Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T06:21:39.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Assignment and Argument Realization in Nominals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Anastasia Smirnova  and
Ray Jackendoff
Anastasia Smirnova*
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Ray Jackendoff*
Affiliation:
Tufts University
*
Smirnova, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave, HUM 429, San Francisco, CA 94132 [smirnov@sfsu.edu]
Jackendoff, Center for Cognitive Studies, 115 Miner Hall, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155 [Ray.Jackendoff@tufts.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case assignment and argument licensing in process nominals, that is, nouns such as destruction that are morphologically related to verbs, are assumed to operate in a verblike manner both within government-and-binding theory and, more recently, within the distributed morphology framework. The data from Russian challenge this approach and reveal that there is an important difference between the verbal and the nominal domains: case assignment in verbs is sensitive to the underlying argument structure, but in nominals to surface structure, that is, the collection of overt arguments. We propose a hierarchy of case-assignment rules that applies in the nominal domain. Moreover, within the nominal domain, case assignment is uniform: the same rules apply to different types of nominals, including prototypical process nominals and relational nouns. The main theoretical advantage of our lexicalist, constraint-based approach is that it can capture similarities between the verbal and the nominal domains, seen in the assignment of inherent and lexical cases, but also in their fundamental differences.

Keywords

nominalscase assignmentargument mappingsimpler syntaxRussian

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 877 - 911
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2010. Nominalizations: A probe into the architecture of grammar, part II: The aspectual properties of nominalizations, and the lexicon vs. syntax debate. Language and Linguistics Compass 4. 512–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00211.x.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. Statives and nominalization. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 40. 25–52. Online: http://rlv.revues.org/1991.10.4000/rlv.1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1997. Nominalization, passivization, and causativization. Die Welt der Slaven 42. 201–51.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria. 1997. The possessive construction in Russian: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 5. 193–233. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24599711.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria, Ganger, Jennifer, Pesetsky, David; and Wexler, Kenneth. 2001. The maturation of grammatical principles: Evidence from Russian unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 1–44. DOI: 10.1162/002438901554577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1983. On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 65–89. DOI: 10.1007/BF00210376.10.1007/BF00210376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107295186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris, and Dowty, David. 1993. Nominal thematic proto-roles. Columbus: The Ohio State University, ms. Online: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~dowty/.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans, and Sag, Ivan (eds.) 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1993. On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. 45–88.Google Scholar
Bochner, Harry. 1993. Simplicity in generative morphology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, ed. by Moore, John and Polinsky, Maria, 31–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2014. Derived nominals and the domain of content. Lingua 141. 71–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.007.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2. 113–24. DOI: 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred, 329–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in Tsez. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 360–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. Properties, types, and meaning, vol. 2: Semantic issues, ed. by Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Raymond, 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galkina-Fedoruk, Evdokija Mihajlovna. 1958. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: Sintaksis. Moscow: Moscow University.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott, and McNally, Louise. 2014. No ordered arguments needed for nouns. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 123–30.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. Syntactic event structure and nominalizations. Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, ed. by Giannakidou, Anastasia and Rathert, Monika, 32144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Sims, Andrea. 2013. Understanding morphology. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 395–420. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178337.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1986. Deverbalization and inheritance. Linguistics 24. 549–84. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.549.10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639–71. DOI: 10.2307/412891. [Reprinted in Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975-2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.].Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 1146. 2–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray, and Audring, Jenny. 2018. The texture of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 6. 240–88.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald Μ. 1989. The formal architecture of lexical-functional grammar. Proceedings of ROCLING 2, ed. by Huang, Chu-Ren and Chen, Keh-Jiann, 3–18. [Reprinted in Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, ed. by Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John T. III, and Zaenen, Annie, 7-27. Stanford, CA: CSlI Publications, 1995.].Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2003. Action nominal constructions in the languages of Europe. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe, ed. by Plank, Frans, 723–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1966. Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford University Press: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1986. The interpretation of derived nominals. Chicago Linguistic Society 22. 231–47.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Types of ergativity. Lingua 122. 181–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1983. On the nature of ergativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1989. The Basque verbal inventory and configurationality. Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries, ed. by László, Marácz and Muysken, Pieter, 39–62. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110884883-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loriot, James, Lauriault, Erwin; and Day, Dwight (eds.) 1993. Diccionario Shipibo-Castellano. Lima: Instituto Linguistico de Verano.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8. 234–53.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2005. Objects out of the lexicon: Objects as events. Paper presented at the University of Vienna. Online: http://web.mit.edu/marantz/Public/Vienna/Vienna.pdf.Google Scholar
Markantonatou, Stella. 1995. Modern Greek deverbal nominals: An LTM approach. Journal of Linguistics 31. 267–99. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700015619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2009. The structure of (un)ergatives. Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) 16. 125–35. Online: http://westernlinguistics.ca/afla/proceedings/aflal6/papers/Massam.pdf.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2016. Roots don't select: A novel argument from category-dependent l-selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2014. Simple event nominalizations: Roots and their interpretation. Crosslinguistic investigations of nominalization patterns, ed. by Paul, Ileana, 119–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nash, LÉa. 1996. The internal ergative subject hypothesis. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 26. 195–209.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1982. Case agreement in Russian. In Bresnan 1982, 391–426.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2009. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. Time and again: Theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics in honor of D. Terence Langendoen, ed. by Lewis, William D., Karimi, Simin, Farrar, Scott O., and Harley, Heidi, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.135.07newCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Mary. 1993. Argument linking in English derived nominals. Advances in role and reference grammar, ed. by Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., 375–432. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 2009. Pritjažatel'noe mestoiemenie i problema zaloga otglagol'nogo imeni. Statji raznyh let, 67–85. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur. [Reprinted from Problemy strukturnoj linguistiki, ed. by V. P. Gigor'ev, 50-66. Moscow: Nauka, 1984.].Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David (ed.) 1983. Studies in relational grammar, vol. 1. University of Chicago Press: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Moore, John. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78. 619–50. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2003.0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peškovskij, Aleksandr Matveevich. 1959. Izbrannyje trudy. Moscow.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3. 279–316. DOI: 10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279.10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, and Preminger, Omer. 2014. Case and grammatical relations. The Routledge handbook of syntax, ed. by Carnie, Andrew, Siddiqi, Daniel, and Sato, Yosuke, 150–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert. 1992. On the adnominal genitive and the structure of noun phrases in Russian and Polish. Linguistique et slavistique: Melanges Paul Garde, ed. by Guiraud-Weber, Marguerite and Zaremba, Charles, 241–62. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence & Paris.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1993. Explicit syntax in the lexicon: The representation of nominalizations. Semantics and the lexicon, ed. by Pustejovsky, James, 185–220. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1988. Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. Syntax and semantics, vol. 21: Thematic relations, ed. by Wilkins, Wendy, 147–65. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa, Spencer, Andrew; and Zaretskaya, Marina. 1997. A morphomic account of a syncretism in Russian deverbal nominalizations. Yearbook of Morphology 1996. 181–215. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3718-0_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 2003. Autolexical syntax. International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 1, 2nd edn., ed. by Frawley, William J., 184–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M., and Levi, Judith N.. 1977. Ergativity in English? CLS book of squibs, 91–93. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1987. The syntactic projection of lexical thematic structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 561–601. DOI: 10.1007/BF00138989.10.1007/BF00138989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1998. Complex event nominals in Russian: Properties and readings. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6. 205–54. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24599696.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Anastasia. 2015. Nominalization in English: Semantic restrictions on argument realization. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 568–79. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1992. The syntax of movement in Basque. Syntactic theory and Basque syntax, ed. by Ortiz, Jon Urbina, de and Lakarra, Joseba Andoni, 417–45. Bilbao: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2006. On the parallel organization of linguistic components. Lingua 116. 657–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.014.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek, and Roeper, Thomas. 1998. Events and aspectual structure in derivational morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 175–220.Google Scholar
van Peteghem, Marleen, and Paykin, Katia. 2013. The Russian genitive within the NP and the VP. The genitive: Case and grammatical relations across languages, ed. by Carlier, Anne and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, 55–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1968. Adjectives and nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1984. Grammatical relations. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 639–74. Online: http://wwwjstor.org/stable/4178407.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1987. English as an ergative language: The theta structure of derived nouns. Chicago Linguistic Society 23. 366–75.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 181–227. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005796113097.10.1023/A:1005796113097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 111–30. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321175.10.1162/002438906775321175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2015. Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 489–531. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 27–68. Online: http://wwwjstor.org/stable/4178964.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan; and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63. 217. 50. DOI: 10.2307/415655.10.2307/415655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan; and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4.44183. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133285.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Ilse. 2002. Structural cases in Russian. More than words: A festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, ed. by Kaufmann, Ilse and Stiebels, Barbara, 275–98. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Ilse. 2003. On the semantics of cases. Syntactic structures and morphological information, ed. by Junghanns, Uwe and Szucsich, Luka, 341–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro. 1993. The language of propositions and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8161-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar