Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Helena Jezdinská Nominalizations in English: Particle Shift in Gerundive Nominalizations Bachelor ’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D. 2008 Ideclare that Ihaveworkedonthisthesisindependently, usingonly the primary andsecondary sourceslistedinthebibliography. ........................................................... HelenaJezdinská Acknowledgement Aboveall,I wouldlike tothankprofessorPetrKarlíkforall hisadvice,including recommendationofthe sources,valuableandinterestingdiscussionsand moralsupport. Iwouldalsolike tothankdr.JanChovanecfor beingmysupervisorandhelpingmeto copewiththeinadequaciesofthethesis.Last,butnotleast,I thankdr.Jarmila Fictumová,HonzaandJanafortheirhelpingmetoworkwiththeBNC. Table of Contents LISTOF ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................2 1.NOMINALIZATION INCONTEMPORARY ENGLISH GRAMMARS ..................4 1.1. ENGLISH GRAMMAR BOOKS ..........................................................................4 1.1.1.QUIRK ............................................................................................................5 1.1.1.1.NOMINALIZATION ...............................................................................5 1.1.1.2.–ing CLAUSES ........................................................................................7 1.1.2.HUDDLESTON &PULLUM ........................................................................7 1.2. –ing FROM A CZECH GRAMMARIAN’S POINT OF VIEW ............................9 2.GENERATIVE APPROACH .....................................................................................12 2.1. LEES: TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES ...........................................................13 2.2. CHOMSKY: LEXICALIST HYPOTHESIS ........................................................15 2.3. MARANTZ: CRITICISM OF CHOMSKY .........................................................20 2.4. PARTICLE SHIFT IN “MIXED” NOMINALIZATION .....................................25 2.5. SUMMARY .........................................................................................................32 2.6. SOURCES FOR THE ANALYSIS .......................................................................34 2.6.1.THE BRITISH NATIONAL CORPUS .........................................................34 2.6.2.DICTIONARY OFPHRASAL VERBS .......................................................35 3.ANALYSIS:PARTICLESHIFTIN“POSS VERB- ing DP” ....................................36 3.1. DATA FOR ANALYSIS .......................................................................................36 3.2. THE WAY OF ANALYSING THE DATA ...........................................................38 3.3. BNC QUERIES OF PHRASAL VERBS AND “POSS VERB-ing DP” ..............38 3.3.1.PHRASAL VERBS .......................................................................................38 3.3.2.“POSS VERB-ing DP” .................................................................................43 3.3.3.ADDITIONALRESEARCHES ...................................................................46 3.3.3.1.“LONG”PRONOUNS ..........................................................................46 3.3.3.2.ADDITIONAL RESEARCH:“POSS VERB-ing DP” WITHPRT SHIFT .................................................................................................................46 3.4. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................48 4.WORKS USED ANDCITED ....................................................................................51 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Since the facts inthis paper will be simplifiedfor the reasonof lucidity andbriefness, and some of the individual structures will be demonstrated by tree diagrams, the list below providesthemeaningsofall usedabbreviations: √root ADVadverb(alsoparticle) BNCtheBritishNationalCorpus 1 Ddeterminer DPdeterminer phrase FPfunctional projection Nnoun,nominalunit NPnounphrase ON nominalobject OP pronominalobject PoS partsofspeech PRON pronoun Prt particle Ssentence-likeunit vfunctionalheadofvP Vverb;verbalunit vPfunctional projectionof V VPverb phrase 1 British National Corpus . <http://corpora.fi.muni.cz/ske>. 