Download Workshop on Nominalization

Issues in Argument Structure
Department of Linguistics
State University of St Petersburg
St- Petersburg-Utrecht Joint PhD Program
III. WHAT'S NOMINAL IN NOMINALIZATIONS?
Eric Reuland
Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS
Eric [email protected]
1. The problem
Like many languages Dutch has expressions showing a mix of nominal and verbal
characteristics: nominal infinitives.
Three types:
1. Het-determiner
2. Dat-determiner
3. No determiner
Schoorlemmer 2001 discusses types 1. and 2., illustrated in (1a,b). (1c) illustrates type 3.
(1) a. Het oproepen
van
getuigen
door de
officier
the summon-INF of
witnesses
by
the
coroner
b. Dat afschuwelijke overlast
veroorzaken van
jou
that terrible
trouble
cause-INF
of
you
c. Bomen kappen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
Schoorlemmer notes a number of interesting contrasts between type 1 and type 2 infinitives,
that I will not discuss here, and further presents an overview of nominal and verbal properties
of nominal infinitives, as identified in the literature (Van Haaften et al 1985, Hoekstra and
Wehrmann 1985, Reuland 1988, Hoekstra 1997).
Nominal Properties
 They are introduced by a determiner
 They can be modified by adjectives
 A subject or object may be expressed in a van-phrase (NB. there can be only one van-phrase)
 The van-phrase always occurs in a post-head position
Verbal properties
 They can be modified by adverbs
 Argument PPs can precede or follow the head
 The subject can be realized as a door-phrase (by-phrase)
 (Bare accusative) direct objects must precede the verb
 They may contain complex verbal structures
Specifically:
 the direct object can be realized both preverbally as an NP or postverbally as a van-PP (of-PP).
 Modifiers can be realized with a schwa marking them as adjectives, or without a schwa
marking them as adverbs.
1

One and the same construction can be modified both by an adjective and an adverb, but only
in that order
The presence of a determiner is necessary to license modification by an adjective (marked with
schwa)  adjectives are impossible in type 3 nominalizations as illustrated in (2):
(2)
a.
b.
*frequenteADJ / frequentADV bomen kappen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
frequent/frequently trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
*frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen van bomen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
frequent/frequently felling of trees (by the industry) is harmful
Some further examples of type 1 showing the main pattern:
(3)
a.
Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV bomen kappen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
The frequent/frequently trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
b.
*Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen bomen (door de industrie) is schadelijk
The frequent/frequently felling trees (by the industry) is harmful
c.
Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen (van bomen) (door de industrie) …
.
The frequent/frequently felling of trees (by the industry) is harmful
d.
*Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV van bomen kappen (door de industrie) …
.
The frequent/frequently of trees felling (by the industry) is harmful
e.
Het *frequenteADJ / OKfrequentADV door de industrie bomen kappen is
schadelijk
The frequent/frequently by the industry trees felling is harmful
f.
*Het frequenteADJ / frequentADV door de industrie kappen van bomen is
schadelijk
The frequent/frequently by the industry felling of trees is harmful
g.
Hun frequenteADJ / (?)frequentADV bomen kappen is schadelijk
Their frequent/frequently trees felling is harmful
h.
Hun frequenteADJ / frequentADV kappen van bomen is schadelijk
Their frequent/frequently felling of trees is harmful
(4)
Hun frequenteADJ / *frequentADV kappen (door/*van de industrie) is schadelijk
Their frequent/frequently felling (by the industry) is harmful (POSS is OBJ)
But: How verbal is verbal, how nominal is nominal?
Puzzle: Argument optionality
There is the following contrast between verbal and nominal complementation: A suitable
discourse can license absence of the 'obligatory' complement in nominals, but not with verbs.
(5).
a.
b.
(6)
a.
b.
(7)
a.
b.
De bomen moesten allemaal weg. Het vellen kostte veel tijd.
