Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:05:59.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2016

Jeffrey Punske
Jeffrey Punske*
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University – Carbondale
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I show that Embick's (2010) cyclic head approach to regular morphology alone cannot account for the freely available variations in the realization of nominalizers in English nominalizations involving overt verbalizers. Instead, I offer an account of the regularity effects using the technology of Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2007a, 2007b). Using this analysis, I derive both the variable nominalization patterns and the restrictions on particles and results in derived nominals from Sichel (2010). By treating regularity as the by-product of extant morphosyntatic operations, we can better explain the distribution of regular and irregular nominalizers and account for particle/result restrictions in English derived nominals.

Résumé

Dans cet article, je démontre que l'approche développée par Embick (2010) pour tenir compte de la morphologie régulière en termes de têtes cycliques ne peut pas expliquer la variation libre dans la réalisation des nominalisateurs dans les nominalisations anglaises qui incluent des verbalisateurs visibles. Ensuite, j'offre une analyse des régularités qui exploite le mécanisme du Déplacement local (Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2007a, 2007b). Cette analyse explique à la fois les différentes réalisations dans les nominalisations et les contraintes concernant les particules et les résultats dans les nominaux dérivés de Sichel (2010). En analysant la régularité comme le produit dérivé d'opérations morphosyntaxiques actives, nous arrivons à mieux expliquer la distribution des nominalisateurs réguliers et irréguliers et tenir compte des contraintes concernant les particules et les résultats dans les nominaux dérivés en anglais.

Keywords

regularityhead movementdistributed morphologycyclicitynominalizationrégularitémouvement des têtesmorphologie distribuéecycliciténominalisation
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 68 - 97
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2016 

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

*

Parts of this work began as elements of my dissertation, so I owe much gratitude to Simin Karimi, Andy Barss, Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and Richard Larson. Beyond them I'd like to thank Dan Siddiqi, Scott Jackson, Jason Haugen, Vicki Carstens and all of the audiences and reviewers who have helped me refine and improve this work. All errors remain very much my own.

References

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter and Neeleman, Ed. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian. 2009. PP licensing in nominalizations. In Proceedings of NELS 38, ed. Schardl, Anisa, Walkow, Martin and Abdurrahman, Muhammad, 39–52. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordăchioaia, Gianna, and Soare, Elena. 2010. Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A distributed Morphology approach. Journal of Linguistics 46(3): 537–574.10.1017/S0022226710000058Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13(4): 571–612.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morpho-syntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 375–415.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2005. On gerunds and the theory of categories. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. English inflection and derivation. In The handbook of English Linguistics, ed. Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April, 537–557. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1994. What does adjacency do? In The morphology-syntax connection, ed. Harley, Heidi and Phillips, Colin, 1–32. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2007. Remark: Putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10(2): 204–222.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, and Harbour, Daniel. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Trommer, Jochen, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1993. Parallel morphology. Ms., University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events: Structuring sense vol II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Uriagereka, Juan, Martin, Roger, and Michaels, David, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Zubizarreta, María-Luisa, Freidin, Robert and Otero, Carlos, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of the verb-particle triadic and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2007a. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 1–37.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2007b. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, ed. Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo and Jacobs, Haike, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595.10.1162/002438901753373005Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter, 83–98. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2008. Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy. Studia Linguistica 62(3): 287–300.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. In Proceedings of NELS 20, ed. Carter, Juli, Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Philip, William, and Sherer, Timothy, 150–184. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Linguistic essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth L. and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers on phonology and morphology, ed. Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21.Google Scholar
Hamm, Fritz. 1999. Modelltheoretische Untersuchungen zur Semantik von Nominalisierungen. Habilitationsschrift, Tübingen: Seminar für Sprachwissensschaft der Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2008. The bipartite structure of verbs cross-linguistically, or Why Mary can't exhibit John her paintings. Ms., University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of Roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 225–276.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2011. Hiaki Morphosyntax. Ms., Handout for Morphosyntax of Hiaki Course, LSA Summer Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Mixed nominalizations, object shift and short verb movement in English. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28, ed. Kusumoto, Kiyomi and Tamanji, Pius N., 143–157. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4(4): 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 2000. Formal vs. encyclopedic knowledge: Evidence from nominalization. In The Lexicon – Encyclopedia Interface, ed. Peters, Bert, 349–374. Elsevier Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason. 2011. Reduplication in Distributed Morphology. In Coyote papers: Working papers in linguistics 18: Proceedings of Arizona Linguistics Circle 4, ed. Schertz, Jessamyn, Hogue, Alan, Bell, Dane, Brenner, Daniel and Wray, Samantha. Available at http://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXVIII.htm.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason, and Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3): 493–517.Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek, Kamiya, Masaaki, and Roeper, Thomas. 2013. Passivization, reconstruction and edge phenomena: Connecting English and Japanese nominalizations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1): 137–159.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51(3): 639–671.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham 1999. Anti neo-Davidsonianism: against a Davidsonian semantics for state sentences. Ms., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. On external arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17: 103–130.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, Stanley. 1976. -Ing, -s, -ed: A study of the acquisition of certain verb inflections. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. On syntactic irregularity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg and Travis, Lisa. 1987. The syntax of adjacency. In Proceedings of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Crowhurst, Megan, 173–186. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Case and expletives revisited: On greed and other human failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2): 315–333.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 506–515.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2010. Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal spellout meets English stress shift. Ms., Université Paris-Diderot.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Mchombo, Sam, 113–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: 4(2), Article 14. Available at http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss2/14Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997b. Stem suppletion, or the arbitrariness of the sign. Talk given at the Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, ed. Choe, Sook-Hee, 199–222. Seoul, Korea: Dong In.Google Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in stress and the syntax of words. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 69–109.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Hapological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Trommer, Jochen, 84–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2015. Categorial features: A generative theory of word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Otsu, Yukio, 21–60. Toyko, Japan: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Punske, Jeffrey. 2010. On nominal arguments. In Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 17, Proceedings of Arizona Linguistics Circle 3, ed. Hogue, Alan and Schertz, Jessamyn. Available at http://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXVII.htm.Google Scholar
Punske, Jeffrey. 2012. Aspects of the internal structure of nominalization: Roots, morphology and derivation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Punske, Jeffrey. 2013. Three forms of English verb particle constructions. Lingua 135: 155–170.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2000. Children in search of perfection: Towards a minimalist model of acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 34: 57–74.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2007. Events in syntax: Modification and predication. Language and Linguistic Compass 1(5): 476–497.Google Scholar
Ravid, Dorit, and Avraham, Avidor. 1998. Acquisition of derived nominals in Hebrew: Developmental and linguistic principles. Journal of Child Language 25(2): 229–266.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1982. The role of universals in the acquisition of gerunds. In Language acquisition: The state of the art, ed. Wanner, Eric and Gleitman, Lila, 267–287. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1972. Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 3(1): 61–86.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget. 2009. The structure of phonological theory. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. A course in general linguistics. Translated by Harris., Roy Peru, Illinois: Open Court Press. [1983].Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2010. Event structure constraints in nominalization. In The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks. Interface Explorations 23, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis and Rathert, Monika, 151–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Studies of child language development, ed. Ferguson, Charles A. and Slobin, Dan I., 175–208. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, and Nagy, William 1989. The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 28(6): 649–667.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, ed. Hornstein, Norbert and Epstein, Samuel, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, and Roeper, Thomas. 1972. On the subject of gerunds. Foundations of Language 8(1): 44–61.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 1997. Against overt particle incorporation. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 291–307.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro. 1993. The language of proposition and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8161-5Google Scholar

Source

Shakespeare, William. Cymbeline. In William Shakespeare: The complete works. New York: Portland House. [1975]Google Scholar