Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the restriction on the realization of non-agentive causers in nominalizations (see Adultery separated Jim and Mary. vs. ??the separation/*the separating of Jim and Mary by adultery). By comparing English to German and Romanian, we show that this restriction may have two sources: the event complexity of the nominalization or the lexical semantics of the preposition that introduces the external argument. First, the realization of non-agentive causers requires the presence of a result state component that is absent in German nominal infinitives and English ing-of gerunds. This leads to the inability of these nominalizations to host non-agentive external arguments. Second, the prepositions that introduce external arguments have a restricted distribution in Romanian and English nominalizations with the effect that the restriction appears in all Romanian nominalizations and in English derived nominals. The corresponding preposition in German is unrestricted, which explains why -ung nominals, which project a result state component, can realize non-agentive external arguments.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A, G. Iordăchioaia, F. Martin, F. Schäfer, and M. Cano. 2013. Direct participation and agent exclusivity effects in derived nominals and beyond. In Categorization and category change, eds. G. Iordăchioaia, I. Roy, and K. Takamine. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Alexiadou, A., and E. Doron. 2012. The syntactic construction of two non-active Voices: passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48: 1–34.
Alexiadou, A., and F. Schäfer. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. Proceedings of WCCFL 25: 40–48.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, and F. Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives cross-linguistically. In Phases of interpretation, ed. M. Frascarelli, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, and F. Schäfer. 2009. PP licensing in nominalizations. Proceedings of NELS 38: 39–52.
Alexiadou, A., G. Iordăchioaia, and E. Soare. 2010. Number/Aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A Distributed Morphology approach. Journal of Linguistics 46: 537–574.
Alexiadou, A., G. Iordăchioaia, and F. Schäfer. 2011. Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. In The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic, ed. P. Sleeman and H. Peridon, 25–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense: the normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. 2013. Structuring sense: taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borsley, R., and J. Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In The nature and function of syntactic categories, ed. R. Borsley, 101–131. New York: Academic.
Broekhuis, H., E. Keizer, and M. den Dikken. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: nouns and noun phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Cornilescu, A. 2001. Romanian nominalizations: Case and aspectual structure. Journal of Linguistics 37: 467–501.
Doron, E. 2003. Agency and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67.
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Ehrich, V. 2002. On the verbal nature of certain nominal entities. In More than words. A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, ed. I. Kaufmann and B. Stiebels, 69–89. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Embick, D. 2010. Localism vs. globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Folli, R., and H. Harley. 2005. Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Enquiries, ed. P. Kempchinsky and R. Slabakova, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.
Folli, R., and H. Harley. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118: 190–202.
Fox, D., and Y. Grodzinsky. 1998. Children’s passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 311–332.
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, H. 2011. An alternative to deficiency approaches to the manner-alternation parameter. Paper presented at Workshop on verbal elasticity, Barcelona, Oct. 2011.
Harley, H., and R. Noyer. 1998. Mixed nominalizations, object shift and short verb movement in English. Proceedings of NELS 28: 143–157.
Harley, H., and R. Noyer. 2000. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In The Lexicon/Encyclopedia interface, ed. B. Peeters, 349–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.
Iordăchioaia, G. 2008. External argument PPs in Romanian nominalizations. Working Papers of the SFB 732(1): 71–84.
Iordăchioaia, G., and E. Soare. 2009. Structural patterns blocking plural in Romance nominalizations. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2007, ed. E. Aboh, E. van der Linden, J. Quer, and P. Sleeman, 145–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41: 9–45.
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kratzer, A. 2000. Building statives. Proceedings of BLS 26: 385–399.
Kratzer, A. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of Voice. Ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Krifka, M. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, I. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and the lexicon. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1999. Two structures for compositionally derived events. Proceedings of SALT 9: 199–223.
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 201-225.
Marantz, A. 2009. Roots, re- and affected agents: can roots pull the agent under little v? Paper presented at the workshop Roots I, University of Stuttgart, June 2009.
McIntyre, A. 2013. Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In Non-canonical passives, ed. A. Alexiadou and F. Schäfer, 21–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Piñón, C. 2000. Happening gradually. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 445–456.
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. In press. Building scalar changes. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax,eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer and Florian Schäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M., and B. Levin. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In The theta system: Argument structure at the interface, ed. M. Everaert, M. Marelj, and T. Siloni, 150–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roßdeutscher, A., and H. Kamp. 2010. Syntactic and semantic constraints in the formation and interpretation of ung-Nouns. In The semantics of nominalizations across languages and frameworks, ed. A. Alexiadou and M. Rathert, 169–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rothmayr, A. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schäfer, F. 2012. Two types of external argument licensing: the case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66: 1–53.
