Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 15 - Lexical Nominalizations in Korean

  • from Part III - Morphology and Syntax
  • Edited by Sungdai Cho, Binghamton University, State University of New York, John Whitman, Cornell University, New York
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
    Published online:
    30 September 2022
    Print publication:
    25 August 2022, pp 429-457

  • Summary

    Chapter 15 investigates the feasibility of an all-syntax approach to lexical nominalizations in Korean. In addition to productive syntactic nominalizations, Korean possesses a rich inventory of deverbal, i.e., lexical, nominalizations. The consensus in the field since the advent of the Lexicalist Hypothesis (Chomsky 1970) that syntactic and lexical nominalizations are formed in different grammatical components has been questioned in recent approaches that advocate a unified syntactic analysis of all nominalizations. The investigation reveals that while there are lexical nominalizations that are argument-bearing, previous arguments purporting to support separation of complex event nominals and simple event, or result, nominals, ultimately do not go through in Korean. Examination of a class of lexical nominalizations that bear some hallmarks of syntactic derivation leads to the same conclusion. Thus, deverbal lexical nominalizations in Korean do not support the kind of unified syntactic analysis of nominalizations that is currently dominant in the literature.