?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
C
HOMSKY
’
S
REMARKS
AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS
S
13
7
the house’s enlargement by John
(
49
)
the maintanence of orde
r
the persistence of problems
A closer look shows that affixes often captures a kind of ‘aspect’ of Event,
although here I am just beginning to sketch out terrain that is theoretically
unex
p
lored. For instance, the affix -
ment
is used primarily for
t
results
,
although with
co
n
s
i
de
ra
b
l
e
hi
s
t
o
ri
c
al
d
rift
:
(50) acknowled
g
ement, enlar
g
ement, complement, arran
g
ement,
i
n
duce
m
e
nt
In addition
,
we find that the
-ence
affix is defined as “usually of quality, rarely of
action” in the
O
ED:
(
51) dependence, existence, persistence
H
oweve
r it
see
m
s
lik
e
th
eo
th
e
r n
o
minalizati
o
n
s
in
:
(
52) John’s transference of mone
y
N
evertheless, where action is behind the word, it is often the quality of the action
that is ca
p
tured:
(
53) violence, subservience, prudence, pretense
Th
ewo
r
d
violence
surely refers to actions but fails to be an action
n
ominalization, referring instead to the quality of action instead,
j
ust as the OED
c
laim
s.
Th
esu
ffix -
ence
i
so
ft
e
n
co
nf
used w
ith -
ance
w
hi
c
h al
so c
arri
es
action
meaning:
(
54
)
assistance, resistance, connivance
thus we find that affixes point to a kind
o
f Nominal Aspect, but that considerable
d
rift
c
an
occu
r
.
Th
e
affix -
th
, to which Chomsky in R
ema
r
ks
and Harley and Noye
r
pertain (1997,1998), has become unproductive and therefore difficult to analyze,
t
hough it seems to be inchoative:
(55) the
g
rowth of tomatoes/*Mar
y
’s
g
rowth of tomatoes
It is here we see both the strong lexical dimension of nominalizing affixes an
d
an important, but largely mysterious ques
t
ion of exactly what subtle meaning each
affix conveys beyond the conversion of a verb to a noun.
138
T
O
M R
O
EPER
The notion of Aspect has emerged as both important and difficult to capture in
t
he representation of sentence grammar. Proposals exist to project an Aspect node in
t
he syntax which can capture progressivit
y
,
telicit
y
,
achievement
,
etc. However
,
as
o
ne can readily feel, it is not quite clear what kind of aspectual meaning is carried by
t
h
ese
affix
es.
6
It is also an ever-present lexical fact about nominalizations that they,
being listed in the lexicon, are open to semantic drift, which further obscures the
subtle meanin
g
of affixes. Ultimatel
y
, the aspectual properties of sentences ma
y
be
m
ore deepl
y
comprehended when a full theor
y
of the aspectual properties of
nominalizin
g
affixes are represented. This is what we expect under the view that
nominalizations both articulate the core properties of grammar and show the
o
bscurity typical of lexical items.
Do structural
p
ro
p
erties match the clai
m
that there are as
p
ec
t
u
al
c
hara
c
t
e
ri
s
ti
cs
o
f nominalizations? If nominal aspect parallels verbal aspect, then we should see
k
structural correspondence as well. We need to look at the syntactic tree more
c
arefully.
5
.
W
HERE D
O
AFFIXE
S
ATTA
C
H?
The claim that we should have an X-bar theor
y
where nodes are abstract has
become a
p
illar within
M
inimalist Theor
y
.
Chomsk
y
(1994) articulated the concept
in
Bare Phrase
S
tructure and it has been extended in a variety of ways by Chris
C
ollins (2001), and also by Ha
l
le and Marantz
(
1992
)
in Distributed Morpholog
y
(see also Marantz 1997). However within nominalizations themselves a new range
o
f arguments points to the existence of a real VP on the inside, not simply an
ambiguous abstract node, hearkening
b
ack to Lee’s original position
.
First we need to address the
p
osition of th
e
affix it
se
lf
.
Infl
ec
t
i
o
nal affixati
o
n ha
s
l
ed to a different twist on how to com
p
ose nominalizations as well. Where the affix
-
tion
w
a
so
n
ce see
n a
s
a kin
do
f S
p
ellout rul
e
,
man
y
modern versions of s
y
ntax have
l
inked affixes to their own nodes.
S
uch nodes involve a leftward movement to
s
atisfy Features that are like mini-subcategorization frames. Thus we have highe
r
Tense affixes to which a verb moves, particularly in Germanic languages with more
i
nf
o
rmati
o
n in th
e
affix
:
6
See Sn
y
der (1998) for discussion of the aspectual nature of nominalizations, refinin
g
the notions of
sim
p
lex and com
p
lex Events. This leads natura
l
ly to asking how each affix captures different
aspectual notions. See Harley and Noyer (1998) fo
r
pertinent data about prenominal possessives.
T
hey argue that ‘encyclopedic’ knowledge of Event types and not syntax determines what can occur
pronominally, but we would argue that the concept
o
f covert object-movement explains directly why
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
co
ntra
s
t
be
t
wee
n
:
i) ??the Cold War time’s separation of East and West Germany
i
i) the separation of East and West Germany during the Cold War time
Th
eve
r
b
s
e
p
ara
t
e favors the
p
assive o
p
tion for -
tion
,
blockin
g
the preposed temporal (the Cold War
period) nominal.
C
HOMSKY
’
S
REMARKS
AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS
S
139
(
56
)
TP
T
V
P
-
es
V
p
ush
If a Nominal form is, in some ultimate grammar, a kind of [–Tense] form then it
n
aturally alternates with Tense and may allow a pro
j
ection of Tense via certain
affixes of a [+V] feature which has to be satisfied by leftward movement.
In effect, this form occupies either the TenseP or the smallv proposed Chomsky
(
1995) followin
g
the causative anal
y
sis of Hale and Ke
y
ser (2002) widel
y
used for a
n
umber of claims includin
g
middle, telicit
y
, and passive.
7
(
57
)
No
m
-tion
V
P
V
< === destro
y
Once again, we find that at a deeper level the parallelism between noun phrases
an
dse
nt
e
n
ces
h
o
l
ds.
N
ow if we ex
p
ect a node to ca
p
ture a semantic difference, which has been
s
uggested both by Chomsky (2001) and by the tradition of formal semantics
,
we find
a natural candidate: the complex semantic entity
–
EVEN
T
.
We would expect this
s
emantic property to receive articulation
s
omewhere in the grammar of affixation
(
see van Hout 1996, Borer 2003, and van Hout and Roe
p
er 1998 and references
therein). We ar
g
ue that -
tion
ar
g
uabl
y
refers precisel
y
to that notion of E
V
EN
T
.
It i
s
a
question of profound depth to ask wh
y
this notion is not explicit in the verbal s
y
ntax.
W
e have no answer, but we regard the question as a promising one.
W
e can hazard an answe
r
i
n line with the philosophy arti
cu
lat
ed
in thi
s
o
verview: the analysis of derived structures helps to illuminate core features of the
g
rammar. I
f
-
tion
does refer to Event, then it provides an example of where a derived
c
onstruction expresses explicitly a core co
n
c
ept. This should be regarded as a broad
s
peculation because, if -
tion
does have a semantic core, the notion of Event might
n
eed more refinement to capture the ran
g
e of uses fo
r
-
tion
.
Words like
intention
m
ust refer to mental events. Therefore the term Event ma
y
itself be ripe for
g
reate
r
decomposition into a more refined array of concepts (see Brandt 2003, Snyder 1998)
for suggestions in this direction, as well as work in semantics (see Kratzer (in
p
re
p
aration
)).
7
Widely utilized for a number of claims, including connections to Middle, Telicity, and passive.
1
40
T
O
M R
O
EPER
Our theory of nominalizations matches sentential syntax if we assume that a
v
erbal stem moves u
p
leftward to a nominal affix
(
-
tion
)
which seeks a [+V] stem to
m
atch a Feature which it carries.
U
nder this a
n
alysis, we are led to argue that a real
V
P exists below the Nominal -
tion
,
and if so, we should expect to find syntactic
evidence of a VP from which a root moves to a higher node to pick up the Event
m
ark
er
-
tion
as illustrated above. This representation is now common in the
l
iterature, revivin
g
Lees ori
g
inal idea. It was assumed in Lebeaux
(
1986
)
,
extensivel
y
elaborated in Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001), and commonl
y
assumed in
m
ost work on the topic now (see Alexiadou (in prep)). The most explicit evidence in
i
ts behalf comes from adverbs and VP-elli
p
sis. The
p
ro-form
do so
regularly refers
to a
V
P:
J
ohn sang and Bill did so to
o
.
It is instantly evide
n
t
that
w
h
e
r
e
th
e
r
e
i
s
a
h
idden VP in a nominal
,
do so
becomes acce
p
table or almost acce
p
table:
(
58
)
*John’s version of the
s
tor
y
and Bill’s doin
g
so too
(
59) ?John’s telling of the story, and Bill’s doing so too
(
60
)
John’s destruction of th
e
city and Bill’s doing so too
T
h
ebe
ha
v
i
o
r
o
f a
dve
r
bs
l
e
a
ds
t
o
th
es
am
eco
n
c
l
us
i
o
n
:
(
61
)
a. While the removal of evidence purpose
f
ull
y
(
is a crime
)
, the
re
m
ov
al
o
f
ev
i
de
n
ce
unintentionall
y
(
is not
)
.
b. ?His ex
p
lanation of the
p
roble
m
i
mmediatel
y
to the tenants
(
did not
prevent a riot).
c. ?
Pr
o
t
ec
ti
o
n
o
f
c
hil
d
r
e
n completel
y
from bad influence
(
is
u
nrealistic
)
.
d. His resi
g
nation so
s
uddenl
y
g
ave rise to wild speculation.
T
hese
j
ud
g
ments have sometimes received a question-mark, but it is of particula
r
i
nterest that they seem to occur in conv
e
r
sation and in news
p
a
p
ers, as Kehler
(
2002:
53
)
has re
p
orted: “This letter deserves a
r
esponse, but before you do...” While a
desire for parallelism might affect our judgments, the sentence is only
c
omprehensible online if an underlying verb (respond) can be found, which is so
s
harply absent in a case like
*
John’s version was quick and Bill did to
o
,
even though
i
ts overall semantics is perfectly comprehensible. This should then be seen as an
i
nstance where lan
g
ua
g
e use provides sharper insi
g
ht than intuitions.
A
bove the nominalized verb we find that the structure behaves
j
ust like a DP and
c
arries adverbial meanin
g
via ad
j
ectives:
(
62) The enemy’s careful destruction of the city
C
HOMSKY
’
S
REMARKS
AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS
S
141
S
entential adverbs are excluded from the
VP
,
but possible as ad
j
ectives in the
DP
:
(
63) *John’s destruction of the cit
y
unfortunatel
y
(
64) John’s unfortunate destruction of the cit
y
.
Thi
s
f
o
ll
ows bec
a
use
th
e
V
P is encapsulated by the nominal affix and so no
h
igher Speaker-linked adverbial attachment site is possible.
A
ll
o
f th
ese
fa
c
t
s
a
cco
r
dw
i
th the split character of
no
minalizati
o
n
s.
Th
ebo
tt
om
h
alf behaves like the VP, which we argue is there, and the top half behaves like the
N
P
w
hi
c
h -
tion
intr
oduces.
6
. ELAB
O
RATED PHRA
S
E
S
TR
UC
T
U
RE AND N
O
MINALIZATI
O
N
S
I
f our refined theor
y
of nominalizations is correct
,
then we ca
n
ar
g
ue that there
are choice points for the attachment of
t
h
e
n
o
minalizati
o
n affix that mirr
o
r th
e
s
tructure of the verbal syntax. This is the position of van Hout and Roeper (1998)
who argue that a node where Event and telicity information is represented must be
present as has become common in many syntactic accounts.
The nominalization then picks out different amounts of sentential structure,
where we use
V
P to cover what is often c
a
l
led ‘small v’. In effect, one can generate
a NOM node over TP
,
VP
,
vP
,
and V
,
each ta
k
ing a different kind
o
f affix
,
as we
i
llustrate here, and it subcate
g
orizes each of these nodes with a particula
r
F
eatu
r
e
Bundle
:
(
65
)
a. TP
-ing
= progressive transitive
g
the mowing of the lawn
b.
V
P -
tion
,
-abilit
y
,
-
er
= Event Agent
r
the mowability of the lawn
th
e
m
owe
r
o
f th
e
la
w
n
th
e
tran
s
f
o
rmati
o
n
o
f th
e
la
w
n
c. V-bar: -
er
= non-event Agent
r
th
e
la
w
n-m
owe
r
d.
V
- inchoative
the growth of the lawn
e. V-Bare Nominal => result
th
ev
i
ew o
f th
e
la
w
n
(
66) is the representation offered by van Hout and Roeper (1998: 189) to capture
t
hi
sde
ri
v
ati
o
n f
or
-in
g
.
We will not review all of the options in depth, but point out
t
hat one can plausibl
y
ar
g
ue for each of them.
1
4
2
TO
M R
O
EPER
(
66
)
NP
S
p
ec N’
N TP
V
i
+Asp
j
p
N Spec T'
mow -ing
T As
p
P
t
i
+
j
Spec Asp’
j
D
p
k
the lawn
Asp Voice-EventP
t
i
+
j
S
p
ec Voice-Event’
PR
O
V
oice-Event
V
P
t
i
S
p
ec V
t
k
t
k
i
6
.1 Bare
N
ominals: Predictable Restrictions
Although this seems never to have been noticed before, a small pocket of
nominals, which might have been dismissed as drifted and idiosyncratic, nonetheless
s
how an interestin
g
characteristic:
(67) m
y
help,
y
our advice,
y
our push,
y
our
my kick, his shove, his kiss, my hug
your control, your view of the house
(
68
)
*the house’s view
*the car’s kick
(
=kick the car
)
In each instance we have onl
y
the A
g
e
n
t
readin
g
. Wh
y
is the ob
j
ect readin
g
u
navailable? The answer follows a
g
ain fro
m
the fact that nothin
g
licenses ob
j
ect-
m
ovement here. There is no passive morpheme to brin
g
out this possibilit
y
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
it i
s
exactly like the -ing affix
,
however in this
i
n
s
tan
ce
at th
ebo
tt
o
m
o
f
t
he syntactic tree, at the V-
c
onnection, not the to
p
most
-ing
connection.
g
C
HOMSKY
’
S
REMARKS
AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS
S
143
A
deeper semantic observation holds as w
e
ll. Because it is at
the bottom of the
t
t
ree it is not eligible for any action-related aspectual interpretation. It is therefore
r
estricted to a Result interpretation, even though the exact formulation of this clai
m
i
s not strai
g
htforward. It is not clear what
l
ove, help, advic
e
m
e
an a
s
R
esu
lt
s.
N
evertheless the
y
are intuitivel
y
not capturin
g
actions. It is whatever the difference
be
t
ween
J
ohn’s help an
d
John’s helping
is. There is some sense, perhaps imposed by
g
s
yntax, that
h
el
p
is enca
p
sulated while
helping
is not.
g
6.2 High -in
g
T
he high connection of
-ing
nominalizations allows a much wider range of
g
argument pro
j
ections. We do not find:
(
69) *the being of no solution to this problem.