The trees all had to go. The felling cost a lot of time
De bomen moesten allemaal weg .* Jan velde gedurende drie uur
The trees all had to go. John fell for three hours
Dit struikgewas is schadelijk. Frequent verwijderen (door een expert) is nodig.
This shrubbery is harmful. Frequent removing (by an expert) is needed
Dit struikgewas is schadelijk. *Een expert moet frequent verwijderen.
This shrubbery is harmful. An expert should frequently remove.
De stad viel in de handen van de vijand. Het vernietigen/de vernietiging kostte
veel tijd.
The town fell into the hands of the enemy. The destruction took a lot of time.
De stad lag op de route van het vijandelijke leger. De vernietiging door de
vijand kostte echter veel tijd. / Het vernietigen door de vijand kostte echter
veel tijd.
2
c.
(8)
a.
b.
(9)
a.
(10)
b.
a.
b.
The town was in the way of the enemy army. The destruction by the enemy
took a lot of time, however.
De stad viel in de handen van de vijand.*De vijand was lang bezig te
vernietigen.
The town fell into the hands of the enemy. The enemy took a long time
destroying.
De tafel was mooi geworden. Het materiaal was duur. De langdurige bewerking
had veel aandacht gekost. /Het langdurig?(e) bewerken had veel aandacht gekost.
De tafel was mooi geworden. Het materiaal was duur. *Jan had dan ook
aandachtig bewerkt.
Emoties zijn zwaar. Frequent uitdrukken is belangrijk Ongeremde
uitdrukking is goed.
Emoties zijn zwaar. *Jan drukte ongeremd uit omdat dat belangrijk was.
Deze problemen zijn onoplosbaar. Veelvuldig opgeven moet vermeden
worden.
Deze problemen zijn onoplosbaar. *We geven desondanks constant op.
Concluding: There is considerable freedom in the realization of arguments in nominal
infinitives., and arguments that are syntactically obligatory in verbal constructions are not
syntactically obligatory in the corresponding nominal infinitives. This is independent of the
character of the modifier, whether or not a 'subject' is realized as a POSS phrase or a byphrase, etc. This property obtains throughout in all other types of nominalization.
Question: Why?
Possible answer: These constructions are fully nominal & nouns don't have obligatory
arguments (contra Grimshaw 1990, but see below) 
- What does it mean to be nominal?
- Why would this property hold of nominals?
2. What does it mean to be a nominal?
Part of theory of syntactic categories:
Distributive Morphology (Halle and Marantx 1993, Marantz 1997, etc.):
Lexical roots are category neutral, they are assigned a category X by merging with a small x.
n+√ = N
a+√ = A
v+√ = V
Does not express what it means to be an n, rather than a v or a.
Effectively states:
- any root can merge with nominalizer to become a noun, a verbalizer to become a verb, an
adjectivalizer to become an adjective.
- there are no asymmetries between members or lexical categories
- all lexical categories are morphosyntactically complex
Vinokurova (2005): Does not hold for an agglutinating language like Sakha  for languages
such English with extensive 0-morphology only apparently so:
3
Vinokurova: There are primitive verbs and primitive nouns. Consider cases of Noun-Verb
pairs as in (11):
(11)
a carpet – to carpet, an urchin – to urchin, a cut – to cut, a break – to break
In languages such as Sakha there is a direction of derivation as in (12):
(12)
a. (N→V) a carpet → to carpet, an urchin → to urchin;
b. (V→N) to cut → a cut, to break → a break.
In Sakha nouns such as those in (12a), and verbs as in (12b) are simplex. The corresponding
verbs in (12a) and nouns in (12b) are morphologically complex involving ‘carpetnoun’,
‘urchinnoun’, ‘cutverb’, ‘breakverb’ plus some affixes. This is illustrated in (13):
(13)
Vinokurova
DM/XS
Noun member: structure Verb member: structure
N
V-Verbalizer
√-nominalizer
√-verbalizer
Example from Uot ‘fire’
Sakha
Bas ‘head, master’
Baqa ‘desire’
Uot-taa ‘fire’
Bah-yj ‘master’
Baqa-r ‘desire’
Vinokurova V-Nominalizer
Example from Tüm-ük ‘conclusion’
Sakha
Kepsee-n ‘story, narration’
Taraa-x ‘comb’
V
Tüm ‘conclude’
Kepsee ’tell, narrate’
Taraa ‘comb’
What is needed is an independent characterization of what is nominal and verbal to explain
the direction of derivation.
Baker 2003
Fundamental principle:
 Nominals satisfy Geach's criterion of identity
 Can be used in same-contexts: this tree is the same as that one, etc.
Syntactically encoded as carriers of an index.
Baker acknowledges that indices violate inclusiveness  suggestion that they are added at CI
interface  question: How does syntax know a noun is a noun?

x cannot be classified as a noun or a non-noun on the basis of inspection alone
Criterion of identity is ill-suited for what is nominal in nominalizations: dubious in eventive
expressions:
(14)
a.
? this walk is the same as that one
4
b.
* The fellingof the trees by John is the same as the fellingof the trees by Bill
If so, what is nominal in nominalizations? (See Baker 2003 for an overview of problems in
using otherr criteria, e.g. morphological criteria like types of affixation, etc.)
Needed: a criterion whose application can be determined by inspection
Vinokurova (2005): important intuition:
- verbs are relational, nouns are not relational, adjectives are properties
Implementation: theta-system (Reinhart (2002), Reinhart and Siloni (2005), Marelj (2004))
3. The theta-system: the central system of concepts
- Abstract concepts need to be formally coded in order to be legible to the Computational
System (CS)
- The Theta System enables the interface between the system of concepts and the CS as well
as the interface between the system of concepts and the inference system.
The Theta System comprises the following components:
a. A system for formally encoding the information about abstract concepts the computational
system must be able to access: the linguistic coding of causal relationships (Reinhart 2002).
b. Lexical entries (i.e. particular coded concepts)
c. Operations on entries
d. Merging instructions (linking/mapping rules)
a. The system
The information the computational system can see: theta-roles
- All theta roles are formally coded as clusters defined in terms of two binary features:
[+c] (cause change), [+m] (mental state).
- A cluster need not be specified for (all) features, allowing as a limiting case the nullcluster.1

The c-feature
- The feature /+c represents that the role is perceived as a sufficient condition (Shen 1985).
- The feature /-c feature represents that the argument is identified as not being the cause.
- If the c-feature is not represented the causal status of the argument is undetermined

The m-feature
The /+m feature is related to the role of the mental state of the participant present in the
relation ‘motivate’  the /+m feature entails animacy. A /-m specification does not entail inanimacy.
1
The two binary features define nine feature clusters.
(1)
[+c+m] Agent
(2)
[+c-m] Instrument
(3)
[-c+m] Experiencer
(4)
[-c-m] Theme
(5)
[+c]
Cause
(6)
[-c]
Recipient Goal/Benefactor
(7)
[-m]
Subject Matter/Source
(8)
[+m]
Sentient
(9)
[-]
Arb in middles
5
b. Lexical entries
Verbs (i.e. n-place predicates) are encoded in terms of feature clusters in order to be visible to
both the syntax and semantics.
Notation
[α]
= Feature cluster α.
/α
= Feature (and value) α. (E.g. the feature /+m occurs in the clusters [+c+m], [-c+m],
and [+m])
[/α]
= A cluster one of whose features is /α. (E.g. [/-c] clusters are [-c+m], [-c-m] and [-c].)
[+]
= A cluster all of whose features have the value +.
[-]
= A cluster all of whose features have the value -.
A condition on lexical entries
(15)
Cluster Distinctness Constraint
a.
Two indistinct theta-clusters cannot be both realized on the same predicate
b.
Distinctness: two feature clusters α and ß, are distinct iff
a. they share at least one feature, and
b. there is at least one feature or value which they do not share.
Illustration:
(16) a.
b.
The press biased the judge against the defendant.
bias: ([+c], [-c+m], [-c])  [+c] and [-c] are distinct
This alienated her from her colleagues.
alienate: ([+c], [-c+m], [-c])  [+c] and [-c] are distinct
Motivation: the pattern illustrated in (17a) and (17b).
(17)
a.
*/?The article angered Bill at the government.
anger: ([+c], [-c+m], [-m])  [+c] and [-m] are indistinct
(18)
b.
*/?The doctor’s letter worried Max about his health.
worry: ([+c], [-c+m], [-m])  [+c] and [-m] are indistinct
c. Operations on lexical entries
The existence of lexical operations in the Theta System is tied to the following principle:
(19)
Lexicon Uniformity Hypothesis
Each verb-concept corresponds to one lexical entry with one thematic structure. The
various thematic forms of a given verb are derived by lexicon operations from one
thematic structure.
 the unaccusative forms in (20b) and (21b) are derived from the basic transitive forms in
(20a) and (21a).
(20)
(21)
a.
b.
a.
b.
Peter melted the ice.
The ice melted.
Peter froze the ice.
The ice froze
Also assumed where the basic transitive form is not realized in a language.
Available operations
i. Reduction (e.g. Expletivization/Bundling)
ii. Saturation (e.g. Passive)
6
iii. Entry-changing (e.g. Lexical Causativization)
i. Reduction
Reflexive (unergative) entries are the output of reduction of the internal role.
Unaccusative entries are the output of reduction of the external role.
(22)
(23)
Internal Reduction/Bundling:
a.
Vacc (θ1, θ2)  Rs(V) (θ1,2)
b.
Rs (V)(θ1,2)  θ1,2 (λx (V (x,x)))
c.
shaveacc([+c+m]1,[-c-m]2: Lucie shaved him.
d.
Rs(shave)([+c+m]1): Max shaved.
Expletivization: Reduction of an external [+c] role (semantically null function)
a.
Vacc (θ 1[+c], θ2)  Re V(θ2)
b.
Re(V) (θ2) = V(θ2)
c.
openacc ([+c], [-c-m]  Re(open)[-c-m]
d.
worryacc ([+c], [-c+m]  Re(worry)[-c+m]
Note:
a.
b.
c.
Reduction can apply only in a two-(or more)-place entry one of whose roles is
external (a [+] cluster).
Reduction eliminates the accusative feature of the verb (fully or partially).
Reduction and saturation (passive) are exclusive (only one can apply at each
entry).
ii. Saturation
‘saturation’ ‘variable binding’  a variable is bound by some operation (e.g. E or Gen).
Saturation  the theta-role is unavailable for syntactic purposes.
Example: passivization
 Passive saturation closes existentially the external argument of a verb.
(24) a.
wash (θ1, θ2)
b.
Ex (wash (x, θ2 ))
Max was washed  Ex (x washed Max)
iii. Entry-Changing Operations
Example: Lexical Causativization.
(25) a.
The dog walked  She walked the dog.
(26) b.
The horse jumped  The rider jumped the horse over the fence
(27)
Lexical Causativization
a. Decauzativize: Change a /+c feature to a /-c feature.
walk: ([+c+m])  walk: ([-c+m])
b. Agentivize: Add an agent role.
walk: ([-c+m])  walk: ([+c+m], [-c+m])
Locus of operations on argument structure: The Lex-Syn Parameter:
 UG allows thematic arity operations to apply in the lexicon or in the syntax.
 Concept forming operations can only take place in the lexicon.
d. Merging/Linking Instructions
Linking instructions are stated in terms of s-selection (i.e. the type of arguments that are
encoded on the verb’s grid) and the following set of UG rules and generalizations:
7
(28)
(29)
(30)
Lexicon marking
Given an n-place verb-entry, n>1,
a.
Mark a [-] cluster with index 2.
b.
Mark a [+] cluster with index 1.
c.
If the entry includes both a [+] cluster and a fully specified cluster [/α,/-c], mark
the verb with the ACC feature.
Relevant generalizations of lexical operations:
a.
Saturation and reduction apply to the marked entry (i.e. after marking).
b.
Reduction eliminates the accusative feature of the verb (fully or partially).
CS merging instructions.
a.
When nothing rules this out, merge externally.
b.
An argument realizing a cluster marked 2 merges internally; An argument with a
cluster marked 1 merges externally.
Examples:
(31)
Transitive Derivations
a.
Max ate an apple.
b.
Base entry:
eat ([+c+m], [-c-m])
c.
Marking:
eatacc ([+c+m]1, [-c-m]2)
d.
Merging: By (30b), ([+c+m]1) merges externally, ([-c-m]2 merges internally
(32)
Unaccusative Derivations
a.
The vase broke.
b.
Base entry:
break ([+c], [-c-m])
c.
Marking:
breakacc ([+c]1, [-c-m]2)
d.
Expletivization applies to the marked entry, giving rise to (break
([-c-m]2))
e.
Merging: Internal, by (30b)
4. Elaboration
4.1. 1-place verbs
Vinokurova (2005): The theta-system derives unaccusative entries from 2-place entries
 generalize 2-place source for all verbs
Unergative verbs:
 Hale and Keyser (1993, 1998, 2000): unergative verbs are analysed as denominal,
transitive structures involving a verbalizer and a nominal complement.
Vinokurova: Analyze weather-verbs as unergatives.
Claim: the subject is not necessarily an expletive, as in the sky rains.
Vinokurova's thesis:



Verbs represent intrinsically relational concepts
in opposition to verbs: noun concepts are intrinsically non-relational
Adjectives are intrinsically 1-place concepts
4.2. (Relational) nouns
If so, what about nouns such as sister, father, etc.? What is relational is made explicit by
theta-clusters in the sense of Reinhart (2002), Reinhart and Siloni (2005), Marelj (2004):
8
A verbal concept like EAT is associated with two necessary conditions – someone to perform
the eating process (also a sufficient condition) and something to be eaten. These causal
relations are translated into θ-features yielding two arguments of the verb eat. With relational
nouns like sister, on the contrary, it is not motivated in terms of causality that they should take
an argument. This is because a necessary and sufficient condition for being a sister is being a
female sibling. However, the concepts FEMALE SIBLING and SISTER are coextensive.
Therefore with relational nouns it is impossible to translate their causal relations into distinct
feature clusters – the potential arguments. (Vinokurova 2005: 77).

Nouns do not have a theta-grid  cannot undergo lexical operations
5. How to proceed from here?
Option 1: The status of an element as nominal or verbal can be determined by inspection of
the concept  the categories V, N and A become predictable, hence redundant.
Functional categories select for a lexical item with a relational conceptual structure (V), a
non-relational conceptual structure ( N), or a 1-place conceptual structure ( A).
NB: Saturation and Reduction/Bundling apply to the marked concept  derived 1-place verbconcepts reflect that they are derived from a relational verb/concept.
Problem: Leaves open the status of nominalizations, which somehow combine nominal and
verbal characteristics.
Option 2: Reconsider one part of the procedure in the theta-system.
Original version: the argument structure of verbal concepts is made readable for CHL
by channelling it through the [+ c], [+m] system. Assumes that being verbal is given.
Add: Being channelled through the feature system is what makes a concept verbal. The [+ c],
[+m] system articulates the concept.
 If a concept is not relational, channelling it through the [+ c], [+m] system can either
be assumed to apply vacuously, or be considered as undefined. In any case the concept
does not become relational.
 If a concept is relational it can, but need not be articulated by the [+ c], [+m] system.
o If yes, it is realized as verbal
o If not, it is realized as nominal
NB: categorization as V, N and A still predictable  need not be annotated
Problem: One would expect that 'arguments' of nouns/nominalizations may connect (in some
way or other) with any meaning aspect of the concept  arguments of nouns may bear 'roles'
that cannot be encoded hence are unlike any theta-roles of verbal arguments.
Option 3: The essential difference between verbs and nouns resides in the availability in
principle of merging instructions. The roles that nouns can assign (if they have the right
conceptual make-up) are just the roles that verbs can assign, however they are not accessible
to marking in the sense of (28)  (30) is undefined 
Vinokurova's thesis modified:


Verbs represent relational concepts for which merging instructions are defined
Nouns represent concepts for which merging instructions are not defined
9

(Suggestion: Adjectives represent concepts with merging instructions for one
argument)
Applicable both to basic nouns and to 'nominalized' verbs.
NB.: Selection still holds in relation to nominals  arguments can be realized using
appropriate prepositions  Grimshaw's theta-marking deficiency


Consequence: If no merging instructions for the complements of a lexical item
are defined its complements cannot be obligatory.
Explains what's nominal in Dutch nominal infinitives and the optionality of their
arguments.
But: contradicts Grimshaw's (1990) analysis of complex event nominals.
6. Complex event nominals in English2
Grimshaw (1990): Complex event nominals have argument structure, just like verbs.
Complements to complex event nominals are obligatory as in the case of the corresponding
verb. The view that complements in nominalizations are not obligatory is due to the fact that
many derived nominals are ambiguous between the complex event reading and a simple
event/result reading.
 Given a proper disambiguation the obligatoriness can be observed
 The main difference between complex event nominals and verbs: Nominals are
deficient theta-role assigners, and require help from a preposition).
Examples of unambiguously complex event event nominals:
(33) a.
The felling *(of the trees)
b.
They felled *(trees)
c.
The destroying *(of the city)
d.
They destroyed *(the city)
Disambiguation by modifier:
(34) a.
The expression is desirable
b.
*The frequent expression is desirable
c.
The frequent expression of one's feelings is desirable
d.
We express *(our feelings)
(35) a.
The assignment is to be avoided
b.
*The constant assignment is to be avoided
c.
The constant assignment of unsolvable problems is to be avoided
d.
We constantly assign *(unsolvable problems)
Disambiguation by agents:
(36) a.
*The instructor's intentional/deliberate examination took a long time.
b.
The instructor's intentional/deliberate examination of the papers took a long
time.
(37) a.
The destruction was awful to see
b.
*The enemy's destruction was awful to watch
c.
The enemy's destruction of the city was awful to watch
2
I would like to thank Anna Asbury and Bill Philip for their help.
10
d.
The enemy destroyed *(the city)
Unexpected given the Dutch facts from 1.  Question: How different is English from Dutch?
English complex event nominals behave just like Dutch:
(33)'
(34')
(35)'
(36)'
(37)'
a. There were a lot of trees on the building lot. The felling took several days.
b. There were a lot of trees on the building lot. *The workers felled for several days
a. Suppressed emotions are dangerous. Frequent expression is desirable.
b. Suppressed emotions are dangerous. *Therefore we expressed frequently
a. These problems are unsolvable for these students. Regular assignment is to be
avoided
b. These problems are unsolvable for these students. *Therefore, we don't assign
regularly.
a. The papers were extremely tough reading. The instructor's careful examination took
a long time.
b. The papers were extremely tough reading. *The instructor carefully examined for a
long time.
a. The city was in the way of a strong enemy army. Yet, the complete destruction by
the enemy took several days.
b. The city was in the way of a strong enemy army. *The enemy completely destroyed,
which took them several days.
