1 On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations1
Abstract: This paper focuses on agent-denoting nominalizations in various languages (e.g. the finder of the wallet), contrasting them with the much better studied action/event-denoting nominalizations. In particular, we show that in Sakha, Mapudungun, and English, agent-denoting nominalizations have...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.494.1244 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/agent-nominals-web.pdf |
| Summary: | Abstract: This paper focuses on agent-denoting nominalizations in various languages (e.g. the finder of the wallet), contrasting them with the much better studied action/event-denoting nominalizations. In particular, we show that in Sakha, Mapudungun, and English, agent-denoting nominalizations have none of the verbal features that event-denoting nominalizations sometimes have: they cannot contain adverbs, voice markers, expressions of aspect or mood, or verbal negation. An apparent exception to this generalization is that Sakha allows accusative-case marked objects in agentive nominalizations. We show that in fact the structure of agentive nominalizations in Sakha is as purely nominal as in other languages, and the difference is attributable to the rule of accusative case assignment. We explain these restrictions by arguing that agentive nominalizers have a semantics very much like the one proposed by Kratzer (1996) for Voice heads. Given this, the natural order of semantic composition implies that agentive nominalizers must combine directly with VP, just as Voice heads must. As a preliminary to testing this idea typologically, we show how a true agentive nominalization can be distinguished from a headless subject relative clause, illustrating with data from Mapudungun. We then present the results of a 34-language survey, showing that indeed none of these languages allow clause-like syntax inside a true agentive nominalization. We conclude that a generative-style investigation into the details of particular languages can be a productive source of things to look for in typological surveys. 1. |
|---|