The Projection of Argument-Taking Nomials

Drawing on data from Modern Hebrew, I argue that derivedargument-taking nominals do not form an aspectuallyhomogeneous class and that the nominal system manifests a perfective/imperfective opposition. Each aspectual type is characterized by a cluster of differentsyntactic properties. Concretely, it is shown that imperfective nominals,in contrast to perfective nominals, are non-definite, fail to host subjects,and disallow DP internal agreement. The defective nature of imperfectivenominals is hypothesized to derive from the absence of the functionalhead D in their projection. The difference in the aspectual interpretation ofthe two types of argument-taking nominals is also attributed to the presenceor absence of D. The proposed account of aspect in the nominal systemprovides a principled explanation for the mass properties ofargument-taking nominals, linking the latter to the aspectualnon-delimitedness of these nominals.

[1]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[2]  H. Borer.  Deconstructing the Construct , 1999 .

[3]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[4]  E. Williams,et al.  On the definition of word , 1987 .

[5]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Reference to Kinds across Language , 1998 .

[6]  Ilan Hazout,et al.  Action nominalizations and the lexicalist hypothesis , 1995 .

[7]  E. Williams.  Argument Structure and Morphology , 1981 .

[8]  Alexander P. D. Mourelatos.  Events, processes, and states , 1978 .

[9]  M. Anderson,et al.  PRENOMINAL GENITIVE NPs , 1983 .

[10]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[11]  Howard B. Garey,et al.  Verbal Aspect in French , 1957 .

[12]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[13]  Ian Roberts,et al.  The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects , 1987 .

[14]  David L. Davidson,et al.  The Logical Form of Action Sentences , 2001 .

[15]  R. Lees.  The grammar of English nominalizations , 1960 .

[16]  Hagit Borer,et al.  Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages , 1984 .

[17]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Remarks on Nominalization , 2020, Nominalization.

[18]  Anna Szabolcsi.  Subject suppression or lexical PRO?: the case of derived nominals in Hungarian , 1992 .

[19]  Guiseppe Longobardi,et al.  Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-movement in Syntax and , 1994 .

[20]  Charles Jones,et al.  Purpose Clauses: Syntax, Thematics, and Semantics of English Purpose Constructions , 1991 .

[21]  Tal Siloni.  Noun Phrases and Nominalizations , 1997 .

[22]  T. Stowell.  Determiners in NP and DP , 1991 .

[23]  Lauri Carlson,et al.  Aspect and Quantification , 1981 .

[24]  Gregory Norman Carlson,et al.  Reference to kinds in English , 1977 .

[25]  Ole-Johan Dahl,et al.  On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction , 1981 .

[26]  Ilan Hazout.  Verbal nouns : theta theoretic studies in Hebrew and Arabic , 1991 .

[27]  Uriel Weinreich,et al.  On semantics , 1980 .

[28]  Carlota S. Smith,et al.  The Parameter of Aspect , 1991 .

[29]  Ken Hale,et al.  Ergativity: toward a theory of a heterogeneous class: toward a theory of a heterogeneous class , 1996 .

[30]  Anna Szabolcsi.  Functional categories in the noun phrase , 1987 .

[31]  Noam Chomsky.  Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use , 1988 .

[32]  Anna Szabolcsi.  The Noun Phrase , 1994 .

[33]  P. Portner.  Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions , 1992 .

[34]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .