Remarks on propositional nominalization

Moulton’s ‘Remarks on propositional nominalization’ investigates nominalization at the highest reaches of the extended verbal 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). <189>

Polish psych nominals revisited

In ‘Polish psych nominals revisited’ Rozwadowska provides supports for the n-based approach to nominalizations (developed in numerous papers by Alexiadou and 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 cross-linguistic literature that psych nominals denote states (see Grimshaw, 1990; Pesetsky, 1995; Alexiadou, 2011a; Fábregas & Marín, 2012; Melloni, 2017; Iordăchioaia, 2019a, inter alia). 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 the inceptive events, i.e. boundary events which denote the beginning of the state. To show that, she focuses on the 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.<186>

Relative nominals and event nominals in Hiaki

In ‘Relative nominals and event nominals in Hiaki’, Harley discusses an interesting formal overlap between nominalizations which create 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 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. <163>

Nominalizing verbal passive

In her chapter ‘Nominalizing verbal passives: PROs and cons’, 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 (de-verbal/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] 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.

Where are thematic roles?

In ‘Where are thematic roles? Building the micro-syntax of implicit arguments in nominalizations’, Roeper attempts an approach to capture implicit arguments in a fashion that is closely linked to 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 for projecting 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, argument projections into the Possessive of nominalizations show 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. 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. <206>

D vs. n nominalizations within and across languages

In ‘D vs. n nominalizations within and across languages’ 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 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. Finally, Alexiadou discusses de-nominal verbalization and proposes that it is not possible in languages such as English, as licensing of case on nominal internal arguments blocks it. <139>

Nominalizations, case domains, and restructuring in two Amazonian languages

In ‘Nominalizations, case domains, and restructuring in two Amazonian languages’ Salanova and Tallman examine the synchronic state of two constructions whose diachronic origin in 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.<171>

Remarks on Nominalization

In his introductory comments to this volume, Chomsky reviews the historical background surrounding the emergence of Remarks on Nominalization, the restrictive view of the syntax which it promoted, and, in that context, the need to separate syntactically 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. <82>

Nominalization and selection in two Mayan languages

In ‘Nominalization and selection in two Mayan languages’ Coon and 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.

Prepositional prefixing and allosemy in nominalizations

Wood’s ‘Prepositional prefixing and allosemy in nominalizations’ 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 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 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.<141>