Given an appropriate discourse, arguments that are obligatory for verbs can be omitted in
nominalizations.
7. Expected types of variation between nominal(ization)s
1. Basic nouns
 No internal relational structure  no merging instructions  nominal
2. Simple event nominals
 An affix selects a relational concept without articulated theta-structure  no merging
instructions  nominal
3. Complex event nominals
 An affix selects a relational concept with articulated theta-structure  blocks
assignment of merging instructions  nominal
4. Nominal infinitives
 An affix selects a relational concept with articulated theta-structure and (thematic)
ACC case, and blocks assignment of merging instructions  nominal
5. Gerunds
 A "nominalizing affix" that applies in the syntax leaving a full verb with merging
instructions in its domain  it is inflectional rather than derivational (gerundival –ing,
etc.)  not nominal
 Instantiates a class of elements licensing verbal projections to appear as arguments,
functionally similar to complementizers.
Questions
I:
a. Do we have nominalization as a lexical operation on items that are
fully verbal in the sense that they have explicit merging instructions for their arguments and
that 'takes away' the merging instructions?
11
b. Do we have nominalization as a syntactic operation on items that are
fully verbal in the sense that they have explicit merging instructions for their arguments and
that 'takes away' the merging instructions?
II:
How precisely do nominalizers affect the item they merge with?
Options:
1. An affix may suppress (using Grimshaw's term) an argument  nonrelational  merging instructions not applicable  suppression must apply before lexicon
marking (28) applies  can only account for some types.
2. The affix projects a structure to which the merging instructions cannot be
applied. Viability depends on implementation of the merging instructions.
8. Conclusion
Vinokurova's thesis modified explains
 Why arguments are optional in nominalizations
 What is nominal in nominalizations
9. References
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge UP.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Haaften, Ton van, et al. 1985. Nominalisaties in het Nederlands. Glot 8:67-104.
Hale, Kenneth and S. Jay Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of
Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, 53
109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press..
Hale, Kenneth. and S. Jay Keyser. 1998. Bound features, Merge and transitivity alternations. Ms. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth and S. Jay Keyser. 2000. Conflation. In Cuadernos de Linguistica del I.U. Ortega y
Gasset, vol. 7:39-76.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The
View from Building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, 111-176.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Hoekstra, Jarich. 1997. The Syntax of infinitives in Frisian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Groningen. Ljouwert: Fryske Academy.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1999. Nominal and verbal projections. In D. Adger et al., eds., Specifiers; Minimalist
Approaches, 163-187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoekstra, Teun and Pim Wehrmann. 1985. De nominale infinitief. Glot 8: 257-275.
Marantz, Alec 1997. No escape from syntax: don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your
own Lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis et al., eds., Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics
Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4:2, 201-225.
Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and Argument Structure across Languages. Doctoral Dissertation.
LOT series, Utrecht University.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The Theta System - an Overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28.3.
Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2005. The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other Arity
Operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 389 - 436
Reuland, Eric. 1986. Constraining the Relation between Syntax and Morphology. In S. Berman, J.W.
Choe & J. McDonough, ed., Proceedings of NELS 16. GLSA, Amherst, 367-387
Reuland, Eric. 1988. Relating Morphological and Syntactic Structure. In: Martin Everaert et al., eds.
Morphology and Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.
Reuland, Eric. 1990. Head Movement and the Relation between Morphology and Syntax. In: A.
Jongman en A. Lahiri, eds, Yearbook of Morphology
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 2001. Dutch Nominalised Infinitives As Non-Identical Twins. Ms. UiL OTS,
Utrecht University.
Shen, Yeshayahu. 1985. The Structure of Action in the Short Narrative Text, Unpublished Ph.D
Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Vinokurova, Nadezhda, 2005. Lexical Categories and Argument Structure: A study with
reference to Sakha. Doctoral Dissertation. LOT series, Utrecht University
12