Workshop on Nominalization
Issues in Argument Structure
Department of Linguistics
State University of St Petersburg
St- Petersburg-Utrecht Joint PhD Program
III. What's Nominal in Nominalizations?
Eric Reuland
Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS
Eric
1. The problem
Like many languages Dutch has expressions showing a mix of nominal and verbal characteristics: nominal infinitives.
Three types:
1. Het-determiner
2. Dat-determiner
3. No determiner
Schoorlemmer 2001 discusses types 1. and 2., illustrated in (1a,b). (1c) illustrates type 3.
1.
(1)a.Hetoproepenvangetuigendoordeofficier
thesummon-infofwitnessesbythecoroner
b.Datafschuwelijkeoverlastveroorzakenvanjou
thatterribletroublecause-infofyou
c.Bomen kappen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
Schoorlemmer notes a number of interesting contrasts between type 1 and type 2 infinitives, that I will not discuss here, and further presents an overview of nominal and verbal properties of nominal infinitives, as identified in the literature (Van Haaften et al 1985, Hoekstra and Wehrmann 1985, Reuland 1988, Hoekstra 1997).
Nominal Properties
- They are introduced by a determiner
- They can be modified by adjectives
- A subject or object may be expressed in a van-phrase (NB. there can be only one van-phrase)
- The van-phrase always occurs in a post-head position
Verbal properties
- They can be modified by adverbs
- Argument PPs can precede or follow the head
- The subject can be realized as a door-phrase (by-phrase)
- (Bare accusative) direct objects must precede the verb
- They may contain complex verbal structures
Specifically:
- the direct object can be realized both preverbally as an NP or postverbally as a van-PP (of-PP).
- Modifiers can be realized with a schwa marking them as adjectives, or without a schwa marking them as adverbs.
- One and the same construction can be modified both by an adjective and an adverb, but only in that order
The presence of a determiner is necessary to license modification by an adjective (marked with schwa) adjectives are impossible in type 3 nominalizations as illustrated in (2):
(2)a.*frequenteADJ / frequentADV bomen kappen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
frequent/frequently trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
b.*frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen van bomen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
frequent/frequently felling of trees (by the industry) is harmful
Some further examples of type 1 showing the main pattern:
(3)a. Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV bomen kappen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
The frequent/frequently trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
b. *Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen bomen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
The frequent/frequently felling trees (by the industry) is harmful
c. Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen (van bomen) (door de industrie) …
.The frequent/frequently felling of trees (by the industry) is harmful
d.*Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV van bomen kappen (door de industrie) …
.The frequent/frequently of trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
e. Het *frequenteADJ / OKfrequentADV door de industrie bomen kappen is schadelijk
The frequent/frequently by the industry trees felling is harmful
f.*Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV door de industrie kappen van bomen is schadelijk
The frequent/frequently by the industry felling of trees is harmful
g.Hun frequenteADJ / (?)frequentADV bomen kappen is schadelijk
Their frequent/frequently trees felling is harmful
h.Hun frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen van bomen is schadelijk
Their frequent/frequently felling of trees is harmful
(4)Hun frequenteADJ / *frequentADV kappen (door/*van de industrie) is schadelijk
Their frequent/frequently felling (by the industry) is harmful (POSS is OBJ)
But: How verbal is verbal, how nominal is nominal?
Puzzle: Argument optionality
There is the following contrast between verbal and nominal complementation: A suitable discourse can license absence of the 'obligatory' complement in nominals, but not with verbs.
(5). a.De bomen moesten allemaal weg. Het vellen kostte veel tijd.
The trees all had to go. The felling cost a lot of time
b.De bomen moesten allemaal weg .* Jan velde gedurende drie uur
The trees all had to go. John fell for three hours
(6)a.Dit struikgewas is schadelijk. Frequent verwijderen (door een expert) is nodig.
This shrubbery is harmful. Frequent removing (by an expert) is needed
b.Dit struikgewas is schadelijk. *Een expert moet frequent verwijderen.
This shrubbery is harmful. An expert should frequently remove.
(7)a.De stad viel in de handen van de vijand. Het vernietigen/de vernietiging kostte veel tijd.
The town fell into the hands of the enemy. The destruction took a lot of time.
b.De stad lag op de route van het vijandelijke leger. De vernietiging door de vijand kostte echter veel tijd. / Het vernietigen door de vijand kostte echter veel tijd.
The town was in the way of the enemy army. The destruction by the enemy took a lot of time, however.
c.De stad viel in de handen van de vijand.*De vijand was lang bezig te vernietigen.
The town fell into the hands of the enemy. The enemy took a long time destroying.
(8)a. De tafel was mooi geworden. Het materiaal was duur. De langdurige bewerking had veel aandacht gekost. /Het langdurig?(e) bewerken had veel aandacht gekost.
b.De tafel was mooi geworden. Het materiaal was duur. *Jan had dan ook aandachtig bewerkt.
(9)a.Emoties zijn zwaar. Frequent uitdrukken is belangrijk Ongeremde uitdrukking is goed.
b.Emoties zijn zwaar. *Jan drukte ongeremd uit omdat dat belangrijk was.
(10)a.Deze problemen zijn onoplosbaar. Veelvuldig opgeven moet vermeden worden.
b.Deze problemen zijn onoplosbaar. *We geven desondanks constant op.
Concluding: There is considerable freedom in the realization of arguments in nominal infinitives., and arguments that are syntactically obligatory in verbal constructions are not syntactically obligatory in the corresponding nominal infinitives. This is independent of the character of the modifier, whether or not a 'subject' is realized as a POSS phrase or a by-phrase, etc. This property obtains throughout in all other types of nominalization.
Question: Why?
Possible answer: These constructions are fully nominal & nouns don't have obligatory arguments (contra Grimshaw 1990, but see below)
- What does it mean to be nominal?
- Why would this property hold of nominals?
2. What does it mean to be a nominal?
Part of theory of syntactic categories:
Distributive Morphology (Halle and Marantx 1993, Marantz 1997, etc.):
Lexical roots are category neutral, they are assigned a category X by merging with a small x.
n+√ = N
a+√ = A
v+√ = V
Does not express what it means to be ann, rather than a v or a.
Effectively states:
- any root can merge with nominalizer to become a noun, a verbalizer to become a verb, an adjectivalizer to become an adjective.
- there are no asymmetries between members or lexical categories
- all lexical categories are morphosyntactically complex
Vinokurova (2005): Does not hold for an agglutinating language like Sakha for languages such English with extensive 0-morphology only apparently so:
Vinokurova: There are primitive verbs and primitive nouns. Consider cases of Noun-Verb pairs as in (11):
(11)a carpet – to carpet, an urchin – to urchin, a cut – to cut, a break – to break
In languages such as Sakha there is a direction of derivation as in (12):
(12)a. (N→V) a carpet → to carpet, an urchin → to urchin;
b. (V→N) to cut → a cut, to break → a break.
In Sakha nouns such as those in (12a), and verbs as in (12b) are simplex. The corresponding verbs in (12a) and nouns in (12b) are morphologically complex involving ‘carpetnoun’, ‘urchinnoun’, ‘cutverb’, ‘breakverb’ plus some affixes. This is illustrated in (13):
(13)
Noun member: structure / Verb member: structureVinokurova / N / V-Verbalizer
DM/XS / √-nominalizer / √-verbalizer
Example from
Sakha / Uot ‘fire’
Bas ‘head, master’
Baqa ‘desire’ / Uot-taa ‘fire’
Bah-yj ‘master’
Baqa-r ‘desire’
Vinokurova / V-Nominalizer / V
Example from
Sakha / Tüm-ük ‘conclusion’
Kepsee-n ‘story, narration’
Taraa-x ‘comb’ / Tüm ‘conclude’
Kepsee ’tell, narrate’
Taraa ‘comb’
What is needed is an independent characterization of what is nominal and verbal to explain the direction of derivation.
Baker 2003
Fundamental principle:
- Nominals satisfy Geach's criterion of identity
- Can be used in same-contexts: this tree is the same as that one, etc.
Syntactically encoded as carriers of an index.
Baker acknowledges that indices violate inclusiveness suggestion that they are added at CI interface question: How does syntax know a noun is a noun?
- x cannot be classified as a noun or a non-noun on the basis of inspection alone
Criterion of identity is ill-suited for what is nominal in nominalizations: dubious in eventive expressions:
(14)a.? this walk is the same as that one
b.* The fellingof the trees by John is the same as the fellingof the trees by Bill
If so, what is nominal in nominalizations? (See Baker 2003 for an overview of problems in using otherr criteria, e.g. morphological criteria like types of affixation, etc.)
Needed: a criterion whose application can be determined by inspection
Vinokurova (2005): important intuition:
- verbs are relational, nouns are not relational, adjectives are properties
Implementation: theta-system (Reinhart (2002), Reinhart and Siloni (2005), Marelj (2004))
3. The theta-system: the central system of concepts
- Abstract concepts need to be formally coded in order to be legible to the Computational System (CS)
- The Theta System enables the interface between the system of concepts and the CS as well as the interface between the system of concepts and the inference system.
The Theta System comprises the following components:
a. A system for formally encoding the information about abstract concepts the computational system must be able to access: the linguistic coding of causal relationships (Reinhart 2002).
b. Lexical entries (i.e. particular coded concepts)
c. Operations on entries
d. Merging instructions (linking/mapping rules)
a. The system
The information the computational system can see: theta-roles
- All theta roles are formally coded as clusters defined in terms of two binary features:
[+c] (cause change), [+m] (mental state).
- A cluster need not be specified for (all) features, allowing as a limiting case the null- cluster.[1]
- The c-feature
- The feature /+c represents that the role is perceived as a sufficient condition (Shen 1985).
- The feature /-c feature represents that the argument is identified as not being the cause.
- If the c-feature is not represented the causal status of the argument is undetermined
- The m-feature
The /+m feature is related to the role of the mental state of the participant present in the relation ‘motivate’ the /+m feature entails animacy. A /-m specification does not entail in-animacy.
b. Lexical entries
Verbs (i.e. n-place predicates) are encoded in terms of feature clusters in order to be visible to both the syntax and semantics.
Notation
[α] = Feature cluster α.
/α= Feature (and value) α. (E.g. the feature /+m occurs in the clusters [+c+m], [-c+m], and [+m])
[/α] = A cluster one of whose features is /α. (E.g. [/-c] clusters are [-c+m], [-c-m] and [-c].)
[+] = A cluster all of whose features have the value +.
[-] = A cluster all of whose features have the value -.
A condition on lexical entries
(15) Cluster Distinctness Constraint
a. Two indistinct theta-clusters cannot be both realized on the same predicate
b. Distinctness: two feature clusters α and ß, are distinct iff
a. they share at least one feature, and
b. there is at least one feature or value which they do not share.
Illustration:
(16) a.The press biased the judge against the defendant.
bias: ([+c], [-c+m], [-c]) [+c] and [-c] are distinct
b.This alienated her from her colleagues.
alienate: ([+c], [-c+m], [-c]) [+c] and [-c] are distinct
Motivation: the pattern illustrated in (17a) and (17b).
(17) a.*/?The article angered Bill at the government.
anger: ([+c], [-c+m], [-m]) [+c] and [-m] are indistinct
(18) b.*/?The doctor’s letter worried Max about his health. worry: ([+c], [-c+m], [-m]) [+c] and [-m] are indistinct
c. Operations on lexical entries
The existence of lexical operations in the Theta System is tied to the following principle:
(19) Lexicon Uniformity Hypothesis
Each verb-concept corresponds to one lexical entry with one thematic structure. The various thematic forms of a given verb are derived by lexicon operations from one thematic structure.
the unaccusative forms in (20b) and (21b) are derived from the basic transitive forms in (20a) and (21a).
(20)a.Peter melted the ice.
b.The ice melted.
(21) a.Peter froze the ice.
b.The ice froze
Also assumed where the basic transitive form is not realized in a language.
Available operations
i. Reduction (e.g. Expletivization/Bundling)
ii. Saturation (e.g. Passive)
iii. Entry-changing (e.g. Lexical Causativization)
i. Reduction
Reflexive (unergative) entries are the output of reduction of the internal role.
Unaccusative entries are the output of reduction of the external role.
(22)Internal Reduction/Bundling:
a.Vacc (θ1, θ2) Rs(V) (θ1,2)
b.Rs (V)(θ1,2) θ1,2 (λx (V (x,x)))
c.shaveacc([+c+m]1,[-c-m]2: Lucie shaved him.
d.Rs(shave)([+c+m]1): Max shaved.
(23) Expletivization: Reduction of an external [+c] role (semantically null function)
a. Vacc(θ1[+c], θ2) ReV(θ2)
b. Re(V) (θ2) = V(θ2)
c.openacc ([+c], [-c-m] Re(open)[-c-m]
d.worryacc ([+c], [-c+m] Re(worry)[-c+m]
Note: a.Reduction can apply only in a two-(or more)-place entry one ofwhose roles is external (a [+] cluster).
b.Reduction eliminates the accusative feature of the verb (fully or partially).
c.Reduction and saturation (passive) are exclusive (only one can apply at each entry).
ii. Saturation
‘saturation’ ‘variable binding’ a variable is bound by some operation (e.g. E or Gen). Saturation the theta-role is unavailable for syntactic purposes.
Example: passivization
- Passive saturation closes existentially the external argument of a verb.
(24)a.wash (θ1,θ2)
b.Ex (wash (x, θ2 ))
Max was washed Ex (x washed Max)
iii. Entry-Changing Operations
Example: Lexical Causativization.
(25)a.The dog walked She walked the dog.
(26) b.The horse jumped The rider jumped the horse over the fence
(27) Lexical Causativization
a. Decauzativize: Change a /+c feature to a /-c feature.
walk: ([+c+m]) walk: ([-c+m])
b. Agentivize: Add an agent role.
walk: ([-c+m]) walk: ([+c+m], [-c+m])
Locus of operations on argument structure: The Lex-Syn Parameter:
- UG allows thematic arity operations to apply in the lexicon or in the syntax.
- Concept forming operations can only take place in the lexicon.
d. Merging/Linking Instructions
Linking instructions are stated in terms of s-selection (i.e. the type of arguments that are encoded on the verb’s grid) and the following set of UG rules and generalizations:
(28)Lexicon marking
Given an n-place verb-entry, n>1,
a.Mark a [-] cluster with index 2.
b.Mark a [+] cluster with index 1.
c.If the entry includes both a [+] cluster and a fully specified cluster [/α,/-c], mark the verb with the ACC feature.
(29)Relevant generalizations of lexical operations:
a.Saturation and reduction apply to the marked entry (i.e. after marking).
b.Reduction eliminates the accusative feature of the verb (fully or partially).
(30)CS merging instructions.
a.When nothing rules this out, merge externally.
b.An argument realizing a cluster marked 2 merges internally; An argument with a cluster marked 1 merges externally.
Examples:
(31) Transitive Derivations
a. Max ate an apple.
b. Base entry: eat ([+c+m], [-c-m])
c. Marking: eatacc([+c+m]1, [-c-m]2)
d. Merging: By (30b), ([+c+m]1) merges externally, ([-c-m]2merges internally
(32) Unaccusative Derivations
a. The vase broke.
b. Base entry: break ([+c], [-c-m])
c. Marking: breakacc([+c]1, [-c-m]2)
d. Expletivization applies to the marked entry, giving rise to (break
([-c-m]2))
e. Merging: Internal, by (30b)
4. Elaboration
4.1. 1-place verbs
Vinokurova (2005): The theta-system derives unaccusative entries from 2-place entries
generalize 2-place source for all verbs
Unergative verbs:
Hale and Keyser (1993, 1998, 2000): unergative verbs are analysed as denominal,
transitive structures involving a verbalizer and a nominal complement.
Vinokurova: Analyze weather-verbs as unergatives.
Claim: the subject is not necessarily an expletive, as in the sky rains.
Vinokurova's thesis:
- Verbs represent intrinsically relational concepts
- in opposition to verbs: noun concepts are intrinsically non-relational
- Adjectives are intrinsically 1-place concepts
4.2. (Relational) nouns
If so, what about nouns such as sister, father, etc.? What is relational is made explicit by theta-clusters in the sense of Reinhart (2002), Reinhart and Siloni (2005), Marelj (2004):
A verbal concept like EAT is associated with two necessary conditions – someone to perform the eating process (also a sufficient condition) and something to be eaten. These causal relations are translated into θ-features yielding two arguments of the verb eat. With relational nouns like sister, on the contrary, it is not motivated in terms of causality that they should take an argument. This is because a necessary and sufficient condition for being a sister is being a female sibling. However, the concepts FEMALE SIBLING and SISTER are coextensive. Therefore with relational nouns it is impossible to translate their causal relations into distinct feature clusters – the potential arguments. (Vinokurova 2005: 77).
- Nouns do not have a theta-grid cannot undergo lexical operations
5. How to proceed from here?
Option 1: The status of an element as nominal or verbal can be determined by inspection of the concept the categories V, N and A become predictable, hence redundant.
Functional categories select for a lexical item with a relational conceptual structure (V), a non-relational conceptual structure ( N), or a 1-place conceptual structure ( A).
NB:Saturation and Reduction/Bundling apply to the marked concept derived 1-place verb-concepts reflect that they are derived from a relational verb/concept.
Problem: Leaves open the status of nominalizations, which somehow combine nominal and verbal characteristics.
Option 2: Reconsider one part of the procedure in the theta-system.
Original version: the argument structure of verbal concepts is made readable for CHL by channelling it through the [+ c], [+m] system. Assumes that being verbal is given.
Add: Being channelled through the feature system is what makes a concept verbal. The [+ c], [+m] system articulates the concept.
- If a concept is not relational, channelling it through the [+ c], [+m] system can either be assumed to apply vacuously, or be considered as undefined. In any case the concept does not become relational.
- If a concept is relational it can, but need not be articulated by the [+ c], [+m] system.
- If yes, it is realized as verbal
- If not, it is realized as nominal
NB: categorization as V, N and A still predictable need not be annotated
Problem: One would expect that 'arguments' of nouns/nominalizations may connect (in some way or other) with any meaning aspect of the concept arguments of nouns may bear 'roles' that cannot be encoded hence are unlike any theta-roles of verbal arguments.
Option 3: The essential difference between verbs and nouns resides in the availability in principle of merging instructions. The roles that nouns can assign (if they have the right conceptual make-up) are just the roles that verbs can assign, however they are not accessible to marking in the sense of (28) (30) is undefined
Vinokurova's thesis modified:
- Verbs represent relational concepts for which merging instructions are defined
- Nouns represent concepts for which merging instructions are not defined
- (Suggestion: Adjectives represent concepts with merging instructions for one argument)
Applicable both to basic nouns and to 'nominalized' verbs.