Nominalizations

In linguistic research the term n o m i n a l i z a t i o n is used for:

1 .the transformational process 2 .the concrete result of this process

The term may also be used for complex noun phrases which function as subject or object, as:

H i s c o n t i n u a l d r u m m i n g o n t h e t a b l e with h i s knife and f o r k (irritated me).

Alternatively, the term can be used in the narrow sense only for those noun phrases which have the structure of a noun itself. Examples are:

w a t c h m a k e r, b i r d - w a t c h e r,

b e e r - d r i n k e r , c a v e - d w e l l e r, w r i t i n g - d e s k,

w a s h i n g m a c h i n e, housekeeping,

c l o s i n g - t i m e .

From the point of view of morphology, nominalizations may be either

compounds or suffixal derivatives.

suffixal derivatives: include zero-derivatives,

like chimney sweep, which parallel overt derivatives, like

deer huntER many of the complex lexemes just mentioned are clearly related to full sentences and can therefore be considered nominalized sentences, like

b u l l f i g h t e r, t h e a t r e g o e r,

g r a v e - d i g g e r.

Marchand postulates that the determinatum in suchnominalizations corresponds to a particular constituent of an underlying sentence.

He distinguishes the following types of reference:

S(ubject)-type: apple-eatlER, crylBABY

0(bject-)type: eatinglAPPLE, drawlBRIDGE

Pr(edication)-type: apple-eatling, arrivlAL

Ad(verbial Complement)-type :

oil refinlERY, carvinglKNiFE

Marchand labels these types according to the syntactic function of the element which corresponds to the determinatum in the complex lexeme. This classification is thus based on syntactic criteria.

O P S

Bull fight -ER

'someone fights bulls ‘

S P O

The determinatum in Subject-types is not necessarily the

suffix -er, as can be seen from chimney sweep

The Subject-type can also be represented by a compound, like c r y b a by 'person, esp. a child, who cries too often'. This can be derived from an underlying sentence like 'the baby cries' or 'some baby cries' with additional lexicalization

Complex lexemes without a verbal element are more difficult to correlate with an underlying sentence .

In this case one can either introduce a specific, concrete verb in the underlying sentence, or postulate an abstract semantic element.

Another illustration of the derivation of types of reference can be given for the

suffixal derivative n o v e l i s t . We can either start from an underlying sentence such as someone writes novels' or introduce a generalized verb like make, p r o d u c e , which gives the sentence 'someone produces novels'. In either case, however, the suffix -ist corresponds to the subject in an underlying sentence and we consequently get a Subject-type here too

The adverbial complement of a sentence can also become the determinatum in a nominalization .

O i l refinery will be used in our last example to illustrateMarchand's types of reference.

O P AdP

oil refine - ery

someone refines oil at some place

S P O O

For action nouns and other types of nominalization denoting a fact, process,event, or state, a more recent theoretical proposal is the so-called:

"head-noun analysis“

in that abstract antecedent "head nouns", like ACTION, FACT, PROCESS, EVENT, STATE etc., are postulated in the underlying structure from which such nominalizations are derived. Thus, on a deeper level, e.g.c o c k f i g h t i n g , bloodsheds, boatride,

d a n c i n g , a r r i v a l etc. contain ACTION, while the head noun for

d e p a r t u r e may be either ACTION or FACT .

The interpretation depends on the context (e.g. John's d e p a r t u r e was odd) and on the nature of the verb serving as base for the nominalization.

This fourfold classification of nominalizations in (namely the 'types of reference') has considerable explanatory power for disambiguating identical or similar surface structures. Thus, dishwashER can either be a S-type or an Ad-type of Instrument.

The complex lexeme payment, like its German equivalent Z a h l u n g , can either be used for the process or the sum paid. This ambiguity can be resolved by distinguishing the P-type from the O-type

Marchand's 'types of reference', however, cannot only be used for the disambiguation and classification of nominalizations.

In addition to this, they have a more far-reaching explanatory function

The question now arises:

why such different reduced syntagmas are derived from the same complete syntagma

(the sentence?)

Marchand's explanation is based on the observation that the distinction between old and new information plays an important role here .

