Beyond Morphology

Ackema, Peter; Neeleman, Ad

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001

Cited by 214 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This has precedents in lexicalist analyses (e.g. Ackema & Neeleman 2004:25, Grimshaw 1990 but can also be stated in syntactic theories that deny the existence of a generative lexicon or other presyntactic word-generating component. The insistence on V° nonheads is stipulated in -er's selection restrictions.…”

Section: A)mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…I will explain (21) with reference to the base-generated complex head structures in (22), which are standard in lexicalist work (say Ackema & Neeleman 2004, Lieber 2004) and which I assume here (though taking no stand on whether they are generated presyntactically or in syntax). By assumption -er nonEv in (22)a) and the variant of -ing in (22)b) select V° constituents.…”

Section: The Morphological Nonhead Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, developing arguments in Borer (2013) and Ackema & Neeleman (2004), we can support (27)b) using data like (28) Unless the existence of these idiomatic interpretations with both -er and -ing is coincidental (which is unlikely since the nominals in (30) appear in similar paradigms), we must posit [ V VN] constituents like self-seek V 'be selfish' which are bound, i.e. lack corresponding overt noun-incorporation verbs like (28)b).…”

Section: Synthetic Compounds: the Analysis Of Record Cleanermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are among the reasons why of-phrases are standardly treated as arguments in both syntactic theories (e.g. Alexiadou & Schäfer 2010, Borer 2013, van Hout & Roeper 1998 and lexicalist ones (Ackema & Neeleman 2004, Grimshaw 1990. 21 Whether prenominal genitives can realize inherited arguments in -er-nouns is unclear to me.…”

Section: D1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Constraining argument structure in nominalizations: The case of English -er

McIntyre

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article contributes to the typology of structural factors constraining argument realization in nominalizations, focussing on English -er-nominals. It reappraises conclusions of earlier studies on when -er-nominals allow argument realization. Derivations disallowing argument linking are treated as semantically and structurally parallel to nominal compounds, and their argument-structural behaviour is attributed to a generalization that non-heads of basegenerated complex heads cannot realize arguments, with principled exceptions. In argumentrealizing -er-nominals, some speakers allow the full range of argument structures permitted by head movement analyses, while less liberal varieties require a (lexicalist-inspired but syntactically implemented) analysis where -er is an Agent-realizing affix that selects V°, forcing arguments of V to merge above affixation as arguments of nouns, which is only possible for PP and of-insertion arguments.Keywords: nominalization, argument structure, compounds, affixation, eventiveness IntroductionA central problem concerning the interfaces between syntax, semantics and morphology is that category-changing processes disallow the realization (inheritance) of the arguments of the related verb to varying degrees, as seen in (1)- (3).(1) a. an amputee ( (*) of a leg) Nominalizations with -er like those in (1) have attracted considerable attention as a revealing problem for theories of argument structure (e.g. Levin & Rappaport 1988, van Hout & Roeper 1998, Alexiadou & Schäfer 2010, Borer 2013, Roy & Soare 2014, but I argue that not all empirical generalizations in previous work are correct and that data like (1) require explanations which do not figure in previous accounts of nominalizations.One innovation proposed here concerns nominalizations like (1b) which block all (phrasal) arguments of their parent verbs. After describing problems with existing accounts of these, I argue that of-phrases are excluded for the same reasons as those in compounds like tuning device (*of guitars). The generalization is that (phrasal) arguments of base-generated complex heads cannot be realized, with certain exceptions which are given principled explanations.Another claim made here concerns uses of -er like (1a) which do allow inheritance of arguments. Non-lexicalist studies standardly assume that such nominalizations involve head movement (e.g. Alexiadou & Schäfer (2010), Baker & Vinokurova (2009), Borer (2013, Bowers (2011), Harley (2008, Roy & Soare (2014)). Such approaches share two assumptions: (i) the nominalizing affix is a syntactic head which selects a phrasal projection containing V and its arguments (VP in (4a)), and (ii) V undergoes head movement to the nominalizer to form a derived nominal such as washing, washer. (Both assumptions hold regardless of differences between accounts regarding the size of the constituent initially selected by the affix, and how of-marking of V's argument is implemented.)By contrast, lexicalist studies standardly capture argument inheritance phenomena using str...

show abstract

Section: A)mentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: The Morphological Nonhead Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synthetic Compounds: the Analysis Of Record Cleanermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Constraining argument structure in nominalizations: The case of English -er

McIntyre

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fact that nonnominatives invoke dass-t effects in German presents a problem for earlier accounts which took the subject trace to be licensed by virtue of complementizer agreement as in cases of compinflection (cf. Bayer 1984;Mayr 2010;Ackema & Neeleman 2004). In German, datives do not undergo any kind of agreement with the finite verb or with the C that is associated with the finite verb.…”

Section: (11)mentioning

confidence: 99%

That-trace effects and resumption – How Improper Movement can be repaired

Bayer¹,

Salzmann²

2013

Repairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OutlineThe ungrammaticality that can be observed in subject extraction from that-clauses in English, known as the that-trace effect, has attracted much attention in generative grammar. Until today, most of the writing takes it for granted that the effect is directly connected to the placement or the role of the subject. In this article we will show that this is likely to be wrong. We will show on the basis of data from German that the that-trace effect emerges as the result of TOPIC EXTRACTION via the specifier of the complementizer that (SpecCP). Since subjects are very likely to serve as topics, and the grammar of English does not allow much variation in using other constituents as topics, it is understandable that the that-trace effect was taken to be a subject effect. The gist of our explanation of the that-trace effect is that constituents which have been moved to the topic position, more precisely to the position of an aboutness-topic, do not have a feature for contrastiveness, and that precisely such a feature is needed in long extraction to value a subfeature of the intermediate complementizer. 1 This requirement allows essentially only constituents from the rhematic part of the clause to move long distance.The article is organized as follows: Section 2 gives a short description of that-trace effects in English and comments on some more recent approaches. Section 3 turns to similar effects in German, pointing to means of circumventing the violation which are offered by the grammar of German. In this section it will be established that it is topic movement and not subject movement which gives rise to the observed violation. Making use of a feature of contrastivity, section 4 identifies the violation as related to what in previous research was seen as IMPROPER MOVEMENT. In section 5 the notorious problem of long extraction from zero-complementizer clauses will be addressed. Extending work that has been done on German, it will be argued there that also in English the construction is better analyzed as involving parenthetical insertion. In other words, what has been taken to be long subject extraction across a zero complementizer is in all likelihood short extraction into which a special parenthetical has been inserted. 2 In section 6 we shift from the discussion of English and Standard German to a discussion of Zurich German relative clauses. Relative clauses in this dialect are of particular interest because they show a split between movement and resumption. Subjects and direct objects move and leave a trace whereas indirect objects and PP-objects etc. rely on resumption. Interestingly, this picture changes as soon as we are dealing with long relativization. In the latter case, even subject and direct object submit to resumption. On the basis of the extraction theory developed that far, this change receives a natural explanation, the reason being that the relative operator -unlike the wh-operator in questions -cannot value the contrast-feature in comp. The result is repair by means of resumption. It will...

show abstract

Consolidated References

2006

The Blackwell Companion to Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond Morphology

Cited by 214 publications

References 0 publications

Constraining argument structure in nominalizations: The case of English -er

Constraining argument structure in nominalizations: The case of English -er

That-trace effects and resumption – How Improper Movement can be repaired

Consolidated References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About