T
hi
ss
tan
ds
in
co
ntra
s
t t
o:
(
70) the appearin
g
of no solution to this proble
m
T
he difference is traceable once again
t
o the covert operation of ob
j
ect-
preposing, which applies only in the (70) case, where
no solution
c
an m
ove
t
o
th
e
s
ub
j
ect position because of the unaccusative properties of
appear
not because of a
r
h
idden passive. Without ob
j
ect-preposin
g
the nominalization fails to have a required
expletive subject. The implication is that the expletive plays a slightly different role
i
n there appeared a problem an
d
there is a problem
w
hi
c
h i
s
r
e
fl
ec
t
ed
in th
e
fa
c
t
that we can say
a problem appeared
bu
t n
o
t
*
d
a
p
roblem is
.
Once again a rathe
r
s
ubtle analysis carries over to the nominalization.
6.3 Accusative and -in
g
Nominalizations
T
h
e
-in
g
n
ominalizations show other characteristics of s
y
ntactic variation.
T
h
e
r
e
are both forms which lack an of-phrase and cases which allow the pro
j
ection of
A
ccusative case
,
known as Acc-
ing
constructions:
g
(
71) a. his opening the door
b. him opening the doo
r
c. *him opening of the doo
r
d. him seeing her came as a surprise
No
t
e
that th
e
of
-phrase here is sharply excluded,
f
f
as
(
71c
)
shows. The Accusative
i
s often seen as a Default, found even amon
g
children (
me want
), but clearly it is
t
appearin
gj
ointl
y
with a verbal accusative. In fact (71d) is possible. We are bein
g
pushed toward a more abstract theory of
c
ase where the choice of subject/object case
assignment is not independent. One has the intuition that deeper insights will come
both from languages with a more elaborated case system and from keeping a steady
144
T
O
M R
O
EPER
e
ye precisely on those structures which appear to be ‘peripheral’ and how they
d
i
c
tat
ec
a
se.
7. CONCL
U
SION
W
e have traced the history of the two p
r
i
mary properties of Chomsky’s theory of
nominalization: phrase-structure and movement. We have found that the core idea of
phrase-structure has been taken over in the grammar in general, while the concept of
t
ransformation has survived at the covert level in precisel
y
the wa
y
that Chomsk
y
proposed. The hi
g
hl
y
elaborated phrase-structure common in most current anal
y
ses
l
eads to the prediction that hi
g
hl
y
differentiated nominalizations should exist in a
c
orresponding fashion. While many more facts remain to be incorporated, the
project works.
O
ur larger goal has been to argue for a view of grammar in which there is no real
distinction between core and peripheral pa
r
ts of the grammar. We argue that the
abstract properties of grammar are etched
m
ost clearly precisely in the non-central
c
onstructions. This claim in turn, parallel
s
a suggestion by Ken Hale, that he found
t
he
g
reatest re
g
ularit
y
in
g
rammars b
y
lookin
g
at the most complex properties.
T
om Roeper
Department of Linguistics
University of Massachusetts
A
mhe
r
st
USA
e-mail: roeper@linguist.umass.edu
REFERENCES
A
lexiadou
,
Artemis. 1999. On the s
y
ntax o
f
nominalization and possession: remarks on patterns o
f
er
g
ativit
y
. Ph.D. dissertation. Universit
y
of Potsdam.
A
lexiadou, Artemis (in preparation).
O
n the Lexicon available on the web at her websit
e
.
Manuscript.
A
nderson
,
Mona. 1983. “Prenominal Genitive NP’s.” In: M. Stein
(
ed.
)
,
N
EL
S
8. GLSA
,
UMass
,
A
mh
e
r
s
t
.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 1983.
E
n
g
lish Word Formation. Cambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
B
orer, Hagit. 1994. “The projection of argume
n
ts.” In: E. Benedicto and J. Runner
(
eds.
