Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:17:18.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2011

ANTONIO FÁBREGAS  and
RAFAEL MARÍN
ANTONIO FÁBREGAS*
Affiliation:
Institutt for Språkvitenskap, Universitetet i Tromsø
RAFAEL MARÍN*
Affiliation:
Université Lille 3 & CNRS (UMR 8163)
*
Authors' addresses: (Fábregas) Humanities, Social Sciences and Education Faculty,University of Tromsø, N-9037, Tromsø, Norwayantonio.fabregas@uit.no
(Marín) UMR 8163 “Savoirs, Textes, Langage” (STL),Université de Lille 3 – Bât. B4, Rue du Barreau – BP 60149,59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, Francerafael.marin@univ-lille3.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most of the literature devoted to the study of deverbal nominalizations concentrates on the complex event reading (e.g. La concentración de partículas tiene lugar a temperatura ambiente ‘The concentration of particles takes place at room temperature’) and the object reading (e.g. El paciente tenía concentraciones de calcio en el hombro ‘The patient had calcium concentrations in the shoulder’), while nominalizations denoting states (e.g. La concentración de Sherlock Holmes duró cinco horas ‘Sherlock Holmes’ concentration lasted five hours') have remained, in general, understudied. In this paper we present their empirical properties and argue that, despite the empirical differences, state nominalizations and event nominalizations can receive a unified account. We show that in Spanish, Catalan, French, English and German the question of whether a deverbal nominalization denotes a state or an event, or is ambiguous between both readings depends on independent properties of the verbal base, allowing us to propose a unified account of both classes of nominalizations: the productive nominalizers in these languages can only denote the aspectual notions contained in the base's Aktionsart. We further argue that other languages, like Slovenian, have productive nominalizers that can operate over the external aspect of the predicate; in these cases, the nominalization can denote aspectual notions not contained in the base's Aktionsart.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 35 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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]

The research underlying this article has been financed by grants Aurora Project 199749/V11 from the Norwegian Research council, ANR 07-JCJC-0085-01 from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche and FFI2010-1506 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education. We are grateful to Peter Svenonius, Isabelle Roy, Tom McFadden, Gillian Ramchand, Irene Franco, Annie Gagliardi, Alexander Pfaff, Lanko Marušič and three anonymous reviewers of Journal of Linguistics for data, useful comments, enlightning suggestions and enriching discussion. All disclaimers apply.

The following abbreviations are used in this paper: 3=third person; acc=accusative case marking; adj=adjectivizer; aux=auxiliary verb; gen=genitive case marking; inf=infinitive marker; nom=nominalizer; part=participle marker; pf=perfective stem; pl=plural number; pt=particle; sg=singular number; ThV=theme vowel.

References

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordăchioaia, Giannina & Soare, Elena. 2010. Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A Distributed Morphology approach. Journal of Linguistics 46.3, 537–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2002. Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1976. An extension of classical transformational grammar. In Saenz, Richard (ed.), Problems of linguistic metatheory: Proceedings of the 1976 conference, 183–224. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme–morpheme base morphology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.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. The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 232–286. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reider.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio, Marín, Rafael & McNally, Louise. In press. From psych verbs to nouns. In Demonte, Violeta & McNally, Louise (eds.), Telicity and change of state in natural languages: Implications for event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavour of v. In Kempchinsky, Paula & Slabakova, Roumyana (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J.. 2002. Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 2000. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In Peeters, Bert (ed.), The lexicon–encyclopaedia interface, 349–374. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2003. Durative achievements and individual-level predicates on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.5, 595–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 26, 385–399.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution: Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aktionsarten. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2005. On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 275–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2009. Building event-based ad hoc properties: On the interpretation of adjectival passives. In Riester, Arndt & Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, 35–49. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Marín, Rafael & Louise, McNally. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.2, 467–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2009. Relative stupidity and past tenses. Ms., Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Saliloko. 1984. Stativity and the progressive. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena Viktorovna. 1996. Semanticheskie issledovanie [Semantic investigations]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury. [Quoted after Spencer & Zaretskaya 2003.]Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3, 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathert, Monika & Alexiadou, Artemis (eds.). 2010. The semantics of nominalizations across languages and frameworks. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roßdeutscher, Antje & Kamp, Hans. 2010. Syntactic and semantic constraints in the formation and interpretation of ung-nouns. In Rathert, & Alexiadou, (eds.), 169–215.Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2010. Event-structure constraints on nominalization. In Rathert, & Alexiadou, (eds.), 159–199.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zaretskaya, Marina. 2003. Stative predicates in Russian and their nominalizations. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 22, 1–44.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Culicover, Peter, Akmajian, Adrian & Wasow, Thomas (eds.), Formal syntax, 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 353–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar