Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:51:02.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Number/aspect interactions in the syntax ofnominalizations: A Distributed approach1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2010

ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU ,
GIANINA IORDĂCHIOAIA  and
ELENA SOARE
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU*
Affiliation:
University of Stuttgart
GIANINA IORDĂCHIOAIA*
Affiliation:
University of Stuttgart
ELENA SOARE*
Affiliation:
University of Paris 8
*
Author address: (Alexiadou)Institut für Linguistik:Anglistik, UniversitätStuttgart, Keplerstr. 17, 70174Stuttgart, Germany[email protected]
Author address:(Iordăchioaia) Institutfür Linguistik: Anglistik,Universität Stuttgart,Keplerstr. 17, 70174Stuttgart, Germany[email protected]
Author address: (Soare)UFR Sciences du Langage,Université Paris 8, 2 ruede la Liberté, 93526 Saint-DenisCedex, Paris, France[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we focus on the ability of ArgumentSupporting Nominalizations (ASNs) to realizemorphological plural. We think that this aspect of their behavior isinstrumental in our understanding of their properties and their syntax withinone language and across languages. Our factual investigation deals withRomanian, English, German and Spanish, as well as Polish and Bulgarian ASNs. Weshow that the interplay between the aspectual properties – eitherinner or outer aspect – and the nominal/verbalcharacteristics, as justifying the internal structure of ASNs, allows us tocharacterize the ability of ASNs to accept plural marking across languages. Wefurther argue for a flexible syntactic theory that enables us to capture themixed properties of ASNs. We provide evidence for two parameters of variation.The first parameter is whether ASNs involve a nominalizer or not. If anominalizer is not included, ASNs lack nominal internal properties. If anominalizer is included, the second parameter comes into play and allows forlanguage variation with respect to the height of attachment of the nominalizer.Specifically, a nominalizer can attach to (and thusnominalize) distinct layers of syntactic structure (VP vs.AspectP).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 537 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

We thank the editors and two anonymous JL referees for stimulating comments and suggestions. Wealso thank Barbara Citko for suggesting the investigation of Slaviclanguages, and to Joanna Błaszczak, Adrian Krastev, StelaManova, Angelina Markova, Gergana Popova, Bożena Rozwadowska,Elena Stefanova and Beata Trawiński for providing us with thePolish and Bulgarian data. Alexiadou andIordăchioaia's contribution has been supported bya DFG [German Research Foundation] grant to theproject B1, The Formation and Interpretation of Derived Nominals, aspart of the Collaborative Research Center 732, Incremental Specificationin Context, at the University of Stuttgart.