)
,
UMOP
17,
P
GLSA
,
UMass
,
Amherst.
B
orer, H. 1998. “Deriving passive without theta roles.”
I
n: S. La
p
ointe, D. Brentari and P. Farrell
(
eds.
)
,
M
orphology and its Relation to Phonology and Synta
x
. Stanford
,
CA: CSLI Publications
,
60-99.
B
orer, Hagit. 2003.
S
tructuring Sens
e
:
O
xford:
O
xford
Un
i
versity Press
.
B
randt
,
Patrick. 2003. Cipient Predication. PhD. Dissertation.
U
trecht.
C
homsk
y
, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalizations.” In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.),
R
eadin
g
s
i
n En
g
lish Trans
f
ormational Grammar. Waltham
,
MA: Blaisdell
,
184-221.
C
homsk
y
, Noam. 1995.
T
he Minimalist Pro
g
ram
.
Cambrid
g
e, MA: MIT Press.
C
homsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond Explanatory Adequac
y
.
MITWPL 20, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
C
lark
,
Robin. 1985. Boundaries and the Treatment of Control
.
U
CLA Dissertations.
C
ollins
,
Chris. 2001.
E
liminating Labels
.
MITWPL 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
C
HOMSKY
’
S
REMARKS
AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS
S
145
D
i Sciullo
,
Anna-Maria and Williams
,
Edwin. 1987.
On the Definition of Word
.
Cambridge, MA: MIT
Pr
ess.
D
owt
y
, David R. 1991. “Thematic pr
o
to-roles and ar
g
ument selection.” Lan
g
ua
ge
6
7
,
5
4
7-
619
.
F
u, Jingqi; Roeper, Tom; and Borer, Hagit. 2001.
“
The
V
P within Nominalizations: Evidence fro
m
A
dverbs and the VP ana
p
hor do-so.” Natural Lan
g
ua
g
e and Lin
g
uistic Theor
y
3
,
549-582.
G
rimshaw
,
Jane. 1990.
A
r
g
ument Structur
e
.
C
ambrid
g
e: MIT Press.
H
ale, Kenneth and Ke
y
ser, Samuel J. 1993. “On A
r
g
ument Structure and the Lexical Expression of
Syntactic Relations.” In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in
Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger
.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53-110.
H
ale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. 2002. Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure
.
Cambridge,
MA
:
MIT Pr
ess.
Halle
,
Morris and Marantz
,
Alec. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In: K.
H
ale and S. J. Keyser (eds.),
T
he View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111-176.
Harle
y
, Heidi and No
y
er, Rolf. 1997. “Mixed Nominalizations, Short Verb Movement and Ob
j
ect Shift in
En
g
lish.”
NELS
28, 143-159.
S
Harle
y
, Heidi and No
y
er, Rolf. 1998. “Formal vs. Enc
y
clopedic Properties of Vocabular
y
: Evidence fro
m
Nominalizations.” University of Pennsylvania. Manuscript.
Ka
y
ne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and Binar
y
Branchin
g
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
th
:
F
o
ri
s.
Ka
y
ne, Richard S. 2002. “On the s
y
ntax of qua
n
tit
y
in En
g
lish.” NY U
n
i
versit
y
. Manuscript.
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. “Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar.” In: CSL
I
. Stanford, CA, 54-
I
I
55
.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the external argument from the verb.” J. Rooryk and L. Zarin
g
(
eds.
)
,
P
h
r
ase st
r
uctu
r
e and the lexicon
[Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Dordrecht:
Kl
uwe
r
.
Kratzer, Angelika (in preparation) The Event Argumen
t
.
Lasnik, Howard. 1984 “Random Thoughts on Implicit Arguments.” University of Connecticut.
Manuscript
.
Lebeaux, David. 1986. “The inter
p
r
etation of derived nominals.” In: A. Farle
y
, P. Farle
y
and K.
McCullou
g
h (eds.), Chica
g
o Lin
g
uistic Societ
y
22, 231
-
24
7.
Lees
,
Robert B. 1960.
T
he Grammar of English Nominalizations
.
The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lieber
,
Rochelle. 1992.
D
econstructing Morpholog
y
.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marantz
,
Alec P. 1996. Cat as a phrasal cate
g
or
y
.
MIT. Manuscri
p
t.
Marantz, Alec P. 1997. “No escape from syntax.” In: A. Dimitriadis, I. Siegel et. al. (eds.), University o
f
Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201-225.
Marantz
,
Alec P. 1999. “Creati
n
g verbs above and below little
v
.
” Cambridge: MIT. Manuscript.
Randall
,
Janet. 1984.
M
orphological Structure and Language Acquisition. New York:
G
arland.
Roeper, Tom. 1987. “Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation.” Linguistic Inquir
y
18,
26
7-
310
.
Roeper, Tom. 2000. “Inherent Binding and the DP/NP/
N distinction.” In: P. Coopmans, M. Everaert and
/
/
J
. Grimshaw
(
eds.
)
, Lexical Speci
f
ication and Lexical Insertion
.
Amsterdam: John Ben
j
amins, 305-
328
.
Roeper, Tom and Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1978. “A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds.”
Linguistic Inquiry
9
,
199-260.
Sn
y
der, William. 1998. “On the Aspectual Properties of En
g
lish Derived Nouns.” I
n
:U
.
S
auerland and
O
.
Percus
(
eds.
)
, The Inter
p
retive Tract
.
MITWPL 25
,
125-139.
S
p
roat, Richard. 1985.
O
n Deriving the Lexicon
.
Doctoral dissertation
,
Massachusetts Institute o
f
T
echnology.
V
alois
,
Daniel. 1991.
T
he internal structure of D
P
.
PhD. dissertation. University of California, Los
A
ngeles.
v
an Hout
,
A.
,
1996.
E
vent semantics of verb frame alternations
.
TILDIL Dissertation Series
,
1996-1.
v
an Hout, Angeliek and Roeper,
T
om. 1998. “Events and Aspectua
l
Structure in Derivational
Morpholo
gy
.” In: H. Harle
y
(ed.), Roundtable on Ar
g
ument Structure and Aspec
t
.
MITWOL 32
,
175-
199.
v
an Hout, Angeliek. and Roeper, Tom. 1999. “The Impact of Nominalization on Passive
,
-able
,
and
Middle: Burzio’s
G
eneralization an
d
F
e
at
u
r
e
-M
ove
m
e
nt in th
e
L
e
xi
co
n
.
”
P
apers
f
rom the
U
Penn
/
MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon
.
MITWPL 35
,
185-211.
146
T
O
M R
O
EPER
v
an Hout, An
g
eliek and Roeper, Tom (to appear).
“
The Representation of Movement in -abilit
y
N
ominalizations: Evidence for Covert Category Mov
e
m
ent, Edge Phenomena, and local LF.” In: A.
Henry (ed.),
M
otivating Movemen
t
.
O
xford:
O
xford
Un
i
versity Press.
V
ergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1973. Formal Properties of Lexical Derivations
.Q
RPL Electronics Lab, MIT,
C
ambridge, MA.
W
asow, Thomas and Roeper, Tom. 1972. “On the Subject of Gerunds.” Foundations of Language 8.2,
44-61
.
W
illiams, Edwin. 1987. “Implicit Arguments, Binding Theory, and Control.”
N
LL
T
5, 150-181.
T
W
illiams
,
Edwin. 1994.
T
hematic Structure in Synta
x
. Cambridge: MIT Press
Zucchi
,
Alessandro. 1989. The language of propositions and events: issues in the syntax and semantics of
nominali
z
ation
.
PhD. dissertation. Universit
y
of Massachusetts, Amherst.