On nominal arguments
This paper presents a formal account of the critical difference between standard nominalization and “mixed nominalization” (aka. nominal gerunds) of Chomsky (1970). Using patterns of morphological/syntactic distribution, binding properties, polarity effects and lexical semantic variation, I show tha...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Language: | en_US |
| Published: |
University of Arizona Linguistics Circle
2010
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/104644 |
| id |
ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-104644 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
oai_dc |
| spelling |
ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-1046442015-10-23T04:22:49Z On nominal arguments Punske, Jeffrey University of Arizona This paper presents a formal account of the critical difference between standard nominalization and “mixed nominalization” (aka. nominal gerunds) of Chomsky (1970). Using patterns of morphological/syntactic distribution, binding properties, polarity effects and lexical semantic variation, I show that nominal gerunds which have been considered to be near identical to derived nominals are in fact quite distinct. I show that “object arguments” (understood objects of the root) of nominal gerunds fail every test of argumenthood and that the structural relations within these constructions are significantly different than those of derived nominals and verb phrases. 2010 text Article 0894-4539 http://hdl.handle.net/10150/104644 Coyote Papers en_US University of Arizona Linguistics Circle |
| collection |
NDLTD |
| language |
en_US |
| sources |
NDLTD |
| description |
This paper presents a formal account of the critical difference between standard nominalization and “mixed nominalization” (aka. nominal gerunds) of Chomsky (1970). Using patterns of morphological/syntactic distribution, binding properties, polarity effects and lexical semantic variation, I show that nominal gerunds which have been considered to be near identical to derived nominals are in fact quite distinct. I show that “object arguments” (understood objects of the root) of nominal gerunds fail every test of argumenthood and that the structural relations within these constructions are significantly different than those of derived nominals and verb phrases. |
| author2 |
University of Arizona |
| author_facet |
University of Arizona Punske, Jeffrey |
| author |
Punske, Jeffrey |
| spellingShingle |
Punske, Jeffrey On nominal arguments |
| author_sort |
Punske, Jeffrey |
| title |
On nominal arguments |
| title_short |
On nominal arguments |
| title_full |
On nominal arguments |
| title_fullStr |
On nominal arguments |
| title_full_unstemmed |
On nominal arguments |
| title_sort |
on nominal arguments |
| publisher |
University of Arizona Linguistics Circle |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/104644 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT punskejeffrey onnominalarguments |
| _version_ |
1718096034311176192 |