‘tending to the patient’

¹⁷ See, for example, the discussion of thief versus stealer in Embick & Marantz (2008). Embick & Marantz (2008) argue that the existence of thief does not directly block the formation of root-derived stealer. If there is any interaction, it may be at the level of use, not grammar: syntactically, pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [n  n-er] is grammatical. However, speakers may have never needed to create such a root nominalization. In fact, I strongly suspect that if one surveyed a variety of English speakers (who have not studied the linguistic literature on the issue) on the acceptability of stealer, the range of reactions would be highly similar to the reactions described above for ‘unnecessary’ prefixing (some rejecting, some saying ‘weird but possible’, some trying give it a special meaning). See also Embick (2016) on ‘polymorphy’ and competition at the level of use.

414   But if the argument can be expressed as a genitive in (54b), what meaning could the preposition be contributing in (54a)? I suggest that that the answer lies in the range of meanings available to the genitive, along with the rather vague (but still meaningful) contribution of the preposition. In short, the two structures arrive at the same or at least substantially overlapping meanings in different ways. Therefore, we find apparent semantic overlap for certain nominals, but not others. First, consider the possibility that there may be subtle semantic distinctions that are hard to pin down. Consider the pair in English: (56)

a. tend the patient b. tend to the patient

Speakers tend to report that there is some meaning difference between these two, but it is difficult to say exactly what that is. It is well known that the genitive can express a range of relations between two nouns. In this instance, the genitive can express a meaning that comes ‘close enough’ to the relation expressed by the preposition as to resemble optionality. (57)

a. Meaning 1 (Genitive) ‘tending activities defined/measured by, or revolving around the patient’ b. Meaning 2 (að PP) ‘tending activities directed toward the patient’

The situation is reminiscent of the dative alternation, where there is a meaning difference but substantial overlap in the result, resulting in well-known pairs like the following: (58)

a. send the letter to {them/France} b. send {them/#France} the letter

If this is on the right track, we might expect to find particular examples where the genitive has meanings that the PP cannot, and/or vice-versa. In fact, there are subtle contrasts that point to a nonequivalence of the genitive and the PP. Consider the attested example in (58a), and what happens if the genitive is changed to a PP.

    (59)

415

a. mistök hefðu verið gerð við að-hlynn-ingu hans mistakes had been made with to-tend- him. ‘mistakes had been made with his care/treatment/tending’18 b. #? mistök hefðu verið gerð við að-hlynn-ingu að honum mistakes had been made with to-tend- to him ‘mistakes had been made with tending to him’

A scenario that is compatible with (58a) would be one where the doctors correctly administer a course of treatment, but later determine that that course was a mistake as a whole. For example, they decide on a particular surgery followed by a particular course of medication. They later decide that this course of treatment had been a mistake; they should have chosen a different kind of surgery or a different course of medication. In (58b), however, this scenario is much less likely. In (58b), a more appropriate scenario would be one where the overall course of treatment is not a mistake, but the doctors made a mistake in the process of administering it. For example, they chose the correct surgery, but made a mistake in performing it, or they chose the right medication, but accidentally administered something else. That is, the PP example more saliently brings out the activities directed toward the patient, whereas the genitive emphasizes the event as a whole. In most circumstances, those two readings will overlap enough that they may seem to be equivalent. Now compare this with a case where the genitive is not possible: (60)

Þeir {að}-laga sig {að} they {to-}adapt . {to} ‘They adapt to the changes.’

breytingunum. changes.the.

a. að-lög-un að breytingunum to-adapt- to changes.the. ‘adaptation to the changes’ b. * að-lög-un breytinganna to-adapt- changes.the. Evidently, the meaning of the genitive is not able to construct an overlap of the sort seen above. Here, we do not have adapting activities defined, measured by, or revolving around the changes. Rather, the directional meaning is a core part of the change-of-state meaning of the verb, and must be expressed with the PP.

¹⁸ Example from the corpus at http://malheildir.arnastofnun.is/.

416   Finally, there are some cases of speaker variation. Recall from Section 16.4.1 that ábending ‘pointing out’ allows á ‘on’ or um ‘about’ to head a PP complement. The present proposal would lead us to suspect that these prepositions are doing subtly distinct things, semantically. Interestingly, the genitive is also possible for some speakers, but not others. (61)

% á-bend-ing on-point-

skekkjunnar mistake.the.

Jóhannsdóttir (1995: 71) marks (61) as ungrammatical, but Halldór Sigurðsson (p.c.) finds (27) ‘awkward, but maybe just stylistically’, but not clearly better than (61). I have since found other speakers who accept or reject (61). The emergence of this kind of variation is now expected, since constraints on the use of genitive stem from rather subtle aspects of (de)verbal meaning, which can vary from speaker to speaker, an underspecified set of genitive meanings, which can vary in their salience and availability, and potentially vague/overlapping contributions of the preposition. Despite the uncertainty and variation in some cases, there are clear patterns as well. Both the patterns and the exceptions to them clarify what factors underlie doubling and its absence. They support the view that what underlies all of this is the semantic relationship between the verb root and its argument, the role that prepositions may play in mediating that relationship, and the role that prepositions may play in determining the verb root’s meaning. Ultimately, I argue that the locality of these relationships points to a complex head analysis of deverbal nouns rather than an analysis where a full verb phrase, containing its arguments, is nominalized.

16.5 Conclusion This chapter has focused on how Icelandic prepositional prefixing supports three main points. First, prepositions play a dual role in constructing verb meaning. Second, the patterns of prefixation support the complex head theory of deverbal nouns. Third, we should distinguish adjunction from complementation for the purposes of locality. As for the first point, specific cases can be hard to distinguish in practice, but there is a clear sense that prepositions (i) may or may not have meaning of their own, and (ii) may or may not condition special meaning on the verb root. We have seen how these distinctions come out in the denominal prefixing

   

417

patterns. In deverbal nouns, prefixing is connected to special verb meaning, whereas heading a PP is connected with independent P meaning. This brings us to the second point. The range of patterns in denominal prefixing would be hard to understand if deverbal nominals were built on top of verb phrases. The locality between the root and the preposition would be the same in all cases.

nP

(62)

n

(VoiceP) (Voice)

vP v

√ root

PP v

P

…

When prefixing occurs only on nouns, a movement account would require skipping the verb (possibly violating the Head Movement Constraint), or moving to the verb only when the verb moves further. Even with such stipulations, such movement should not have any effect on the lexical meaning, contrary to fact.¹⁹ Finally, it is not clear why such movement would sometimes but not always involve doubling—again in a way that is connected to lexical meaning. In contrast, the complex head analysis explains why such patterns arise in the first place, and how they connect to lexical semantics. Finally, if we accept that prefixing really is to the noun, and not the verb, it is clear that we have to distinguish that structure from the complementation structure. The general intuition pursued here is that complex head formation allows P to attach to a noun without the n head intervening between it and the root. It seems that the relation between terminals within a complex head is closer than the relation of those terminals to the complement—but the complement must be visible at least sometimes (e.g. when there is only one category-determining head). I suggest that this may give us a handle on synthetic compounds of idioms like blow the whistle, whistle-blowers, ??blowers of whistles, or break the ice, ice-breaker, *breaker of ice. If we form synthetic compounds by adjoining the nonhead to the head n directly, it may allow the

¹⁹ Such movement could, however, be expected to have focus-like effects, like what is found with verb doubling in predicate clefts, as pointed out to me by Enoch Aboh (p.c.).

418   nonhead and the root to see each other in a way that it not possible in the phrasal counterpart. (63) a.

b.

vP v

nP

DP the whistle

√ blow

n

v

n -er

v

√ blow

PP of whistles

v X

c.

n n

√ whistle

n n

v

√ blow

n -er v

This latter point underscores the point that even when we are not building words on top of phrases, we are still doing it in the syntax, with systematic syntactic principles, which cut across the classic word/phrase distinction.

Acknowledgments Unless otherwise specified, the data in this chapter come from my own elicitation fieldwork with Icelandic speakers, as part of a larger project on nominalizations. I have discussed examples related to this project with Anton Karl Ingason, Atli Snær Ásmundsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson, Bolli Magnússon, Dagbjört Guðmundsdóttir, Einar Freyr Sigurðsson, Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson, Eva Hrund Sigurjónsdóttir, Gísli Rúnar Harðarson, Halla Hauksdóttir, Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, Hinrik Hafsteinsson, Iris Edda Nowenstein, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, Karitas Bjarkadóttir, Kristín Bjarnadóttir, Kristín Björg Björnsdóttir, Lilja Björk Stefánsdóttir, Oddur Snorrason, Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður Sæunn Sigurðardóttir, Sigríður Mjöll Björnsdóttir, Þórhallur Eyþórsson, and Þorbjörg Þorvaldsdóttir. I cannot begin to express my gratitude to you all for taking the time to discuss this material with me, and sharing your judgments! Each elicited example in this chapter has been discussed with at least four native speakers. Thanks also to the participants at MarantzFest 2019, the Princeton Symposium on Syntactic Theory in 2019, and the Syntax Reading Group at Yale.

References Abney, Steven. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. (2010). Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface: A case study in Latin and other languages. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona. Ackema, Peter. (2002). ‘A morphological approach to the absence of expletive PRO’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 291–319. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. (2004). Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. (2018). Features of Person: From the Inventory of Persons to their Morphological Realization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva. (2013). Descriptive Typology and Linguistic Theory: A Study in the Morphosyntax of Relative Clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Acquaviva, Paolo. (2009). ‘Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology’, York Papers in Linguistics 2: 1–21. Ahdout, Odelia. (2017). ‘Eventive Object Experiencer nominalizations in Hebrew’, in Maria Bloch-Trojnar & Anna Malicka-Kleparska (eds.), Aspect and Valency in Nominals, 31–52. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ahdout, Odelia. (2019). ‘No results with middles: On non-eventive readings in Hebrew nominalizations’, poster presented in GLOW 42, Oslo, May 10. Ahdout, Odelia. (2020). ‘Agent exclusivity effects in Hebrew nominalizations’, in Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal & Nora Boneh (eds.), Perspectives on Causation, 319–348. Dordrecht Springer. Ahdout, Odelia. (in preparation). ‘Nominalizations in Hebrew and beyond: Between grammar and competition’, PhD dissertation, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin. Ahdout, Odelia & Itamar Kastner. (2019). ‘Non-active verbs in Hebrew and the input to nominalization’, in Maggie Baird, Duygu Göksu, & Jonathan Pesetsky (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 49, Amherst, MA: GLSA. Aissen, Judith. (1992). ‘Topic and focus in Mayan’, Language 68: 43–80. Aissen, Judith. (2017)., ‘‘Correlates of ergativity”, in Mayan’, in Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook on Ergativity, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis. (1997). Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2009). ‘On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals’, in Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, 253–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2011a). ‘Statives and nominalization’, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 40. Accessed October 01, 2016. http://rlv.revues.org/1991

420  Alexiadou, Artemis. (2011b). ‘The aspectual properties of nominalization structures’, in Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks, & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and Its Interface, 195–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2013). ‘Nominal vs. verbal -ing constructions and the development of the English progressive’, English Linguistics Research 2(2): 126–140. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2017a). ‘Nominalization structures across languages’, paper presented at Queen Mary University of London, May 17, 2017. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2017b). ‘Gender and nominal ellipsis’, in Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, & Anne-Michelle Tessier (eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson. Linguistics Open Access Publications. 1. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_oapubs/1/ Alexiadou, Artemis. (2017c). ‘Ergativity in nominalization’, in Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook on Ergativity, 355–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2017d). ‘On the complex relationship between deverbal compounds and argument supporting nominals’, in Anna Malicka-Kleparska & Maria Bloch-Trojnar (eds.), Aspect and Valency in Nominals, 53–82. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Alexiadou, Artemis. (2019). ‘Passives, unaccusativity, and nominalization’, in Anna Malicka-Kleparska & Maria Bloch-Trojnar (eds.) Valency in Verbs and Verb-related Structures, 33–54. München: Peter Lang. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. (2004). ‘Voice morphology in the causativeinchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives’, in Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 114–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Schäfer. (2006). ‘The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically’, in Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Schäfer. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Schäfer. (2017). Passive (revised). Crete: Humboldt Univerity & ZAS, University of Crete & Humboldt University. Alexiadou, Artemis, Hagit Borer, & Florian Schäfer (eds.). (2014). The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis & Edit Doron. (2012). ‘The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle’, Journal of Linguistics 48: 1–34. Alexiadou, Artemis & Jane Grimshaw. (2008). ‘Verbs, nouns and affixation’, in Florian Schäfer (ed.), Working Papers of the SFB 732: Incremental Specification in Context, 1–16. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, & Melita Stavrou. (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia. (2014a). ‘Causative nominalizations: Implications for the structure of psych verbs’, in Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy, & Linnnaea Stockall (eds.), Structuring the Argument, 119–137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia. (2014b). ‘The psych causative alternation’, Lingua 148: 53–79. Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia, Mariangeles Cano, Fabienne Martin, & Florian Schäfer. (2013). ‘The realization of external arguments in nominalizations’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2): 73–95.



421

Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia, & Florian Schäfer. (2011). ‘Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations’, in Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation and Change, 25–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia, & Elena Soare. (2010). ‘Number/Aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A Distributed Morphology approach’, Journal of Linguistics 46: 537–574. Alexiadou, Artemis & Monika Rathert (eds.). (2010a). The Semantics of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Alexiadou, Artemis & Monica Rathert (eds.). (2010b). The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Alexiadou, Artemis & Florian Schäfer. (2008). ‘Instrumental -er nominals revisited’, Online Proceedings of WCCFL 27 Poster Session. London: UCLA. Alexiadou, Artemis & Florian Schäfer. (2010). ‘On the syntax of episodical vs. dispositional -er nominals’, in Artemis Alexiadou & Monica Rathert (eds.), The Semantics of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Allen, Margaret. (1978). Morphological investigations. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. Álvarez González, Albert. (n.d.). (2005). Pasivización y lexicogénesis: el caso del sufijo -wa en lengua yaqui. Estudios de Lingüística del Español (ELiEs), Volumen 22, revista electrónica de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Álvarez González, Albert. (2012). ‘Relative clauses and nominalizations in Yaqui’, in Bernard Comrie & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas: A Typological Overview, 67–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Álvarez González, Albert. (2016). ‘The evolution of grammatical nominalizations in Cahita languages’, in Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Finiteness and Nominalization, Typological Studies in Language 113, 107–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Álvarez González, Albert. (n.d.). Participación en el XIV Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, del 16 al 18 de noviembre de 2016 en Hermosillo, con una ponencia sobre ‘Haplología morfológica en yaqui’, en co-autoría con Mercedes Tubino Blanco. Amritavalli, Raghavachari. (1980). ‘Expressing cross-categorial selectional correspondences: An alternative to the X’-syntax approach’, Linguistic Analysis 6: 305–343. Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Yota Samioti. (2013). ‘Allosemy, idioms and their domains: Evidence from adjectival participles’, in Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, & Robert Truswell (eds.), On Syntax and Its Limits, 218–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, Mona, K. J. (1984). ‘Prenominal genitive NPs’, Linguistic Review 3: 1–24. Arad, Maya. (1996). ‘A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–30. Arad, Maya. (1998a). ‘Psych-notes’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 203–223. Arad, Maya. (1998b). VP structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. PhD dissertation, University College London. Arad, Maya. (1999). ‘What counts as a Class? The case of psych verbs’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35, 1–23. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Arad, Maya. (2003). ‘Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778. Arad, Maya. (2005). Roots and Patterns—Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Ariel, Mira, Elitzur Dattner, John W. Du Bois, & Tal Linzen. (2015). ‘Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status’, Studies in Language 39: 257–321.

422  Aronoff, Mark. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Asarina, Alya & Jeremy Hartman. (2011). ‘Uyghur genitive subjects and the Phase Impenetrability Condition’, in Andrew Simpson (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL7). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62, 17–31. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Asher, Nicholas. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in English. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Assmann, Anke, Svetlana Edygarova, Doreen Georgi, Timo Klein, & Philipp Weisser. (2014). ‘Case Stacking below the surface: On the possessor case alternation in Udmurt’, Linguistic Review 31(3–4): 447–485. Assmann, Anke, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller, & Philipp Weisser. (2015). ‘Ergatives move too early: On an instance of opacity in syntax’, Syntax 18: 343–387. Aygen, Gulsat. (2011). ‘Reduced relatives and the location of agreement’, California Linguistic Notes XXXVI(1). Baker, Mark. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark (1997). ‘Thematic roles and syntactic structure’, in Liliane Haeggeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Baker, Mark. (2000). ‘On category asymmetries in derivational morphology’, in Sabrina Bendjaballah (ed.), Morphology 2000, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, Mark. (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark. (2011). ‘Degrees of nominalization: Clause-like constituents in Sakha’, Lingua 121: 1164–1193. Baker, Mark. (2015). Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, & Ian Roberts. (1989). ‘Passive arguments raised’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251. Baker, Mark & Nadya Vinokurova. (2009). ‘On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations’, Language 85: 517–556. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur & Nora Boneh. (2016). ‘Discourse update at the service of mirativity effects: The case of the discursive dative’, in Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard, & Dan Burgdorf (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 26, 103–121. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications. Barker, Chris. (1998). ‘Episodic ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation’, Language 74: 695–727. Barrie, Michael & Eric Mathieu. (2016). ‘Noun incorporation and phrasal movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 1–51. Bauke, Leah. (2014). Symmetry Breaking in Syntax and the Lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bauke, Leah & Thomas Roeper. (2012). ‘How phase-based interpretations dictate the typology of nominalizations’, in Günther Grewendorf & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), Ten Years After, 289–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bauke, Leah & Thomas Roeper. (2017). ‘How unlabelled nodes work: Morphological derivations and the subcomponents of UG Roots and Labels’, in Leah Bauke & Andreas Blümel (eds.), Labels and Roots, 233–262. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.



423

Bauke, Leah & Thomas Roeper. (2019). Impersonals as UG- default: Evidence from L2. Ms., University of Wuppertal and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Beauchamp, Jéerémie. (2017). Posture locatives: Structure and meaning. Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa. Beavers, John, Michael Everdell, Kzle Jerro, Henri Kauhanen, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Elise LeBovidge, & Stephen Nichols. (2017). ‘Two types of states: A cross-linguistic study of change-of-state verb roots’, in Proceedings of the 91st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America 38: 1–15. Washington, DC: The Linguistics Society of America. Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden. (2020). The Roots of Verbal Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bernstein, Judy B. (1993). Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. (2018). ‘Implicit arguments’, in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (2nd edn.), 558–588. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom118 Biały, Adam. (2005). Polish Psychological Verbs at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Biskup, Petr. (2007). P(refixe)s and P(reposition)s, Ms. University of Leipzig. Biskup, Petr & Michael Putnam. (2012). ‘One P with two spell-outs: The ent-/aus- alternation in German’, Linguistic Analysis 38(1–2) 2012: 69–109. Bittner, Maria & Kenneth Hale. (1996). ‘Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531–604. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín. (2005). Afleiðsla og samsetning í generatífri málfræði og greining á íslenskum gögnum. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans. http://www.lexis.hi.is/kristinb/ afleidslaogsams.pdf Blevins, James. (1995). ‘Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition’, Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 113–152. Bobaljik, Jonathan (2008). ‘Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation’, in Daniel Harbour, David Adger, & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth & Keir Moulton. (2017). ‘Nominalized clauses and reference to propositional content’, in Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Rabern Brian, & Hannah Rhode (eds.), Procedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, vol. 1, 215–233. University of Edinburgh. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth & Keir Moulton. (2018). ‘Navajo in the typology of Internallyheaded Relatives’, in Dan Burgdorf, Cameron, Jacob Collard, Sireemas Maspong, & Brynhildur Stefánsdóttir (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 27. Linguistic Society of America, Ithaca, NY: 700–720. Bond, Oliver & Marina Chumakina (2016). ‘Agreement domains and targets’, in Oliver Bond, Greville Corbett, Marina Chumakina, & Dunstan Brown (eds.), Archi: Complexities of Agreement in Cross-Theoretical Perspective, 43–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bond, Oliver, Greville Corbett, Marina Chumakina, & Dunstan Brown (eds.). (2016). Archi: Complexities of Agreement in Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bondaruk, Anna & Bożena Rozwadowska. (2019a). ‘Polish Object Experiencer verbs in the stative and eventive passive’, in Anna Bondaruk & Krzysztof Jaskuła (eds.), All Around the Word. Papers in Honour of Bogdan Szymanek on his 65th birthday, 47–78. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

424  Bondaruk, Anna & Bożena Rozwadowska. (2019b). ‘Reflexive Subject Experiencer verbs in Polish’, paper presented at GRATO Conference Lisbon, November 14–16. Booij, Geert. (1988). ‘The relation between inheritance and argument linking: Deverbal nouns in Dutch’, in Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, & Riny Huybregts (eds.), Morphology and Modularity: To Honour Henk Schultink, 57–73. Dordrecht: Foris. Borer, Hagit. (1986). ‘I-Subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17(3): 375–416. Reprinted (2017) in Linguistic Analysis 41: 3–4. Borer, Hagit. (1991). ‘The causative-inchoative alternation: A case study in Parallel Morphology’, The Linguistic Review 8: 119–158. Borer, Hagit. (1991). Parallel morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Borer, Hagit. (1995). ‘The ups and downs of Hebrew verb movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 527–606. Borer, Hagit. (1997). ‘The morphology-syntax interface: A study of autonomy’, in Wolfgang U. Dressler, Martin Prinzhorn, & John Rennison (eds.), Advances in Morphosyntax, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 97: 5–30. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Borer, Hagit. (1998). ‘Passive without theta grids’, in Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari, & Patrick Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax, 60–99. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Borer, Hagit. (1999). ‘The form, the forming and the formation of nominals’, paper presented at the 2nd Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, September. Borer, Hagit. (2003). ‘Exo-skeletal vs. Endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon’, in Maria Polinsky & John Moore (eds.), The Nature of Explanation, 31–67. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press (CSLI). Borer, Hagit. (2004). ‘The grammar machine’, in Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 288–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. (2005a). In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. (2005b). The Normal Course of Event: Structuring Sense, vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. (2012). ‘In the event of a nominal’, in Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, & Tal Siloni (eds.), The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, 103–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. (2013). Taking Form: Structuring Sense, vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. (2014). ‘Derived nominals and the domain of content’, Lingua 141: 71–96. Borer, Hagit & Yosef Grodzinsky. (1986). ‘Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics’, in Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 19, 175–217. New York: Academic Press. Borsley, Robert & Jaklin Kornfilt. (2000). ‘Mixed extended projection’, in Robert Borsley (ed.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, 101–131. San Diego: Academic Press. Bowers, John. (1993). ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 591–656. Bresnan, Joan (ed.) (1982a). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan. (1982b). ‘The passive in lexical theory’, in Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan & Jonni M. Kanerva. (1989). ‘Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50.



425

Bresnan, Joan & Ronald M. Kaplan. (1982). ‘Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language’, in Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, xvii–lii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bricker, Victoria R. (1981). ‘The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya’, Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 83–127. Bruening, Benjamin. (2013). ‘By-phrases in passives and nominals’, Syntax 16: 1–41. Bruening, Benjamin. (2018). ‘Word formation is syntactic’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 102. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.470 Brykina, Maria & Natalia Aralova. (2012). ‘Sistemy prichastii v marijskom i permskih yazykah’, in Anna I. Kuznecova (ed.), Finno-ugorskie jazyki: fragmenty grammatičeskogo opisanija. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody, 476–521. Moskva: Rukopisnye pamjatniki drevnej Rusi. Buenrostro, Cristina. (2004). ‘El sufijo -an en el Chuj de SanMateo Ixtat.n’, Anales de Antropología 38: 255–267. Buenrostro, Cristina. (2013). La voz en Chuj de San Mateo Ixtat.n. PhD dissertation, El Colegio de México, Mexico City. Buenrostro, Cristina, José Carmen Díaz, & Roberto Zavala. (1989). ‘Sistema de clasificación nominal del Chuj’, in Memorias del Segundo Coloquio Internacional de Mayistas, vol. II. Mexico City: UNAM. Burzio, Luigi. (1986). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Caha, Pavel. (2013). ‘Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of nanosyntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 1015–1066. Campana, Mark. (1992). A movement theory of ergativity. PhD dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. Carstens, Vicki (2000). ‘Concord in Minimalist theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–355. Cetnarowska, Bożena. (1993). The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalizations in English. Catowice: Uniwersytet Slaşki. Charnavel, Isabelle. (to appear). ‘Logophoricity and locality: A view from French Anaphors’, Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00349 Chierchia, Gennaro. (1984). Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Chierchia, Gennaro. (2004). ‘A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences’, in Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1970). ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn. Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (2000). ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework’, in Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (2013). ‘Problems of projection’. Lingua 130: 33–49. Chomsky, Noam, Angelo Gallego, & Dennis Ott. (2019). ‘Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue, 229–261. Chumakina, Marina & Oliver Bond. (2016). ‘Competing controllers and agreement potential’, in Oliver Bond, Greville Corbett, Marina Chumakina, & Dunstan Brown (eds.),

426  Archi: Complexities of Agreement in Cross-Theoretical Perspective, 77–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chung, Sandra & William A. Ladusaw. (2004). Restriction and Saturation. Cambidge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. (1988). ‘On si constructions and the theory of ARB’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–582. Cinque, Guglielmo. (1990). ‘Ergative adjectives and the Lexicalist Hypothesis’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 1–39. Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, Chris. (2005). ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English’, Syntax 8: 81–120. Comrie, Bernard. (2013). ‘Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases’, in Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at wals. info Condoravdi, Cleo. (1989). ‘Indefinite and generic pronouns’, in Jane Fee & Kathryn Hunt (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 8, 71–84. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Coon, Jessica. (2010). ‘Rethinking split ergativity in Chol’, International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 207–253. Coon, Jessica. (2013a). Aspects of Split Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coon, Jessica. (2013b). ‘TAM split ergativity (parts 1–2)’, Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 171–200. Coon, Jessica. (2017). ‘Little-v agreement and templatic morphology in Ch’ol’, Syntax 20: 101–137. Coon, Jessica. (2019). ‘Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots’, Journal of Linguistics 55: 35–81. Coon, Jessica & Elizabeth Carolan. (2017). ‘Nominalization and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan’, Glossa 2: 1–35. Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. (2017). ‘Split ergativity is not about ergativity’, in Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 226–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coon, Jessica, Nico Baier, & Theodore Levin. (2020). Mayan Agent focus and the Ergative Extraction Constraint: Facts and fictions revisited. Ms., McGill University, UBC, Facebook. Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, & Omer Preminger. (2014). ‘The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan’, Linguistic Variation 14: 179–242. Corbett, Greville. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Craig, Colette Grinevald. (1977). The Structure of Jacaltec. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Crumrine, Lynne S. (1961). The Phonology of Arizona Yaqui with Texts. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Davidson, Donald. (1967). ‘The logical form of action sentences’, in Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, 81–95. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press. Davies, Mark. (2017). ‘The new 4 billion word NOW corpus, with 4–5 million words of data added every day’, Corpus Linguistics. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Davies, Mark & Robert Fuchs. (2015). ‘Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion-word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE)’, English WorldWide 36(1): 1–28.



427

De Belder, Marijke. (2011). Roots and affixes: Eliminating lexical categories from syntax. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University/Uil-OTS & HUBrussel/CRISSP. De Cuba, Carlos. (2017). ‘Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.53 Deal, Amy Rose. (2015). ‘Ergativity’, in Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), International Handbook on Syntactic Contemporary Research: Syntax—Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, 654–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Deal, Amy Rose. (2016). ‘Syntactic ergativity: Analysis and identification’, Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 165–185. Dedrick, John & Eugene Casad. (1999). Sonora Yaqui Language Structures. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Dékány, Éva & Orsolya Tánczos. (2017). ‘The structure of the Udmurt past participle’, talk given at the BLINC conference 2, June, Budapest: ELTE. Delicado Cantero, Manuel. (2013). ‘Clausal substantivization in Spanish: Syntax and constraints’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 33: 106–120. Den Dikken, Marcel. (2003). On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases. Ms., CUNY. Den Dikken, Marcel. (2015). ‘Raising the subject of the “Object-Of” relation’, in Ángel J. Gallego & Dennis Ott (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 77. 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects, 85–98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Devilliers, Jill, A. Nordmeyer, & Thomas Roeper. (2018). ‘How do children deal with shifted indexicals?’, in Ivan Rodica & Leah Chapman (eds.), UMOP 40: A Gestschrift in Honor of Margaret Speas Diesing, Molly. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DiSciullo, Anna Maria & Edwin Williams. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. (1979). ‘Ergativity’, Language 55: 59–138. Dixon, Robert M. W. (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Djärv, Kajsa. (2019). Factive and assertive attitudes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Doron, Edit. (2003). ‘Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates’, Natural Language Semantics 11(1): 1–67. Doron, Edit. (2014). ‘The interaction of adjectival passive and voice’, in Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The Roots of Syntax and the Syntax of Roots. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doron, Edit & Malka Rappaport Hovav. (1991). ‘Affectedness and externalization’, Proceedings of NELS 21: 81–94. Doron, Edit & Chris H. Reintges. (2005). ‘On the syntax of participial modification’, ms., Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dowty, David R. (1989). ‘On the semantic content of the notion of “thematic role” ’, in Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, & Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, Types, and Meaning II, 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Edygarova, Svetlana. (2010). Kategoria posessivnosti v udmurtskom yazyke. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tartu. Ehrenfeld, Lior. (2012). The morphology of the Hebrew causative alternation. Master’s thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Ehrich, Veronika. (1991). ‘Nominalisierungen’, in Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik. Ein Handbuch der internationalen Forschung, 441–458. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

428  Elliott, Patrick D. (2018). ‘Explaining DPs vs. CPs without syntax’, in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistics Society. Embick, David. (2010). Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Embick, David. (2016). ‘Approaching polymorphy’. Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico (SADAF). Embick, David & Alec Marantz. (2008). ‘Architecture and blocking’, Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1): 1–53. Engelhardt, Miriam. (1998). The syntax of nominalized properties. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Engelhardt, Miriam. (2000). ‘The projection of argument-taking nominals’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 41–88. Ernst, T. (2004). ‘Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause’, Lingua 114: 755–777. Estrada-Fernández, Zarina & Albert Álvarez González. (2008). Parlons Yaqui. Paris: Editions L’Harmattan. Fábregas, Antonio. (2014). ‘Argument structure and morphologically underived nouns in Spanish and English’, Lingua 141: 97–120. Fábregas, Antonio & Rafael Marín. (2012). ‘The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages’, Journal of Linguistics 48(01): 35–70. Fábregas, Antonio, Rafael Marín, & Louise McNally. (2012). ‘From psych verbs to nouns’, in Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, Change, and State: A CrossCategorial View of Event Structure, 162–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Falk, Yehuda (1991). ‘Case: Abstract and morphological’, Linguistics 29: 197–230. Frana, Ilaria & Keir Moulton. (2018). ‘Derived nominals and concealed propositions’, in Sachiyo Arai, Kojima Kazuhiro, Koji Mineshima, Daisuke Bekki, Ken Satoh, & Yuiko Ohta (eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence JSAI-isAI (2017 Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 253–265. Dordrecht: Springer. Fu, Jingqi. (1994). On deriving Chinese derived nominals. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Fu, Jungqi, Tom Roeper, & Hagit Borer. (2001). ‘The VP within nominalizations: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–582. Gafter, Roey. (2014). ‘The distribution of the Hebrew possessive dative construction: Guided by unaccusativity or prominence?’, Linguistic Inquiry 45: 482–500. Gehrke, Berit & Louise McNally. (2015). ‘Distributional modification: The case of frequency adjectives’, Language 91(4) 837–870. Gehrke, Berit. (2008). Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Georgieva, Ekaterina. (2018). ‘Non-finite adverbial clauses in Udmurt’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Szeged. Georgieva, Ekaterina & Eszter Ótott-Kovács. (2016). ‘Nem véges alárendelői mellékmondatok a Volga-vidéki nyelvi areában (Non-finite embedded clauses in the languages of the Volga area)’, in Zsuzsanna Gécseg (ed.), LingDok 15, 51–67. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem. Georgieva, Ekaterina & Eszter Ótott-Kovács. (2017). Syntactic similarities between nonfinite clauses in Udmurt and Tatar? Ms., Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Cornell University. Gildea, Spike. (2008). ‘Explaining similarities between main clauses and nominalized clauses’, Amérindia 32: 57–75.



429

Gildea, Spike & Flávia de Castro Alves. (2010). ‘Nominative-absolutive: Counter-universal split ergativity in Jê and Cariban’, in Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giorgi, Alessandra & Giuseppe Longobardi. (1991). The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, Parameters, and Empty Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giusti, Giuliana. (2002). ‘The functional structure of determiners: A bare phrase structure approach’, in Giulielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structure, vol.1: 54–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grimshaw, Jane. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane (1991). Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University. Grimshaw, Jane. (2005). ‘Extended projection’, in Words and Structure, 1–74. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Grosz, Patrick & Priti Patel-Grosz. (2014). ‘Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati’, in Pritha Chandra & Richa Srishti (eds.), The Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian Languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GSUJa I. (1962). Grammatika sovremennogo udmurtskogo yazyka. I. Fonetika i morfologija. Izhevsk: Udmurtia. Gulyás, Nikolett F. & Yulia Speshilova. (2014). ‘Impersonals and passives in contemporary Udmurt’, Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 38: 59–91. Gutiérrez Sánchez, Pedro. (2004). Las clases de verbos intransitivos y el alineamiento agentivo en el chol de Tila, Chiapas. Master’s thesis, CIESAS, México. Hacquard, Valentine. (2006). Aspects of modality. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Haegeman, Liliane & Barbara Ürögdi. (2010). ‘Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account’, Theoretical Linguistics 36: 111–152. Haider, H. (2004). ‘Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO’, Lingua 114: 779–807. Hale, Ken. (2002). ‘On the Dagur “Object relative: Some comparative notes” ’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(2): 109–122. Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. (1993). ‘On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations’, in Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. (2002). Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Halle, Morris. (1973). ‘Prolegomena to a theory of word formation’, Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16. Halle, Morris. (2000). ‘Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission’, in Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, 125–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. (1993). ‘Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hankamer, Jorge & Ivan Sag. (1976). ‘Deep and surface anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428. Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar. (2016). ‘Peeling away the layers of the onion: On layers, inflection and domains in Icelandic compounds’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19(1): 1–47.

430  Harley, Heidi. (2009a). ‘Compounding in Distributed Morphology’, in Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 129–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, Heidi. (2009b). ‘The morphology of nominalization and the syntax of vP’, in Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, 321–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, Heidi. (2014). ‘On the identity of roots’, Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4): 225–276. Harley, Heidi. (2017). ‘The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v’, in Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, & Ángel Gallego (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, Heidi & Jason Haugen. (2007). ‘Are there really two different classes of instrumental denominal verbs in English?’, Snippets 16: 9–10. Harley, Heidi, Jason Haugen, & Mercedes Tubino-Blanco. (2006). ‘Applicative constructions and suppletive verbs in Hiaki (Yaqui)’, poster presented at the Complex Predicates Workshop, Rice University, March 16–18. Harley, Heidi, Jason Haugen, & Mercedes Tubino-Blanco. (2019). Lexical categories and derivation in Hiaki. Ms., University of Arizona, Oberlin and Western Michigan University. Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. (1998). ‘Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement and object shift in English’, in Pius N. Tamanji & Kiyomi Kusumoto, Proceedings of NELS (28GLSA), University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. (2000a). ‘Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalizations’, in Bert Peters (ed.), The Lexicon-Encyclopedia Interface, 349–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. (2000b). ‘Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon’, in Bert Peters (ed.), The Lexicon/Encyclopaedia Interface, 349–374, Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. Harley, Heidi & Mercedes Tubino Blanco. (2013). ‘Cycles, vocabulary items and stem forms in Hiaki’, in Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today, 117–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hartman, Jeremy. (2012). Varieties of clausal complementation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Haviland, John B. (1994). ‘“Te xa setel xulem” (The buzzards were circling)—Categories of verbal roots in (Zinacantec) Tzotzil’, Linguistics 32: 691–741. Hazout, Ilan. (1991). Verbal nouns: Theta Theoretic Studies in Hebrew and Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Hazout, Ilan. (1995). ‘Action nominalization and the Lexicalist Hypothesis’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 355–404. Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Henderson, Robert. (2019). ‘The roots of measurement’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistic 4(1): 32. Higginbotham, James. (1983). ‘Logical form, binding and nominals’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420. Higginbotham, James. (1985). ‘On semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593. Hilmisdóttir, Helga. (2007). A sequential analysis of nú and núna in Icelandic conversation. Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature, University of Helsinki. Hintikka, Jaako. (1969). ‘Semantics for propositional attitudes’, in J. W. Davis, Donald J. Hockney, & W. Kent Wilson (eds.), Philosophical Logic, 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel.



431

Hiraiwa, Ken. (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hoekstra, Teun. (1986). ‘Deverbalization and inheritance’. Linguistics 24: 549–584. Hook, Peter & Dayashankar Joshi. (1994). Concordant adverbs and postpositions in Gujarati. Ms., University of Michigan/South Gujarat University. Hopkins, Nicholas. (1967). The Chuj language. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Hopkins, Nicholas. (2012a). A Dictionary of the Chuj Mayan Language. Tallahassee, FL: Jaguar Tours. Hopkins, Nicholas. (2012b). ‘Noun classifiers of the Chuchumatán Mayan languages: A case of diffusion from Otomanguean’, International Journal of American Linguistics 78: 411–427. Horie, Kaoru. (2000). ‘Complementation in Japanese and Korean’, in Kaoru Horie (ed.), Complementation, 11–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Horrocks, Geoffry & Melita Stavrou. (1987). ‘Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for wh-movement in NP’, Journal of Linguistics 23: 79–108. Hron, David. (2005). On the derivation of Czech reflexive and reciprocal nouns. Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University. Hualde, Jose Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. (1987). ‘Restructuring with ARI’, Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo XXI: 425–452. Insacco, Gioia. (2017). ‘Argument structures in Italian nominalizations’, in Maria BlochTrojnar & Anna Malicka-Kleparska (eds.), Aspect and Valency in Nominals, 134–201. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. (2014). ‘The interaction between nP and DP in nominalizations’, in Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole, & Amanda Rysling (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1, 179–190. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. (2019a). ‘The root derivation of psych nominals: Implications for competing overt and zero nominalizers’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 21.2: 57–79. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. (2019b). ‘Event and argument structure in English zero-derived nominals’, paper presented at the 34th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, Konstanz, June 14–15. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. (2020). ‘D and N are different nominalizers’. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 53. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. (to appear). ‘Event structure and argument realization in English zero-derived nominals with particles’. In Andreas Trotzke & George Walkden (eds.), CGSW 34 Proceedings of the 34th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, special issue of Nordlyd 44(1). Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Artemis Alexiadou, & Andreas Pairamidis. (2017). ‘Morphosyntactic sources for nominal synthetic compounds in English and Greek’, Journal of Word Formation 1: 47–71. Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Artemis Alexiadou, & Elena Soare. (2015). ‘The structural source of stative nominalizations from psych verbs’, in Emmanuelle Labeau & Qiaochao Zhang (eds.), Taming the TAME systems. Cahiers Chronos 27: 137–160. Leiden/Boston: Brill Rodopi. Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Susanne Schweitzer, Yaryna Svyryda, & María Camila Buitrago Cabrera. (2020). ‘Deverbal zero-nominalization and verb classes: Insights from a database. In Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Elena Soare (eds.), Current Trends in the Study of Nominalization, special issue of Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Wordformation, 4: 120–142.

432  Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Elena Soare. (2008a). ‘Two kinds of event plurals: Evidence from Romanian nominalizations’, in Oliver Bonami & Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: ISSN 1769–7158. Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Elena Soare. (2008b). ‘Structural patterns for plural blocking in Romance nominalizations’, in Enoch Aboch, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer, & Petra Sleeman (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2007: 145–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Lonneke van der Plas, & Glorianna Jagfeld. (2020). ‘Compositionality in English deverbal compounds: The role of the head’, in Sabine Schulte im Walde & Eva Smolka (eds.), The Role of Constituents in Multiword Expressions: An Interdisciplinary, Cross-lingual Perspective, book series Phraseology and Multiword Expressions, 61–106. Berlin: Language Science Press. Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Susanne Schweitzer, Yaryna Svyryda, & María Camila Buitrago Cabrera. (to appear). ‘Deverbal zero-nominalization and verb classes: Insights from a database’, in Gianina Iordăchioaia, & Elena Soar (eds.), Current Trends in the Study of Nominalization, special issue of Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word-formation. Irmer, Roland (1972). Die mit Nullmorphem abgeleiteten deverbalen Substantive des heutigen Englisch (Deverbal zero-derived nominals in present-day English). Doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen. Itai, Alon & Shuly Wintner. (2008). ‘Language resources for Hebrew’, Language Resources and Evaluation 42: 75–98. Iwata, Seizi. (1995). ‘The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives’, Linguistic Analysis 1–2: 95–120. Jackendoff, Ray (1977). X-bar Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1975). ‘Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon’, Language 51: 639–671. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. (1986). ‘Arbitrary pro and pronominals’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 43–76. Jelinek, Eloise & Heidi Harley. (2014). ‘Impersonal agreement in a non-agreement language: The Hiaki impersonal construction’, in Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds.), Pronouns, Presuppositions and Hierarchies: The Work of Eloise Jelinek in Context, 375–388. New York: Routledge. Jóhannsdóttir, Kristín M. (1995). ‘The argument structure of deverbal nominals in Icelandic’, University of Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 61–88. Johnson, David E. & Paul M. Postal. (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kalinina, Ljudmila I. (2001). Prichastija is prichastnyje konstrukcii v udmurtskom jazyke. Izhevsk: Izdatelskij dom Udmurtskij universitet. Kamiya, Masaaki, Thomas Roeper, & Angeliek van Hout. (2013). ‘Passivization, reconstruction and Edge phenomena: Connecting English and Japanese nominalization’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1): 137–159. Kastner, Itamar. (2016). Form and meaning in the Hebrew verb. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Kastner, Itamar. (2017). ‘Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics’. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 75. Kastner, Itamar. (2019a). ‘Templatic morphology as an emergent property: Roots and functional heads in Hebrew’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37: 571–619. Kastner, Itamar. (2019b). The Valence of Voice: Hebrew morphosyntax at the interfaces. Ms., HU Berlin. lingbuzz/004734.



433

Kaufman, Terrence. (1990). Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas mayances con referencia especial al K’iche’, in Nora England & Stephen R. Elliot (eds.), Lecturas sobre la lingüística maya, 59–114. Antigua: CIRMA. Kayne, Richard. (1975). French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Malden, MA: MIT Press. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99. Kelmakov, Valentin & Sara Hännikäinen. (1999). Udmurtin kielioppia ja harjoituksia. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kerleroux, Françoise. (2007). ‘Pêcheurs sous la glace’, dans Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie et Laurence Labrune (ed.), Des sons et des sens: données et modèles en phonologie et en morphologie, 141–154. Paris: Hermes-Lavoisier. Keshet, Ezra. (2008). ‘Telescoping and scope economy’, Proceedings of SALT 18(0): 483–495. Kester, Ellen-Petra. (1996). The nature of adjectival inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Keyser, Sam Jay & Thomas Roeper. (1992). ‘Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 89–125. Kibrik, Aleksandr. (1972). ‘O formal nom vydeleniisoglasovatel’nyx klassov arčinskom jazyke’, Voprosy jazykoznija 1: 124–131. Kibrik, Aleksandr. (1977). Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka II: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta. Kibrik, Aleksandr. (1994). ‘Archi’, in Rieks Smeets (ed.), Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus IV: North East Caucasian Languages II: Presenting the Three Nakh Languages and Six Minor Lezgian Languages, 297–365. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Kibrik, Aleksandr, Kodzasov, S. V., Olovjannikova, I. P., & Samedov, D. S. (1977). Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka: I: Leksika, fonetika. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta. Kibrik, Andrej A. (2012). ‘What’s in the head of head-marking languages?’, in Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie, & Valery Solovyev (eds.), Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, 211–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kim, Min-Joo. (2009). ‘E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 345–377. Kiparsky, Paul. (1982a). ‘Lexical morphology and phonology’, in Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Essays from SICOL-1981. Seoul: Hanshin. Kiparsky, Paul. (1982b). ‘From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology’, in Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris. Kiparsky, Paul. (1997). ‘Remarks on denominal verbs’, in Alex Alsina (ed.), Complex Predicates, 473–499. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Kipper Schuler, K. (2005). VerbNet: A broadcoverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Kirillova, Lyudmila E. (ed.) (2008). Udmurtsko-russkij slovar. Izhevsk: Udmurtskiy Institut istorii, yazyka i literatury Ural’skogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Kisselew, Max, Laura Rimell, Alexis Palmer, & Sebastian Padó. (2016). ‘Predicting the direction of derivation in English conversion’, in Proceedings of the ACL SIGMORPHON Workshop, 93–98. Berlin. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-20

434  Klumpp, Gerson. (2016). ‘Semantic functions of complementizers in Permic languages’, in Kasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer Semantics in European Languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 57), 529–586. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. (2005). ‘On the typology of state/change of state alternations’, in Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 83–117. Dordrecht: Springer. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. (2009). ‘Anticausativization’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 77–138. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, John Beavers, Ryan Bochnak, Margit Bowler, Mike Everdell, Itamar Francez, Emily Hanink, Kyle Jerro, Elise LeBovidge, & Stephen Nichols. (2019). ‘State/change of state polysemy and the lexical semantics of property concept lexemes’, paper presented at the University of Stuttgart, May 14. Koopman, Hilda. (1997). Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. Ms., UCLA. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. (1993). Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Kornfilt, Jaklin. (2001). ‘On the syntax and morphology of clausal complements and adjuncts in the Turkic languages’, in Walter Bisang (ed.), Aspects of Typology and Universals, 63–82. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kornfilt, Jaklin. (2003). ‘Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses’, in Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, 129–216. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Kornfilt, Jaklin. (2005). ‘Agreement and its placement in Turkic nonsubject relative clauses’, in Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 513–541. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kornfilt, Jaklin. (2015). ‘Turkish relative clauses: How exceptional are they from a Central Asian Turkic perspective?’, in Öner Özçelik & Amber Kennedy Kent (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics (ConCALL-1) vol. 1, 3–24. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, CeLCAR. Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. (2011a). ‘Introduction: Nominalizations in syntactic theory’, Lingua 121: 1160–1163. Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. (2011b). ‘Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory’, Lingua 121: 1297–1313. Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. (2012). ‘Genitive subjects in TP nominalizations’, Proceedings of JeNOM 4. SinSpeC: Working Papers of the SFB 732 ‘Incremental Specification in Context’ 9: 39–72. Kozmács, István. (2008). Az -śk- képző az udmurt (votják) igeképzés rendszerében (The -śk Suffix in the Verbal Derivation System of Udmurt). Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa. Kramer, Ruth. (2015). The Morpho-syntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kratzer, Angelika. (1989). ‘An investigation of the lumps of thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653. Kratzer, Angelika. (1994). ‘On external arguments’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 103–130. Kratzer, Angelika. (1995). ‘Individual-level and Stage-level predicates’, in Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, 125–175. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Kratzer, Angelika. (1996). ‘Severing the external argument from its verb’, in Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.



435

Kratzer, Angelika. (2006). ‘Decomposing attitude verbs’, handout from talk given at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 4. Kratzer, Angelika. (2007). ‘Situations in natural language semantics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situationssemantics/ Kratzer, Angelika. (2013). ‘Modality for the 21st century’, in Stephen R. Anderson, Jacques Moeschler, & Fabienne Reboul (eds.), L’interface Langage-Cognition (The LanguageCognition Interface): Actes du 19e Congress International des Linguistes Geneve, 179–199. Geneva: Librarie Droz. Kraus, Cornelia. (2001). On reduced relatives with genitive subjects. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Kvaran, Guðrún. (2005). Íslensk tunga II: Orð (The Icelandic Language II: Words). Reykjavík: Almenna bókfélagið. Laka, Itziar. (2006). ‘Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: The case of Basque’, in Alana Johns, Diane Massam, & Juvénal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging Issues, 173–196. Dordrecht: Springer. Lakoff, George. (1965). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Lamontagne, Greg & Lisa Travis. (1987). ‘The syntax of adjacency’, in Megan Crowhurst (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 6, 173–186. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Landau, Idan. (2010a). ‘Saturated adjectives, reified properties’, in Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, 204–225. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Landau, Idan. (2010). The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Landau, Idan. (2015). A Two-Tiered Theory of Control. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Landman, Meredith. (2006). Variables in natural language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Lapointe, Steven. (1980). A theory of grammatical agreement. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Larson, Richard. (1998). ‘Events and modification in nominals’, in Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII, 145–168. CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Larsen, Tomas W. & William M. Norman. (1979). ‘Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar’, in Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, 347–370. London/New York: Academic Press. Law, Danny & David Stuart. (2017). ‘Classic Mayan: An overview of language in ancient hieroglyphic script’, in Judith Aissen, Nora C. England, & Roberto Zavala Maldonado (eds.), The Mayan Languages, 128–172. New York: Routledge. Lebaux, David. (1986). ‘The interpretation of derived nominals’, Proceedings of CLS 22: 231–247. Lebeaux, David. (1984). ‘Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO’, Proceedings of NELS 14: 253–274. Lees, Robert. B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Lefebvre, Claire & Pieter Muysken. (1988). Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Legate, Julie Anne. (2008). ‘Morphological and abstract case’, Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101. Legate, Julie Anne. (2012). ‘Types of ergativity’, Lingua 122: 181–191. Legate, Julie. A. (2014). Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

436  Lenneberg, Eric. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Leu, Thomas. (2008). The internal syntax of determiners. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Levin, Beth. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Number 26 in Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Lisa. (2007). The roots of verbs. Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, NY. Levinson, Lisa. (2014). ‘The ontology of roots and verbs’, in Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, 208–229. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leyva, Maria Florez. (2019). Au te waate: We remember it. Personal histories of Hiaki (Yaqui) displacement and persecution. Ms., New Pascua, Tucson, AZ. Lieber, Rochelle. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lieber, Rochelle. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle. (2016). English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linzen, Tal. (2014). ‘Parallels between cross-linguistic and language-internal variation in Hebrew possessive constructions’, Linguistics 52: 759–792. Lowenstamm, Jean. (2008). ‘On little n, √, and types of nouns’, in Jeremy Hartmann, Veronika Hegedűs, & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, 105–144. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lyons, Christopher. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Dilya Ibatullina. (2015). ‘Case theory and case variation in Tatar’, in Ekaterina Lyutikova, Anton Zimmerling, & Mariya Konoshenko (eds.), Tipologiya morfos-intakticheskih parametrov 2015, 226–242. Moskva: MGU. Maki, Hideki & Asako Uchibori. (2008). ‘Ga/No conversion’, in Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 192–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marantz, Alec. (1991). ‘Case and licensing’, Proceedings of Escol, 234–253. Marantz, Alec. (1997). ‘No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, in Dimitriadis, Alexis, Laura Siegel, Carissa Surek-Clark, & Alexander Williams (eds.), UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225. Marantz, Alec. (2001). ‘Words and things’, handout, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Marantz, Alec. (2007). ‘Phases and words’, in Choe, Sook-Hee and Yang, Dong-Wee and Kim, Yang-Soon and Kim, Sung-Hun, and Marantz, Alec. (ed.), Phases in the Theory of Grammar. Seoul: Dong In Publisher. Marantz, Alec. (2013). ‘Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces’, in Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–116. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marchis, Michaela. (2008). ‘The internal structure of the –or nominalization in Romanian’, in Florian Schäfer (ed.), Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context 01: 103–117.



437

Marelj, Marijana & Eric Reuland. (2016). ‘Clitics and reflexives: Reducing the LexiconSyntax Parameter’, in Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, & Eric Reuland (eds.), Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System, 175–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marín, Rafael & Louise McNally. (2011). ‘Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(2): 467–502. Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. (2014). ‘Anticausatives compete but do not differ in meaning: A French case study’, in SHS Web of Conferences 8: 2485–2500. New York: EDP Sciences. Martínez, Faban & Don Langendoen (1996). ‘On so-called relative clauses in Yaqui (Sobre las llamadas clausulas relativas en Yaqui)’, in Zarina Estrada, Max Figuroa, & Gerardo Lopez (eds.), III encuentro de linguistics en el noroeste, tomo 1: lenguas indigenas, vol. 2, 443–464. Hermosillo, Son: Editoria Unison. Maxwell, Judith. (1976). How to talk to people who talk chekel ‘different’: The chuj (Mayan) solution. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. McIntyre, Andrew. (2014). ‘Constraining argument structure in nominalizations: The case of English -er’, Lingua 141: 121–138. McIntyre, Andrew. (2018). Complex predicates and late argument merger. Ms., HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin. McIntyre, Andrew. (2019). ‘Zero nominals in English’, paper presented at the 8th Workshop on Nominalizations, University of Stuttgart, June 20, https://drive.google.com/drive/ folders/1dYcONRNCWgS6nSj-KdLvtNNRgHAB4xiX Medová, Lucie. (2009). Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages: A comparative view from an antipassive perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University. Melloni, Chiara. (2017). ‘Aspect-related properties in the nominal domain: The case of Italian psych nominals’, in Maria Bloch-Trojnar & Anna Malicka-Kleparska (eds.), Aspect and Valency in Nominals, 253–284. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Miguel, Elena de. (1996). ‘Nominal infinitives in Spanish: An aspectual constraint’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41(1): 29–53. Miyagawa, Shigeru. (1998). ‘(S)ase as an Elsewhere causative and the syntactic nature of words’, Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16: 67–110. Molina, Felipe S., Herminia Valenzuela, & David L. Shaul. (1999). Yoeme-English EnglishYoeme, with a Comprehensive Grammar of Yoeme Language. New York: Hippocrene Books. Moltmann, Friederike. (1997). ‘Intentional verbs and quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 5: 1–52. Moltmann, Friederike. (2013). Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moulton, Keir. (2009). Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Moulton, Keir. (2014). ‘Simple event nominalizations: Roots and their interpretation’, in Ileana Paul (ed.), Cross-linguistic Investigations of Nominalization Patterns (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 210), 119–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moulton, Keir. (2015). ‘CPs: Copies and compositionality’, Linguistic Inquiry 46: 305–342. Mourelatos, Alex, P. D. (1978). ‘Events, processes and states’, Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–434. Mpofu, Nomalanga. (2009). The Shona adjective as a prototypical category. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo.

438  Murasugi, Kumiko. (1992). Crossing and nested paths. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Murphy, Andrew (2018). Pronominal Inflection and NP Ellipsis in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21, 327–379. Myler, Neil. (2011). ‘Come the pub with me: Silent TO in a Dialect of British English’, NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 120–135. Myler, Neil. (2013). ‘On coming the pub in the North West of England: Accusative unaccusatives, dependent case and preposition incorporation’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2–3): 189–207. Myler, Neil. (2014). Building and interpreting possession sentences. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Myler, Neil. (2016). Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neeleman, Ad & Fred Weerman. (1999). Flexible Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2005). ‘Some remarks on Roeper’s remarks on Chomsky’s ‘Remarks’’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2: 26–39. Newmeyer, Frederick. J. (2009). ‘Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique’, in William Lewis, Simin Karimi, Scott O. Farrar, & Heidi Harley (eds.), Time and Again, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nie, Yining. (submitted). ‘Voice morphology and the features of transitivity’, https://ling .auf.net/lingbuzz/003750 Nikolaeva, Irina. (1999). Ostyak. Languages of the World Materials 305. München: Lincom Europa. Noonan, Michael. (1997). ‘Versatile nominalizations’, in Joan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norris, Mark. (2014). A theory of nominal concord. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz. Norris, Mark. (2017). ‘Description and analyses of nominal concord (parts I–II)’, Language and Linguistics Compass 11. Ordóñez, Francisco. (1995). ‘The antipassive in Jacaltec: A last resort strategy’, CatWPL 4: 329–343. Oseki, Yohei. (submitted). ‘Voice morphology in Japanese argument structures’, http://ling. auf.net/lingbuzz/003374 Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. (2016). The syntax of non-finite clauses in Kazakh. Doctoral dissertation, University of Szeged. Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. (2019). ‘Genitive-marked subjects in Kazakh relative clauses’, talk at Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, September 26–28. Ott, D. (2016a). ‘Fragment anchors do not support the syntactic integration of appositive relative clauses: Reply to Griffiths & de Vries 2013’, Linguistic Inquiry 47: 580–590. Ott, D. (2016b). ‘Ellipsis in appositives’, Glossa 1: article 34. Ott, D. (2017). ‘The syntax and pragmatics of dislocation: A non-templatic approach’, in Andrew Alexander Monti (ed.), Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://cla-acl.ca/actes-2017-proceedings/ Ouhalla, Jamal. (1991). Functional Categories and Parametric Variations. London: Routledge. Panagiotidis, Phoevos E. (2011). ‘Categorial features and categorizers’, The Linguistic Review 28: 325–346.



439

Panagiotidis, Phoevos. E. (2014). Categorial Features: A Generative Theory of Word Class Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Partee, Barbara. (1986). ‘Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles’, in Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris. Pascual, Adán F. (2007). Transitividad y dependencia sintáctica y discursiva en Q’anjob’al. Master’s thesis, CIESAS, México. Payne, Thomas. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perlmutter, David M. (1980). ‘Relational grammar’, in E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Current Approaches to Syntax, vol. 13, 195–229. New York: Academic Press. Pesetsky, David. (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pesetsky, David. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David (2013). Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. (2001). ‘T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences’, in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. (2004). ‘Tense, Case and the nature of syntactic categories’, in Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Picallo, M. Carme. (1991). ‘Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan’, Probus 3: 279–316. Picallo, M. Carme. (1999). ‘La estructura del sintagma nominal: las nominalizaciones yotros sustantivos con complementos argumentales’, in Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 363. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Picallo, M. Carme. (2002). ‘Abstract agreement and clausal arguments’, Syntax 5: 116–147. Piedrasanta, Ruth. (2009). Los Chuj, Unidad y rupturas en su espacio. Guatemala City: Amrar Editores. Piñón, Christopher. (1999). ‘Durative adverbials for result states’, in Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, & Peter Norquest (eds.), WCCFL 18 Proceedings, 420–433. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Piñón, Christopher. (2000). ‘Happening gradually’, in Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf, & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 445–456. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Piñón, Christopher. (2005). ‘Adverbs of completion in an event semantics’, in Henk J. Verkuyl, Henriette de Swart, & Angeliek van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on Aspect, 149–166. Dordrecht: Springer. Pires, Acrisio. (2001). The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: Subjects, case and control. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Pires, Acrisio. (2006). The Minimalist syntax of Defective Domains. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pires, Acrisio. (2007). ‘The derivation of clausal gerunds’, Syntax 10: 165–203.

440  Pires, Acrisio & Gary Milsark. (2017). ‘Gerundive nominalizations’, in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pitteroff, Marcel & Florian Schäfer. (2019). Language Implicit Arguments Crosslinguistically 95(1): 136–184. Plann, Susan. (1981). ‘The two el+infinitive constructions in Spanish’, Linguistic Analysis 7: 203–240. Polinsky, Maria. (2016). ‘Agreement in Archi from a Minimalist perspective’, in Oliver Bond, Greville Corbett, Marina Chumakina, & Dunstan Brown (eds.), Archi: Complexities of Agreement in Cross-Theoretical Perspective, 184–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Polinsky, Maria. (2017). ‘Syntactic ergativity’, in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Polinsky, Maria, Nina Radkevich, & Marina Chumakina (2017). Agreement between arguments? Not really. Ms. Harvard University/University of York/University of Surrey. Poole, Ethan. (2017). Movement and the semantic type of traces. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Portner, Paul. (1992). Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Postal, Paul. (1992). ‘Un passif sans morphologie specifique’, in Liliane Tasmowski, Nicolas Ruwet, & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet. Ghent: Comunication and Cognition. Potts, Christopher. (2002). ‘The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and Appositivewhich’, Syntax 5: 55–88. Preminger, Omer. (2010). ‘Failure to agree is not a failure: ϕ-agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew’, in Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9, 241–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Preminger, Omer. (2019). ‘What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality’, Glossa 4(1): 13. Pross, Tillmann. (2019). ‘What about lexical semantics if syntax is the only generative component of the grammar? A case study on word meaning in German’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37(1): 215–261. Pustejovsky, James. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Puzynina, Janina. (1969). Nazwy czynności we współczesnym języku polskim. Warszawa: PWN. Pylkkänen, Liina. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Quesada, J. Diego. (1997). ‘A note on Mayan “crazy” antipassivization’, Theoretical Linguistics 23: 79–112. Ramchand, Gillian. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. (2014). ‘Deriving the functional hierarchy’, Language Sciences 46, 152–174. Ramirez, Carlos Julio. (2003). ‘The Spanish nominalized infinitives: A proposal for a classification’, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 117–133. Randall, Janet. (1982). Morphology and language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Randall, Janet. (1988). ‘Inheritance’, in W. Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 21, 129–146. New York: Academic Press.



441

Rappaport, Malka. (1983). ‘On the nature of derived nominals’, in Beth Levin, Malka Rappaport, & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 113–142. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. (1992). ‘-er ominals: Implications for a Theory of Argument Structure’, in Tim Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon, 127–153. New York: Academic Press. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. (1998). ‘Building verb meanings’, in Miriam Butt & William Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Reis Silva, Maria Amélia. (1996). ‘El aspecto en Mẽbêngôkre: Consideraciones sobre una construcci ón progresivá’, in Actas de las II Jornadas de Etnolingüística, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina. Rimell, Laura D. (2012). Nominal roots as event predicates in English denominal conversion verbs. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Roberts, Ian G. (2020). Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roehrs, Dorian. (2015). ‘Inflections on pre-nominal adjectives in Germanic: Main types, subtypes, and subset relations’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 213–271. Roeper, Thomas. (1987). ‘Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310. Roeper, Thomas. (1999). ‘Leftward movement in morphology’, MITWPL 34: 35–66. Roeper, Tom (2014). Strict interface principles and the acquisition engine: From unlabeled to labeled and minimal modular contact. Language Sciences 46: 115–132. Roeper, Thomas. (2018, to appear). ‘The path from Minimal Interfaces to expansive multilingualism.’ J. Macswan (ed.) (Volume on Code-switching) Roeper, Thomas & Angeliek van Hout. (1999). ‘The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and middle: Burzio’s generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working Papers on Linguistics 35: 185–211. Roeper, Thomas & Muffy Siegel. (1978). ‘A lexical transformation for verbal compounds’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199–260. Roeper, Thomas & Angeliek van Hout. (2009). ‘The representation of movement in -ability nominalizations: Evidence for covert category movement, Edge phenomena, and local LF’, in Harm Pinkster & Inge Genee (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, 344–364. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rooryck, Johan. (1996). ‘Prepositions and minimalist case marking’, in Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel Epstein, & Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, vol. 2, 226–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ross, John. (1972). ‘The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort’, in Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, Gloria C. Phares (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 316–338. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago. Roßdeutscher, Antje & Hans Kamp. (2010). ‘Syntactic and semantic constraints on the formation and interpretation of ung-Nouns’, in Artemis Alexiadou & Monika Rathert (eds.), The Semantics of Nominalisations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Round, Erich. (2013). Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roussou, Anna. (1991). ‘Nominalized clauses in the syntax of Modern Greek’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 77–100.

442  Roy, Isabelle. (2010). ‘Deadjectival nominalizations and the structure of adjectives’, in Artemis Alexiadou & Monika Rather (eds.), The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks, 129–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Roy, Isabelle. (2013). Non-verbal Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roy, Isabelle, Bridget Copley, Saveria Colonna, & Sudha Arunachalam. (2016). ‘Grammatical and conceptual knowledge of dispositions in the interpretation of -er nominals: Experimental evidence’, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Morphological, Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Dispositions, 92–106. University of Stuttgart. Roy, Isabelle & Elena Soare. (2012). ‘L’enquêteur, le surveillant et le détenu: les noms déverbaux de participants aux événements, lectures événementielles et structure argumentale’, dans Rafael Marìn & Florence Villoing (eds.), Lexique 20, Nouveaux aspects sur les Nominalisations, 207–231. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Roy, Isabelle & Elena Soare. (2013). ‘Event related nominalizations’, in Gianina Iordăchioaia, Isabelle Roy & Kaori Takamine (eds.), Categorization and Category Change, 121–152. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Roy, Isabelle & Elena Soare. (2014). ‘On the internal event properties of -er nominals’, Lingua 141: 139–156. Roy, Isabelle & Elena Soare. (2015). ‘Nominalisations de participes: propriétés verbales et syntaxe interne’, Le français moderne 1: 54–71. Royer, Justin. (2019). Noun classifiers and the composition of DP in Chuj (Mayan). Ms. McGill University, Montreal. Royer, Justin. (to appear). ‘Prosody as syntactic evidence: The view from Mayan’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. Rozwadowska, Bożena. (1988). ‘Thematic restrictions on derived nominal’, in Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Thematic Relations: Syntax and Semantics 21, 147–165. New York: Academic Press. Rozwadowska, Bożena. (1995). ‘The duality of Polish -nie/-cie nominals’, in Edmund Gussman (ed.), Licensing in Syntax and Phonology: PASE: Monographs 1, 87–106. Lublin: Folium. Rozwadowska, Bożena. (1997). Towards a Unified Account of Nominalizations: External and Internal Eventualities. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Rozwadowska, Bożena. (2000). ‘Aspectual properties of Polish nominalizations’, Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8(1–2): 239–261. Rozwadowska, Bożena. (2006). ‘Derived Nominals’, in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ch. 19. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rozwadowska, Bożena. (2012). ‘On the onset of psych eventualities’, in Eugeniusz Cyran, Henryk Kardela, & Bogdan Szymanek (eds.), Sound Structure and Sense: Studies in Memory of Edmund Gussmann, 533–544. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Rozwadowska, Bożena (to appear). ‘Polish psych verbs as non-achievements’, in Bożena Rozwadowska & Anna Bondaruk (eds.), Beyond Emotions in Language: Psychological verbs at the interfaces, 23–74, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rozwadowska, Bożena & Anna Bondaruk. (2019). ‘Against the psych causative alternation in Polish’, Studies in Polish Linguistics SI, 1: 77–97. Rudnev, Pavel. (to appear). ‘Adposition agreement in Avar and the directionality of valuation debate’, Linguistic Inquiry. (National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow). Ruwet, Nicolas. (1972). Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du francais. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Safir, Ken. (1987). ‘The syntactic projection of lexical thematic structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 561–601.



443

Sahan, Fatma. (2002). Nominal clauses in Kazan Tatar. Dissertation, University of WisconsinMadison. Salanova, Andrés Pablo. (2007). Nominalizations and aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Salanova, Andrés Pablo. (2008). ‘Uma análise unificada das construções ergativas do Mẽbengokre’, Amérindia 32: 109–134. Salanova, Andrés Pablo. (2015). ‘Sintaxis aplicativa, semántica causativa’, in Incremento de Valencia en las lenguas amazónicas, 143–176. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Sanchez, Jose, Alex Trueman, Maria Florez Leyva, Santos Leyva Alvárez, Mercedes TubinoBlanco, Hyun-Kyoung Jung, Louise St. Amour, & Heidi Harley. (2017). An Introduction to Hiaki Grammar, vol. I. Charleston, SC: Createspace. Schäfer, Florian. (2008). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-ofState Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schäfer, Florian. (2012). ‘The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case’, The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268. Schauber, Ellen. (1979). The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Navajo. New York: Garland. Schoof, Susanne. (2003). ‘Impersonal and personal passivization in Latin infinitive constructions: A scrutiny of the structures called AcI’, in Jong-Bok Kim & Stephen Wechsler (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on HPSG, 293–312. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Schoorlemmer, Erik. (2009). Agreement, dominance and doubling: The Morphosyntax of DP. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. Schütze, Carson. (1997). INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Selkirk, Elizabeth. (1982). The Syntax of Words, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 7. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Serdobolskaya, Natalia & Denis Paperno. (2006). The polysemy of relativizing and nominalizing markers. Ms., Moscow Municipal University for Psychology and Pedagogics and Moscow State University. Serdobolskaya, Natalia V., Anfisa A. Ilyevskaya, Sergey A. Minor, Polina S. Miteva, Aleksandra V. Fainveits, & Natalia S. Matveeva. (2012). ‘Konstrukcii s sentencial’nymi aktantami v finno-ugorskix jazykax’, in Ariadna. I. Kuznetsova (ed.), *Finno-ugorskie jazyki: fragment* *grammaticheskogo opisaniya. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody *(Studia Philologica), 382–476. Moskva: Rukopisnye pamyatniki drevney Rusi. Serrano, Silvia. (2014). ‘The article at the left periphery’, in Andreas Dufter & Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (eds.), Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, Variationsit and Comparative Perspectives, 185–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Serrano, Silvia Pardo. (2015). Subordinación y determinación: completivas precedidas de articulo defiinido en espanol. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset. Shagal, Ksenia. (2018). ‘Participial systems in Uralic languages: An overview’, ESUKA— JEFUL 9(1): 55–84. Shim, Ji Young & Tabea Ihsane. (2015). ‘Facts: The interplay between the matrix predicate and its clausal complement’, in Alison Biggs, Ma Li, Aiqing Wang, & Cong Zhang (eds.), Newcastle and Northumbria Working Papers in Linguistics, 21(1), 130–144. Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences. Shlonsky, Ur. (1987). Null and displaced pronouns. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

444  Shlonsky, Ur & Edit Doron. (1991). ‘Verb second in Hebrew’, in Dawn Bates (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 10), 431–445. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Sichel, Ivy. (2009). ‘New evidence for the structural realization of the implicit external argument in nominalizations’, Linguistic Inquiry 40: 712–723. Sichel, Ivy. (2010). ‘Event structure constraints in nominalization’, in Artemis Alexiadou & Monika Rathert (eds.), The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, 159–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Siegel Dorothy. (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Siegel, Laura. (1998). ‘Gerundive nominals and the role of Aspect’, in Jennifer Austin & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Procedings of ESCOL 1997. Ithaca, NY CLC Publications. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1989) Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University. Siloni, Tal & Omer Preminger. (2009). ‘Nominal voices’, in Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalizations, 365–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sleeman, Petra. (2010). ‘The nominalized infinitive in French: Structure and change’, Linguística: revista de estudos linguísticos da Universidade do Porto 5: 145–173. Smith-Stark, Thom. (1978). ‘The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions’, in Nora England (ed.), Papers in Mayan Linguistics, 169–187. Columbia, MU: The Curators of the University of Missouri. Snider, Todd. (2017). Anaphoric reference to propositions. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. Soare, Elena. (2019). N and D nominalizations. Ms., Université de Paris Lumières, Université de Paris 8 & CNRS UMR 7023. Speas, Peggy & Carol Tenny. (2003). ‘Configurational properties of point of view roles’, in Anna Maria DiSciullo (ed.), Asymmetry of Grammar 1: Syntax and Semantics, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Starchenko, Aleksey. (2019). ‘Periphrastic nominalization in Kazym Khanty’, talk at Syntax of Uralic Languages 3, Tartu, June. Stiebels, Barbara. (2006). ‘Agent focus in Mayan languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 501–570. Stone, Megan Schildmier. (2012). ‘Aspect in Cherokee nominals’, in Coyote Papers: Proceedings of the Arizona Linguistics Circle 5. Svenonius, Peter. (2003). ‘Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes’, Nordlyd 31: 431–445. Svenonius, Peter. (2004). ‘Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP’, Nordlyd 32(2): 205–253. Svenonius, Peter. (2007). ‘Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce’, in Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument Structure, 63–103. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Svenonius, Peter. (2010). ‘Spatial P in English’, in Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Takahashi, Shoichi. (2010). ‘The hidden side of clausal complementation’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 343–380. Tallman, Adam. (2018). A grammar of Ch’acobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.



445

Tallman, Adam,& Tammi Stout. (2016). ‘The perfect in Chácobo (Pano) in cross-linguistic perspective’, in Thuy Bui & Ivan Rudmila-Rodica (eds.), Proceedings of SULA 9, 197–213. Tallman, Adam & Tammi Stout. (2018). ‘Tense and temporal remoteness in Chácobo’, in Megan Keough, Natalie Weber, Andrei Anghelescu, Sihwei Chen, Ering Guntly, Khia Johnson, Daniel Reisinger, & Oksana Tkachman (eds.), Proceedings of WSCLA 21, 194–209. UBC Working Papers in Linguistics. Talmy, Leonard. (1978). ‘Figure and ground in complex sentences’, in Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals in Human Language, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tánczos, Orsolya. (2016). Causative constructions and their syntactic analysis in the Udmurt language. Dissertation, Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem. Tánczos, Orsolya. (2017). The antipassive -śk- in Udmurt: A preliminary study. Ms., Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Truswell, Rob. (2004). Attributive adjectives and the nominals they modify. Master’s dissertation, University of Oxford. Tyler, Matthew. (2019). Two kinds of external possession in Mississippi Choctaw. Ms., Yale. lingbuzz/004625 Valois, Daniel. (1991). The internal structure of DP. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. van Hout, Angeliek, Masaaki Kamiya, & Thomas Roeper. (2013). ‘Passivization, reconstruction and Edge phenomena: Connecting English and Japanese nominalizations’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 137–159. van Hout, Angeliek & Thomas Roeper. (1998). ‘Events and aspectual structure in Derivational Morphology’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 175–220. van Riemsdijk, Henk. (1990). ‘Functional prepositions’, in Harm Pinkster & Inge Genee (eds.), Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday. Dordrecht: Foris. Vázquez Álvarez, Juan J. (2002). Morfología del verbo de la lengua chol de Tila Chiapas. Master’s thesis, CIESAS, México. Vázquez Álvarez, Juan J. (2011). A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas Austin, Austin, TX. Vendler, Zeno. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Warburton-Philippaki, Irene & Aggeliki Papafili. (1988). ‘Categorization in Modern Greek complement clauses and Binding Theory’, in Studies in Greek Linguistics 9: 293–313. Wegner, Dennis. (2019). ‘The properties of perfect(ive) and (eventive) passive participles: An identity approach’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 34. 1–33. https://doi. org/10.5334/gjgl.751 Welmers, William. (1973). African Language Structures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Williams, Alexander. (2015). Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Edwin. (1981). ‘Argument structure and morphology’, The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. Williams, Edwin. (1987). ‘The theta structure of derived nouns’, in Barbara Need, Eric Schiller, & Anna Bosch (eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 366–376. Wiltschko, Martina. (2014). The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

446  Winkler, Eberhard. (2001). Udmurt. Languages of the World Materials 212. München: Lincom Europa. Wood, Jim. (2012). Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Wood, Jim. (2014). ‘Reflexive -st verbs in Icelandic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1387–1425. Wood, Jim. (2015). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Number 90 in Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Wood, Jim. (2020). Icelandic nominalizations and allosemy. Ms., Yale University. https:// ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005004 Wood, Jim & Alec Marantz. (2017). ‘The interpretation of external arguments’, in Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, & Ángel Gallego (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woolford, Ellen. (2006). ‘Case-agreement mismatches’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement Systems, 299–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wurmbrand, Susanne. (2003). Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Yang, Charles, Stephen Crain, Robert B. Berwick, Noam Chomsky, & Johan J. Bolhuis (2017). ‘The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience and principles of computation’, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. October, 81(Pt B): 103–119. Yoon, James H. S. & Neus Bonet-Farran. (1991). ‘The ambivalent nature of Spanish infinitives’, in Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 353–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. (1993). ‘On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs’, Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–180. Zu, Vera. (2009). ‘The interweaving of DPs and CPs: Evidence from Jingpo’, Current Issues in Linguistic Interfaces: Proceedings of the 2009 Seoul International Conference on Linguistic Interfaces. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. (1987). Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Zucchi, Alessandro. (1993). The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Nominalization. Amsterdam, Kluwer.

Language Index Note: Bold type is used to indicate significant discussion. Archi 43–52 Catalan 68 Chácobo 364–5, 376–86 Ch’ol 140–5, 147–54, 157–68 Chuj 140–64, 167–8 Dutch 33–7, 129 English 91–2, 109, 241–50, 313–4, 414

Japanese 96, 103–4 Jingpo 104 Korean 196, 267, 270–1 Mayan 139–41, 167–8 see also Ch’ol, Chuj Mẽbengokre 364–5, 369–76 Navajo 256 Polish 181, 338–57, 361

French 128, 315–22, 325–34 Romanian 317, 320, 322–5 German 37–42, 92–5, 98–100, 298–9 Greek 98, 103–4, 269, 355–7 Gujarati 49–52

Spanish 95–100 Turkish 96

Hebrew 53–84 Hiaki 205–13, 219, 227–9

Udmurt 173–184

Icelandic 391–2, 397

Yaqui, see Hiaki

Index Note: Bold type is used to indicate significant discussion. affixation height 14–5 agreement 17, 29–51, 140–1, 190–1 nominal, see concord possessive 177, 184–9, 194–5 syntax of agreement 17, 30 allosemy 396–9 Argument Structure Nominals 111–4 adjectival 119–24 architecture 126–31 short 114–8, 131–6 long 124 verbal 122–4 see also Complex Event Nominals, derived nominals, deverbal nominals, event nominals, nominalization, zero nominals ASN, see Argument Structure Nominals bare nominalization, see zero nominals CEN, see Complex Event Nominals change of state verbs 241–50 Chomsky’s (1970) ‘Remarks on Nominalization’ 25–8, 84, 309 clausal nominalizations 213, 261–71 Complex Event Nominals 11, 54–7, 141–9, 394–6 see also Argument Structure Nominals, derived nominals, deverbal nominals, event nominals, nominalization, zero nominals concord 31–3, 37–42 verbal domain 42–3, 187–91 single domain 43–9 multiple domains 49–52 discourse structure 302–6 double nominative 365 double unmarked, see double nominative

derivation 62, 134–7, 234–9, 325–32 derived nominals 10–4, 112, 143, 342–4 prefixing 401–16 see also deverbal nominals deverbal nominals 16, 173–4, 242–3 compositional 234–6 ergativity 140, 145–6 event nominals 212–9 see also Argument Structure Nominals, Complex Event Nominals event structure 249–52 experiencer verbs, see psych verbs functional heads 164–7, 219–25, 396 function nominals 332–5 complex 328–32 (non-)eventive 314–5, 319–22, 330–2 simplex 326–8 gerunds 91–3, 115–8, 174–8, 309–10, 312 Grimshaw’s (1990) Typology of derived nominals’ 10–4, 56, 68, 111–2 heterogeneity hypothesis 313–315 homogeneity hypothesis 311–3 Layering, see Phrasal Layering Analysis Lebeaux Effect 114–8, 133 Lexicalism 233 morpheme 36, 108, 141–6, 158–67, 170–1, 215–6, 377, 383 morphological marking 43, 57–62, 284, 347 morphosyntax 112, 226–7, 371 nominalization 90, 100 D-based 103 case-domain 386–9

 n-based 100–5, 109, 357–9 syntactic 136–7, 159, 412–3, 416–8 variation 91–9 nominalization pattern 54–62, 350

roots 149–51 result 236–7 semantic requirement 159–64 R-nominals 11 see also result nominals

participal relative clauses 183–4 passive 53, 57–69, 72–3 impersonal 279, 298–305 in nominals 119–125 see also Voice phase heads 102, 234, 399 Phrasal Layering Analysis 392, 395 Phrase Structure Grammar 26–7 polysemy 170–3, 201–2 prefixing 391–4 projections 281, 296, 306 clitic-like 286–7 lexical 291–3 Maximal 292, 296, 297 thematic 280, 283–4 propositional nominals 257–63, 265–72 propositional proforms 272–75 psych verbs 247–52, 344–57

X-bar theory 27–8, 203, 230

relative nominals 171–4, 183–9, 205–12 argumentless 217–8 result nominals 155–7, 178–9, 226 see also R-nominals

zero derived nominals, see zero nominals zero nominals 237–52, 286–98 ZN, see zero derived nominals

SASN, see Argument Structure Nominals syntactic categories 28 syntactic word formation 112, 234–8 templatic morphology 57–8 verbal agreement, see agreement verbalization 105–8 Voice 64–68 impersonal passive 129–31 non-active 68–75 see also Passive word formation, see syntactic word formation

449

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/10/2020, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS  1 The Syntax of Silence Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis by Jason Merchant 2 Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts by Utpal Lahiri 3 Phonetics, Phonology, and Cognition edited by Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks 4 At the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface Concept Formation and Verbal Underspecification in Dynamic Syntax by Lutz Marten 5 The Unaccusativity Puzzle Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert 6 Beyond Morphology Interface Conditions on Word Formation by Peter Ackema and Ad Neeleman

20 Adjectives and Adverbs Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse Edited by Louise McNally and Christopher Kennedy 21 InterPhases Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces edited by Kleanthes Grohmann 22 Negation in Gapping by Sophie Repp 23 A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure by Luis López 24 Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization edited by Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert 25 The Syntax of Sentential Stress by Arsalan Kahnemuyipour

7 The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Christopher Potts

26 Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality by James Higginbotham

8 Paradigms of Phonological Theory edited by Laura Downing, T. Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen

27 Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure edited by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel

9 The Verbal Complex in Romance by Paola Monachesi 10 The Syntax of Aspect Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation Edited by Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport

28 About the Speaker Towards a Syntax of Indexicality by Alessandra Giorgi 29 The Sound Patterns of Syntax edited by Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman

11 Aspects of the Theory of Clitics by Stephen Anderson

30 The Complementizer Phase edited by Phoevos Panagiotidis

12 Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology by Laura J. Downing

31 Interfaces in Linguistics New Research Perspectives edited by Raffaella Folli and Christiane Ulbrich

13 Aspect and Reference Time by Olga Borik 14 Direct Compositionality edited by Chris Barker and Pauline Jacobson 15 A Natural History of Infixation by Alan C. L. Yu 16 Phi-Theory Phi-Features Across Interfaces and Modules edited by Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar 17 French Dislocation Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition by Cécile De Cat 18 Inflectional Identity edited by Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins 19 Lexical Plurals by Paolo Acquaviva

32 Negative Indefinites by Doris Penka 33 Events, Phrases, and Questions by Robert Truswell 34 Dissolving Binding Theory by Johan Rooryck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd 35 The Logic of Pronominal Resumption by Ash Asudeh 36 Modals and Conditionals by Angelika Kratzer 37 The Theta System Argument Structure at the Interface edited by Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni 38 Sluicing Cross-Linguistic Perspectives edited by Jason Merchant and Andrew Simpson

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/10/2020, SPi

39 Telicity, Change, and State A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure edited by Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally

57 The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody A Study of Italian Clause Structure by Vieri Samek-Lodovici

40 Ways of Structure Building edited by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala

58 The Morphosyntax of Gender by Ruth Kramer

41 The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence edited by Jochen Trommer 42 Count and Mass Across Languages edited by Diane Massam 43 Genericity edited by Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio Del Prete 44 Strategies of Quantification edited by Kook-Hee Gil, Steve Harlow, and George Tsoulas 45 Nonverbal Predication Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface by Isabelle Roy

59 The Morphosyntax of Imperatives by Daniela Isac 60 Sentence and Discourse edited by Jacqueline Guéron 61 Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization edited by Géraldine Legendre, Michael T. Putnam, Henriëtte de Swart, and Erin Zaroukian 62 The Morphosyntax of Transitions A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages by Víctor Acedo-Matellán 63 Modality Across Syntactic Categories edited by Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero, and Andrés Salanova

46 Diagnosing Syntax edited by Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver

64 The Verbal Domain edited by Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego

47 Pseudogapping and Ellipsis by Kirsten Gengel

65 Concealed Questions by Ilaria Frana

48 Syntax and its Limits edited by Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell

66 Parts of a Whole Distributivity as a Bridge between Aspect and Measurement by Lucas Champollion

49 Phrase Structure and Argument Structure A Case Study of the Syntax-Semantics Interface by Terje Lohndal 50 Edges in Syntax Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization by Heejeong Ko 51 The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer 52 Causation in Grammatical Structures edited by Bridget Copley and Fabienne Martin 53 Continuations and Natural Language by Chris Barker and Chung-chieh Shan 54 The Semantics of Evaluativity by Jessica Rett 55 External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations A Layering Approach by Alexiadou Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer 56 Control and Restructuring by Thomas Grano

67 Semantics and Morphosyntactic Variation Qualities and the Grammar of Property Concepts by Itamar Francez and Andrew Koontz-Garboden 68 The Structure of Words at the Interfaces edited by Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa deMenaTravis 69 Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface by Osamu Sawada 70 Encoding Events Functional Structure and Variation by Xuhui Hu 71 Gender and Noun Classification edited by Éric Mathieu, Myriam Dali, and Gita Zareikar 72 The Grammar of Expressivity by Daniel Gutzmann 73 The Grammar of Copulas Across Language edited by María J. Arche, Antonio Fábregas, and Rafael Marín

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/10/2020, SPi

74 The Roots of Verbal Meaning by John Beavers and Andrew Koontz-Garboden 75 Contrast and Representations in Syntax edited by Bronwyn M. Bjorkman and Daniel Currie Hall 76 Nominalization 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer

Stratal Optimality Theory by Ricardo Bermúdez Otero Phonology in Phonetics by Abigail Cohn Quantity Superlatives and Proportional Quantification by Dobrovie Carmen-Sorin and Ion Giurgea Generality and Exception by Ivan Garcia-Alvarez

      The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces edited by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss

  The Place of Case in Grammar edited by Elena Anagnostopoulou, Dionysios Mertyris, and Christina Sevdali Phi Syntax A Theory of Agreement by Susana Béjar

The Derivational Timing of Ellipsis edited by Güliz Günes and Anikó Lipták Computing Optimality by Jason Riggle Gradience in Split Intransitivity by Antonella Sorace Syntactic Reconstruction in Minimalism by Dominique Sportiche The Syntax of Perspectival Anaphora by Sandhya Sundaresan Negation and Negative Dependencies by Hedde Zeijlstra