1 INTRODUCTION The goal of this paper focuses ona specific problem of Englishnominalization,that is, ashift of an adverbial particle after object in gerundive nominalizations,formedfrom phrasalverbs(i.e.verbs withadverbial particles): (0) a. hislookinguptheword (gerundivenominalizationwithout particleshift) b. hislookingthewordup (gerundivenominalizationwithparticleshift) Manyspeakers of Englishlanguage,bothas a mother tongue andas a secondlanguage, unconsciously use nominalized structures every day. This paper will illustrate how nominalizations are usedinpractice,and,moreover,it will alsooffer a deeper insight into the internal structure of such noun phrases. Not only will the thesis focus on particle shift but it will also introduce the most important theories, as well as a contemporary view of nominalization. The thesis will be divided into two parts, theoreticalandpractical. The theoretical part will start with the descriptive English grammars, such as Quirk (1985). This part will deal with the generalized explanations of what English nominalizationis,as well as what types of nominalization canbe foundinEnglish.It will also present the problem of verb-particle structures and how the contemporary grammars anddictionaries cope withit.Inorder togodeeper intothe internal structure of nominal phrase,Chapter 2of the theoretical part will provide the development of the “generative” nominalizationtheories from Lees (1968) tothe moderntheories,suchas Marantz (1997), comparing the most opposing approaches, i.e. lexicalism vs. the frameworkofDistributedMorphology. The practical part will draw upon the paper by Harley and Noyer (1998) 2 regarding particle shift in “mixed” nominalization. Both verbal and nominalized structures will be examined, aiming at the analysis of a particular type of nominalizations, i.e. gerundive nominalizations with possible particle shift. The practical part will be based on the British National Corpus and verified by Collins CobuildDictionaryof Phrasal Verbs (1990). NOTE: all examples usedinthis paper are originallyexamples from the corresponding worksorfromtheBritishNationalCorpus. 3 1. NOMINALIZATION IN CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH GRAMMAR BOOKS Before the problem of nominalizationwill be discussed,it shouldbe clear what the term “nominalization” means.A gooddefinition can be foundin The Oxford Companionto the EnglishLanguage (1992)where “nominalization” isexplainedas: The process or result of forminga nounfrom a wordbelongingtoanother word class: writing/writings and shaving/shavings derived from write and shave by adding -ing ; sanity derivedfrom sane bytheadditionofthe nounformingsuffix -ity ; nominalization derivedfrom nominalize byadding -ation .(2) The process or result of deriving a noun phrase by a transformation from a finite clause " their rejecting my complaint or their rejectionof my complaint from They rejectedmy complaint .(p.702) 1.1. ENGLISH GRAMMAR BOOKS Books on English grammar can illustrate how the concept of “nominalization” is apprehended andhow it is explained toa broader audience,suchas students of English language.Theybringaverydetaileddescriptionof how andunder what conditions and rules these structures can be applied to English. For the following subchapters both Englishand Czechgrammarians have been chosen,in order to propose the individual viewsof“nominalization”inEnglish. 4 1.1.1. QUIRK 2 1.1.1.1. NOMINALIZATION In this work, the authors depict in detail, both morphologically and syntactically, the commontypes of Englishnominalizations.Inaddition,theyparticularlysingle out the semantics of the individual structures. The term “nominalization” is determined as “anounphrase […] whichhas a systematic correspondence witha clause structure […]. The nounheadof sucha phrase is normallyrelatedmorphologicallytoa verb (1) or to anadjective (2)”(p.1288): (1) his refusal tohelp ~He refuses tohelp. (2) the truth ofherstatement~Herstatementis true . The authors point out that there is a difference inmeaning betweena deverbal noun, suchas(3)and(4),andtheircorrespondingverbalnoun(5) and(6): (3) some paintingsof Brown’s ~(a)some paintingsthatBrownowns,or(b) some paintings paintedbyBrown (4) Brown’s paintingsof hisdaughter ~ (a) paintings depicting his daughter and painted by him, or (b) paintings depictinghisdaughter andpaintedbysomeoneelse butownedbyhim. (5) The paintingof Brown is asskilful as thatofGainsborough. ~(a)Brown’smodeof painting,or(b)Brown’s actionof painting. (6) Brown’sdeft paintingof hisdaughter isadelight towatch ~ItisadelighttowatchwhileBrowndeftlypaintshisdaughter. At this stage,the authors claim that the nouns in (3) and (4) withplural endings andthe 2Quirk, Randolph, et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . London: Longman. 5 possibilityof beingreplacedbyother nouns,suchas pictures or photos ,are anexample of “a perfectly regular concrete count noun, related only to the verb paint by word formation” (p. 1291) while (5) and (6) show the properties of a noun by having the definite article in (5), whereas in(6) both a genitive construction and the adjective