According to his theory, the determinatum of the complex lexeme always corresponds to that constituent of the sentence which is presupposed as known information

Marchand characterizes this process in the following way:

One grammatical part of the sentence is taken to be known: the Subject, the Object, the Predicate, the Predicate Complement, or the Adverbial Complement, and it is this part of the sentence that becomes the determinatum of the composite

t o p i c a l i z a t i o n

This process is often referred to as t o p i c a l i z a t i o n in linguistics. Marchand consequently also denotes his 'types of reference' as "selectional patterns

of information ."He points out that the distinction between old and new information was captured in the Prague school of linguistics by the terms theme (Thema) and r h e m e (Rhema).

The author would like to take up again the distinction between denotation and reference

If we apply this to Marchand's 'types of reference', we have to modify some of his statements. It is not a grammatical part of the sentence which is known or given, but the relationship between this constituent and an extralinguistic referent or denotatum. This relationship corresponds to the one between the determinatum of the complexlexeme and the identical referent or denotatum.

For example the subject in the underlying sentence Someone eats s o m e apple denotes the same extralinguistic referent as the suffix -er in the agent nominalization. This referent, the agent,as well as its existence are presumed to be known or given

The given information does not only contain the relation of reference andthe existence of the referent; it also includes the denotation of the linguistic sign used for referring.

It is known that a c r y b a b y is a kind of baby, a d r a w b r i d g e is a bridge, and a carving-knife a knife.

This fact is also expressed by the stress pattern of complex lexemes .

As a rule, the determinatum only bears secondary stress or no stress at all. The determinant, which is more important from the point of view of given versus new information, normally bears the main stress. This pattern is found e.g. in crybaby, drawbridge, carving-knife, steamboat, blackbird, novelist. The determinant syntagmatically modifies the given determinatum and makes the category denoted by the syntagma more specific .

Complex lexemes therefore have a higher degree of semantic specificity compared to the simple words that constitute their determinatum.

Marchand's basis for the classification isobviously a purely syntactic one. However, the distinction for example between the S-type and the Ad-type in the nominalization dishwashER also touches semantic questions. In one case we have an agent, in the other an instrument expressed by an adverbial complement. Yet the relation between the verb w a s h and an agent or an instrument is clearly of a different nature. This difference is therefore not only a matter of syntax, but also of semantics.

There is a linguistic theory which understands the relationship between the verb and other elements of the sentence as syntactic-semantic relations, namelyCharles Fillmore's Case Grammar. In the framework of this linguistic theory, the relations just mentioned are labelled d e e p cases or c a s e r o l e s . These cases must not be confused with the surface cases of traditional grammar .

In the latest model relevant here, Fillmore gives the following list of deep cases: Agent, Experiencer, Instrument, Object, Source, Goal, Location, Time. The grammatical subject and object, as syntactic functions, are understood as purely surface relations in the classical version of Fillmore's Case Grammar

Some further remarks on the analysis of nominalizations, as a subgroup of complex lexemes, based on Case Grammar, may be appropriate. Thus, b u l l f i g h t e r is no longer a S-type, but an Agent-Type. The referent of the American word draftee is the goal of the action denoted by the verb. In Case Grammar this category is labelled G o a l . Consequently draftee is, like mostsuffixal derivatives in -ee, a Goal-Type. The superficially similar escapee, however, is an Agent-Type. D r a w e r may be either an Agent-Type or an Object-Type depending on whether we refer to a person or a box-like container in a chest.

The traditional classification of adverbial complements on the basis of content is also captured by Case Grammar and leads to a more appropriate description of the Ad-types. Therefore h u n t i n g season is described as a TimeType, o i l r e f i n e r y as a LocationType, and

p r i n t i n g - i n k as a Instrument-Type.

We can now maintain that the application of Fillmore's deep cases to Marchand's 'types of reference* throws a new light upon the structure of complex lexemes and leads to a better understanding of the functioning of word-formation. With this theory we can capture fundamental differencesbetween superficially and morphologically parallel words and explain them better .

the lexemes listed in (11a) are all derivatives in -er, but representdifferent 'types of reference'. Conversely, morphologically distinct complex lexemes as for example those in (11b) can be explained and described as realizations of the same underlying type

(11a )–ER )11b( AGENT-TYPE:

payer (Agent-) grave-digglercooker (Instrument-) c u t - t h r o a t d i n e r (Location-) novel/istm o u r n e r (Experiences) cook/0c o n t a i n e r (Object-Type)

(diner may also be an Agent-Type)

.