Nominalization
[3] Some languages simply allow verbs to be used as nouns without inflectional difference (conversion or zero derivation), while others require some form of morphological transformation.
An especially common case of verbs being used as nouns is the addition of the suffix -ing, known in English as a gerund.
Some verbs and adjectives in English can be used directly as nouns without the addition of a derivational suffix, depending on the syntax of a sentence.
Which of two sounds is pronounced is a signal, in addition to the syntactic structure and semantics, as to the lexical category of the word use in the context of the sentence.
Cái, tính (indicating quality) and Sự are the most general classifiers used to nominalize verbs and adjectives, respectively.
[10][11] Japanese grammar makes frequent use of nominalization (instead of relative pronouns) via several particles such as の no, もの mono and こと koto.
[12] Causative, passive, and honorific verb marking inside kata-nominals provide evidence that a vP structure should be postulated.
[12] -kata (-方) 'way' suffixed to the "renyookei" (adverbial) form of a verb: The syntactic nominals that are shared with ordinary lexical nominals John-noJohn-GENhon-nobook-GENyomi-kataread-wayJohn-no hon-no yomi-kataJohn-GEN book-GEN read-way'the way of John's reading a book'Mary-noMary-GENbutai-de-nostage-on-GENodori-katadance-wayMary-no butai-de-no odori-kataMary-GEN stage-on-GEN dance-way'the way of Mary's dancing on the stage'Nominalized versions John-gaJohn-NOMhon-obook-ACCyon-da.read-PASTJohn-ga hon-o yon-da.John-NOM book-ACC read-PAST'John read a book.
*John-gaJohn-NOMhon-obook-ACCyomi-kataread-way*John-ga hon-o yomi-kataJohn-NOM book-ACC read-way'the way in which John reads the book'*John-gaJohn-NOMronbun-opaper-ACCkaki-naosiwrite-fixing*John-ga ronbun-o kaki-naosiJohn-NOM paper-ACC write-fixing'John's rewriting of the paper'The arguments of these nominals, although both subjects and objects are marked only with genitive cases.
For instance in Eastern Shina (Gultari) the finite clause [mo buje-m] 'I will go' can appear as the nominalized object of the postposition [-jo] 'from' with no modification in form: [moIbuje-m]-jogo-1sg-frommuçhorebeforeŗohebuje-igo-3sg[mo buje-m]-jo muçhore ŗo buje-iI go-1sg-from before he go-3sg"He will go before I go.
Such remarks promoted the restrictive view of the syntax, as well as the need to separate syntactically-predictable constructions such as gerunds from less predictable formations and specifically-derived nominals.
In the current literature, researchers seem to take one of two stances when proposing a syntactic analysis of nominalization.
[13] One of Chomsky's primary concerns at the time was to generate an explanation and understanding for linguistic theory, or "explanatory adequacy."
[14] Chomsky argues that derived nominals in English are too irregular and unpredictable to be accounted for by syntactic rules.
[3] Chomsky explains that derived nominals have the internal structure of a noun phrase and can be quite varied and distinctive.
[16] External arguments are those that are not contained within the maximal projection of the verb phrase and are typically the "subject" of the sentence.
This internal structure is posited as a result of extension of the intrinsic semantic properties of the lexical items, and in actuality that theta roles, the aforementioned argument types (agent, experiencer, goal/location, and theme), should be eliminated from any discussion of argument structure because they have no effect on the grammatical representation.
Japanese syntactic structures illustrate that there are requirements for the locality of these argument types and so their positions are not interchangeable, and a hierarchy seems to be established.
The relationship between nouns and verbs is described differently from prior research in the sense that it is proposed that some nominals take obligatory arguments but others do not, depending on the event-structure.
[18] The biggest issue in proposing an account of argument structure for nominals comes from their ambiguous nature, unlike verbs.
[18] In English, nominals formed by -ation are ambiguous, and the reading can either be eventive (Argument Structure) or non-eventive.
[18] Grimshaw expands on that difference and hypothesizes that complements of complex event nouns are obligatory and so adjuncts may actually syntactically behave similarly to arguments.
The second instance of examination has a simple event interpretation because while it is a derived nominal, according to Grimshaw, it does not "inherit" the verbal argument structure, and only the lexical/semantic content is projected.
Lieber (2018) refers to nominals that may take both simple and complex event interpretations as "polysemic.
"[20] The nominal examination in the contexts of an eventive or non-eventive reading has a different subcategorization frame.
[18] The nominal writer, in terms of its agentive or instrumental reading also has different subcategorization frames.
Alexiadou (2001) supports the idea that the difference between nouns and verbs is located within the functional layers of its syntactic structure.
[21] Alexiadou (2001) claims that the key difference between nominals has been derived from variation in their functional structures.
