Deverbal and deadjectival nominalization in Dan: Not as different as one might think. A reply to Baker & Gondo (2020 (original) (raw)

Possession and nominalization in Dan: Evidence for a general theory of categories

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2020

Dan, a Mandean language of the Ivory Coast, marks the alienable possessors of simple nonrelational nouns differently from the inalienable possessors of relational nouns: only the former occur with the particle ɓa. This difference also shows up in nominalizations. When a verb is nominalized, its theme argument is expressed like the possessor of a relational noun, without ɓa, whereas when an adjective is nominalized, its theme argument is expressed like the possessor of a nonrelational noun, with ɓa. We show that this generalization holds for both a low type of nominalization, in which the nominalizer combines directly with the root before that root combines with any arguments, and for a high type of nominalization, in which the nominalizer combines with a larger phrase. We account for this difference between deverbal nominalization and deadjectival nominalization using Baker’s (2003) theory of the lexical categories, according to which verbs intrinsically combine directly with a them...

Arguments and modifiers in deverbal nominals: Romanian Genitives and de-PPs

Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics, 2022

This paper addresses the distribution of Genitives and PPs in deverbal nominalizations with a particular focus on Romanian -tor nominals that express agents, e.g., vânzător ‘seller’, and instruments, e.g., tocător ‘shredder’. The issue of the distribution of Genitives is central to understanding the argumental structure properties of deverbal nominalizations in Romanian, and cross-linguistically. Derived nominals expressing agents and instruments have been and continue to be the subject of much controversy in the literature with respect to whether they (or at least some of them) involve an argument structure. We argue that the existence of an argumental Genitive in Romanian provides strong support for views that propose that (at least a subclass of) agent nominals have argument-structure properties. However, we also show that a proper understanding of the distribution of Genitive case-marked complements and PPs bears upon their interpretive nature, and more particularly on their spe...

The Grammar of English Deverbal Compounds and their Meaning

We present an interdisciplinary study on the interaction between the interpretation of noun-noun deverbal compounds (DCs; e.g., task assignment) and the morphosyntactic properties of their deverbal heads in English. Underlying hypotheses from theoretical linguistics are tested with tools and resources from computational linguistics. We start with Grimshaw’s (1990) insight that deverbal nouns are ambiguous between argument-supporting nominal (ASN) readings, which inherit verbal arguments (e.g., the assignment of the tasks), and the less verbal and more lexicalized Result Nominal and Simple Event readings (e.g., a two-page assignment). Following Grimshaw, our hypothesis is that the former will realize object arguments in DCs, while the latter will receive a wider range of interpretations like root compounds headed by non-derived nouns (e.g., chocolate box). Evidence from a large corpus assisted by machine learning techniques confirms this hypothesis, by showing that, besides other features, the realization of internal arguments by deverbal heads outside compounds (i.e., the most distinctive ASN-property in Grimshaw 1990) is a good predictor for an object interpretation of non-heads in DCs.

DEVERBAL -ER AND -TI(S) NOMINALS: A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS ON THE LEVEL OF LEXICAL SEMANTICS

Using extensive data, with this paper we aim at comparing deverbal -er and -tis (-της) nominalization -two apparently parallel morphological processes. The corpus search revealed that -tis nominals do not display the same range of polysemy that -er nominals do. Moreover, unlike its English counterpart process, -tis nominalization does not license object-oriented nominals. Our data also demonstrate that in Greek there is no strong correlation between inheritance of obligatory complements and event interpretation of the nominals. We interpret this as evidence for a diminished verbal character displayed by -tis nominals. With regards to semantic interpretation, we argue that -tis poses special semantic restrictions on the linked R argument of the nominal. Namely, the highest argument must designate an entity, either sentient or non-sentient, that is actively involved in carrying out the action (i.e. controller). This is an intrinsic property of -tis nominals that cannot be captured in terms of Argument Structure and syntax. Lastly, we claim that this semantic condition is what constrains -tis suffixation from forming object-oriented nominals.

Why a Determiner? The Possessive + Determiner + Adjective Construction in Old English

Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, 2012

A corpus-based investigation into a construction in Old English in which a possessive and a determiner co-occur shows that when the order of these elements is Poss(essive) + Det(erminer), there is also always an adjective. This Poss Det Adj construction alternated with the determiner-less Poss Adj construction, and this paper reports some preliminary findings concerning this variation. The paper examines possible explanations in terms of purely structural features and concludes that Poss Det Adj is best analysed as a construction in which the adjective phrase has a determiner. While syntactic considerations will then explain the obligatory use of an adjective with the Poss + Det combination, we must look to aspects of information structure and discourse relations to understand the variation between Poss Det Adj and Poss Adj. The interaction of the factors controlling this variation was clearly complex and seems to have been different for individual speakers/writers. However, it is clear that the nature of the adjective played an important role, and a parallel can be drawn between the preference for the determiner with a restrictive adjective and some facts about the placement of restrictive adjectives in French and Spanish. Factors such as previous mention of the adjective in the discourse remain to be investigated. The disappearance of the Poss Det construction is essential to our understanding of the development of the determiner system in English. It is plausible that the loss of the determiner slot in the adjective phrase in Early Middle English resulted because no clear function crystalized around this determiner. A study of Poss Det Adj in those Scandinavian languages which have this combination can be expected to illuminate the use and loss of the construction in English.