Sichel, I. 2010. Event structure constraints in nominalization. In The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks, ed. A. Alexiadou and M. Rathert, 151–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sichel, I. 2011. Nominalization, causativization, and category-free syntax. Paper presented at the workshop Roots III, Jerusalem, June 2011.
Solstad, T. 2009. On the implicitness of arguments in event passives. Proceedings of NELS 38: 365–374.
van Hout, A., and T. Roeper. 1998. Events and aspectual structure in derivational morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 175–220.
von Stechow, A. 1996. The different readings of wieder “again”: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138.
Wechsler, S. 1990. Accomplishments and the prefix re-. In Proceedings of NELS 20: 419–434.
Wolff, P. 2003. Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition 88: 1–48.
Yamaguchi, T. 1998. Lexical semantic analysis of causative/inchoative alternation in Japanese: a preliminary investigation of subclasses of verbs. Essex graduate students papers in Linguistics II.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Data Questionnaire: The Licensing of External Arguments in English Nominalizations
The evaluation represents the average that we calculated on the basis of the results we collected from ten native speakers. The judgments were given on a scale consisting of OK, ??, ? and *.
To calculate the total results, we counted 15 points for OK, 10 points for ?, 5 points for ?? and 0 points for *. We added the numbers and then calculated the average depending on the number of judgments that we had for each particular example.
A. Licensing of external arguments with separate/separation/separating | |
1. OK/? Adultery separated Jim and Mary | 12.7p |
2. OK The teacher separated Jim and Mary | 15p |
3. ?? The separation of Jim and Mary by adultery | 5.5p |
4. OK The separation of Jim and Mary by the teacher | 13.8p |
5. * The separating of Jim and Mary by adultery | 2.4p |
6. ? The separating of Jim and Mary by the teacher | 12.2p |
7. ??/* Tdultery’s separation of Jim and Mary | 3.3p |
8. OK/? The teacher’s separation of Jim and Mary | 13.3p |
9. * Adultery’s separating of Jim and Mary | 1.6p |
10. OK/? The teacher’s separating of Jim and Mary | 13.3p |
B. Licensing of external arguments with destroy/destruction/destroying | |
1. OK The hurricane destroyed the city | 15p |
2. OK The soldiers destroyed the city | 15p |
3. OK The destruction of the city by the hurricane | 15p |
4. OK The destruction of the city by the soldiers | 15p |
5. ? The destroying of the city by the hurricane | 9.4p |
6. ? The destroying of the city by the soldiers | 11.1p |
C. Licensing of external arguments with verify/verification/verifying | |
1. OK The scientist verified the initial hypothesis | 15p |
2. OK The new results verified the initial hypothesis | 14.4p |
3. OK the verification of the initial hypothesis by the scientist | 15p |
4. ??/? The verification of the initial hypothesis by the new results | 7.7p |
5. OK/? the verifying of the initial hypothesis by the scientist | 12.2p |
6. * The verifying of the initial hypothesis by the new results | 1.6p |
7. ? The new results’ verification of the initial hypothesis | 9.4p |
8. OK The scientist’s verification of the initial hypothesis | 15p |
D. Licensing of external arguments with justify/justification/justifying | |
1. OK The approaching hurricane justified the evacuation (of the city) | 15p |
2. OK The mayor justified the evacuation | 15p |
3. ?/?? The justification of the evacuation by the approaching hurricane | 7.2p |
4. OK/? The justification of the evacuation by the mayor | 13.3p |
5. ??/* The justifying of the evacuation by the approaching hurricane | 2.7p |
6. OK the justifying of the evacuation by the mayor | 14.4p |
E. Progressive test with destroy and justify (incompatible with states) | |
1. OK The soldiers were destroying the city when the president called | 15p |
2. OK The hurricane was destroying the city when we landed | 14.4p |
3. OK The mayor was justifying the evacuation of the city when the president called. | 15p |
4. * The approaching hurricane was justifying the evacuation of the city when the president called the mayor. | 2.2p |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alexiadou, A., Iordăchioaia, G., Cano, M. et al. The realization of external arguments in nominalizations. J Comp German Linguistics 16, 73–95 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-014-9062-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-014-9062-x