Chomsky’s Remarks and the Transformationalist Hypothesis

Roeper, Thomas

doi:10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_6

Cited by 56 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some recent overview articles/books include Alexiadou (2001), Alexiadou et al. (2007), Alexiadou and Grimshaw (2008), Newmeyer (2008), Roeper (2006), Siloni (1997), Borer (2003, Forthcoming), Ackema and Neeleman (2004); the contributions in Borsley (2000), Alexiadou and Rathert (Forthcoming), Kornfilt and Whitman (Forthcoming), and in Giannakidou and Rathert (2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nominalizations: A Probe into the Architecture of Grammar Part I: The Nominalization Puzzle

Αλεξιαδου

2010

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nominalizations have remained in the center of linguistic discussion at least since 1960, and one might be correct in stating that they are still much of a puzzle. In this paper, I offer a partial historical overview of the literature on nominalizations, beginning with a discussion of Chomsky's Remarks on nominalization, surveying the lexicon vs. syntax debate that characterized the research in this area during the 80s and 90s, and concluding with the presentation of some work that focuses on event structure and aspectual properties of nominalizations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nominalizations: A Probe into the Architecture of Grammar Part I: The Nominalization Puzzle

Αλεξιαδου

2010

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significant body of linguistic research carried out in the past several decades has argued that deverbal nominals with a morphological verbal base and PROCESS as their semantic character contain internal verbal phrase (VP) structure (Bruening, 2018a(Bruening, , 2018bBorer, 2003Borer, , 2013Roeper, 2005;Fu, Roeper, & Borer, 2001;Alexiadou & Grimshaw, 2008;Alexiadou, 2009, etc.). An illustration of this claim could be the following simplified syntactic tree with the deverbal nominal 'explanation', from an exemplary nominal phrase 'explanation of the question' ('the act of explaining the question').…”

Section: Deverbal Nominals and Vp Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…That adverbial postmodification is evidence of syntactic VP structure in deverbal nominals has been explained by the admissibility of postnominal manner adverbs after deverbal (1i) but not simple nominals (1ii, 1iii) (Bruening, 2018a(Bruening, , 2018bBorer, 2003Borer, , 2013Roeper, 2005;Fu, Roeper, & Borer, 2001;Alexiadou & Grimshaw, 2018, etc. ).…”

Section: Adverbial Postmodificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since deverbal nominalisation for it is, roughly, the internal syntactic transformation of predicate syntax (John explained it → John's explanation of it), it concludes that the constraint behind the contrast in (2) must lie in the manner adverb 'deliberately' agreeing with the internal VP element from the nominal 'removal' in (2i) and the failure of the sentential adverbs 'presumably' and 'fortunately' to do the same in (2ii) and (2iii). (Fu, Roeper, & Borer, 2001;Roeper, 2005;Borer, 2003Borer, , 2013.…”

Section: Sentential Adverbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deverbal nominals possess no internal VP structure

Hayriyan

2020

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This will cause the NP to move further, to Spec-TP: ( Turning to nominalizations, numerous syntactic accounts have been proposed for deriving nominalizations from phrases (e.g., VPs). These include, among others, Marantz (1997); Alexiadou (2001); Borer (2003); Roeper (2005); Bruening (2013). I will adopt the account in Bruening (2013), where a nominalizing head N takes an unsaturated projection of Voice as its complement (a VoiceP that has not projected its thematic specifier).…”

Section: A Syntactic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Word formation is syntactic: Raising in nominalizations

Bruening

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to Chomsky (1970), raising to subject and raising to object may not take place inside nominalizations. This claim has largely been accepted as fact ever since. For instance, Newmeyer (2009) repeats the claim as crucial evidence for the Lexicalist Hypothesis, the view that word formation takes place in a component of the grammar separate from the phrasal syntax. This paper shows with attested examples and survey data that the claim is false: raising to subject and raising to object are both grammatical inside nominalizations. This argues for a purely syntactic model of word formation, and against Lexicalist accounts. Additionally, the paper shows that one argument against syntactic accounts of nominalization, that from coordination, does not go through, clearing the way for the most parsimonious type of theory: one with only one combinatorial component, not two distinct ones for phrases versus words.

show abstract

Chomsky’s Remarks and the Transformationalist Hypothesis

Cited by 56 publications

References 6 publications

Nominalizations: A Probe into the Architecture of Grammar Part I: The Nominalization Puzzle

Nominalizations: A Probe into the Architecture of Grammar Part I: The Nominalization Puzzle

Deverbal nominals possess no internal VP structure

Word formation is syntactic: Raising in nominalizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About