References

REFERENCES

Abney, Steve . 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis . 1997. Adverb placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis . 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis . 2005. Gerund types, the present participle and patterns of derivation. In Maienborn, Claudia & Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika (eds.), Event arguments in syntax, semantics and discourse, 139–152. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis . 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Giannakidou, & Rathert, (eds.), 253–280.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis . To appear. The aspectual properties of nominalization structures. In Galani, Alexandra, Hicks, Glyn & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Fascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane & Stavrou, Melita. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Soare, Elena. To appear a. Plural marking in argument supporting nominalizations. In Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo & Laca, Brenda (eds.), Layers of aspect, 1–22. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Soare, Elena. To appear b. Syntactic realizations of plural in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. In Arregi, Karlos, Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, Montrul, Silvina & Tremblay, Annie (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance (38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Campaign, April 2008). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon . 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight . 1971. The nominal in the progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 246–250.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit . 1993. Parallel morphology. Ms., University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit . 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Moore, John & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, 31–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit . 2005. Structuring sense, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borik, Olga . 2002. Aspect and reference time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko . 2007. Agree, phases and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33.1/2, 54–96.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo . 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Giusti, Giuliana (eds.). 1995. Advances in Roumanian linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam . 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, & Rosenbaum, (eds.), 184–221.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra . 1995. Romanian genitive constructions. In Cinque, & Giusti, (eds.), 1–51.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra . 2001. Romanian nominalizations: Case and aspectual structure. Journal of Linguistics 37 3467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demonte, Violeta & Varela, Soledad. 1997. Spanish event infinitives: From lexical-semantics to syntax–morphology. In Mendikoetxea, Amaya & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam (eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology–syntax interface (supplement of International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology XI), 253–277. Leioa, Vizcaya: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen . 1987. Syntaxe du roumain: Chaînes thématiques. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris 7.Google Scholar
Embick, David . 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35.3, 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio & Varela, Soledad. 2006. Verb classes with eventive infinitives in Spanish. In Sagarra, Nuria & Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline (eds.), 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 24–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Fassi-Fehri, Abdelkader . 2005. Verbal and nominal parallelisms (Documents & Reports 8). Rabat: Publications IERA.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce . 1970. Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Jacobs, & Rosenbaum, (eds.), 83–98.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingqi, Roeper, Thomas & Borer, Hagit. 2001. The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP-anaphor do so. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 549–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Rathert, Monika (eds.). 2009. Quantification, definiteness and nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra & Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1991. The syntax of noun phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana . 1995. Heads and modifiers among determiners: Evidence from Rumanian. In Cinque, & Giusti, (eds.), 103–125.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane . 1990. Argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi . 2009. Syntactic event structure and nominalizations. In Giannakidou, & Rathert, (eds.), 321–344.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4.4, 3–9.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey & Stavrou, Melita. 1987. Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Soare, Elena. 2008. Two kinds of event plurals: Evidence from Romanian nominalizations. In Bonami, Olivier & Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 193–216. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/index_en.html.Google Scholar
Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Soare, Elena. 2009. Structural patterns blocking plural in Romance nominalizations. In Aboh, Enoch, van der Linden, Elisabeth, Quer, Josep & Sleeman, Petra (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2007, 145–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, Michela . 1999. On the past participle morphology in Italian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 111–137.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray . 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.). 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika . 1994. On external arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, 103–130.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika . 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika . 2005. On the plurality of verbs. In Semantics Archive, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jI4YWRlO/PluralityKratzer.pdf (9 March 2010).Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred . 1986. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Munich. [Published 1989, Munich: Fink.]Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred . 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA & Chicago: CSLI Publications & University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laca, Brenda . 2006. Indefinites, quantifiers and pluractionals: What scope effects tell us about event pluralities. In Tasmowski, Liliane & Vogeleer, Svetlana (eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality, 191–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter . 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B . 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle . 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec . 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa & Williams, Alexander (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201–225. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Markova, Angelina Slavcheva . 2007. Deverbal nominals in Bulgarian: A syntactic analysis. MA thesis, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec . 2001. Words and things. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Miguel, Elena de . 1996. Nominal infinitives in Spanish: An aspectual constraint. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41.1, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D . 1978. Events, processes and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2.3, 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme . 1991. Nominals and nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3, 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme . 2006. Some notes on grammatical gender and l-pronouns. In Heusinger, Klaus von, Kaiser, Georg A. & Stark, Elisabeth (eds.), Specificity and the evolution/emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance (Arbeitspapier 119), 107–121. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Popova, Gergana . 2006. Integrating nominalisations into a (generalised) paradigm function model morphology. Essex Research Reports 47, 75–93.Google Scholar
Pustejovski, James . 1995. Generative lexicon. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona . 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan . 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roodenburg, Jasper . 2006. The role of number within nominal arguments: The case of French pluralized event nominalizations. Presented at the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Rutgers University, March–April 2006.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain . 1994. Syntaxe du Gallois. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena . 1997. Towards a unified theory of nominalizations. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike . 1995. Participial passive and aspect in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Siegel, Laura . 1998. Gerundive nominals and the role of aspect. In Austin, Jennifer & Lawson, Aaron (eds.), ESCOL '97. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra & Brito, Ana Maria. To appear. Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: A split vP analysis. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Nominalizations across languages and frameworks. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Soare, Elena . 2007. Morphosyntactic mismatches revisited: The case of Romanian supine. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swart, Henriette de . 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.2, 347–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Meulen, Alice . 1984. Events, quantities, and individuals. In Landman, Frederick & Veltman, Frank (eds.), Varieties of formal semantics, 259–280. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van Geenhoven, Veerle . 2004. For-adverbials, frequentative aspect, and pluractionality. Natural Language Semantics 12, 135–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk . 1993. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro . 1993. The language of propositions and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar