Zero-derived nouns and deverbal nominalization: An empirically-oriented perspective

本项目旨在通过考察两个主要方面来考察非动词性零派生名词(以下简称ZNS：例如攀登-a攀登-？)作为非动词性名词化的一种类型：i)基本动词的词汇语义和事件结构属性如何影响它们的形态句法和解释；ii)它们的零后缀？使它们在多大程度上不同于以后缀为基础的名词性名词(sns：例如，该攀登)。许多讨论ZNS的生成性文献认为，与SNS不同，英语中的ZN在语义上是特殊的，在形态上也很简单，这表明不能对它们进行从SNS通常收到的基本动词派生的成分分析，特别是当这些动词实现论点时(例如John‘s Break of the Glass&lt；John Break the Glass)。这一观点得到了ZNS中言语争论的非系统实现的支持(例如，约翰的《玻璃的破裂》)。因此，ZN被视为特殊的构造物或“创造性的创造”。然而，各种经验事实对这一分析提出了挑战：例如，一些ZN可以实现论点(参见。他攀登乞力马扎罗山)。此外，这种特殊的说法是基于零星的数据，特别是因为关于零点派生的文献通常集中在更多的名词性动词上，而不是ZN。该项目以当今易于获取的丰富语料库为指导，以以往对英语动词类的深入研究为指导，对英语动词类的词类和形态句法模式进行了综合研究，为这场辩论带来了重大贡献。该项目的开始假设是，与SNS一样，ZNS也会收到成分和特质的读数。为了确定两者之间的相互作用，本文旨在回答以下三个问题，这也将导致对ZNS的形态句法和语义的理论建模的第一次洞察：1.不同的语义动词类别如何与成分和特质ZNS相关？2.哪些动词类别派生出实现动词论元的ZN？3.ZNS在语义和形态上与SNS有什么不同(如果有的话)？重点是英语，其ZNS尤其富有成效，并提供了丰富的经验基础。为了进一步描述ZNS的概况，使其不会干扰一种语言的类型学特征，英语的研究将得到罗曼语的见解的补充，特别是来自意大利语和罗马尼亚语的见解，意大利语提供了两种ZNS模式，罗马尼亚语则没有有效的ZNS。这种比较将有助于确定：1)通常跨语言派生ZNS的特定动词类别，以及II)在ZNS使用受限的语言中，特别是通过使用SNS，英语中ZNS的更广泛的意义域如何得到补偿。

This project aims to investigate deverbal zero-derived nouns (henceforth, ZNs: e.g., to climb – a climb-Ø) as a type of deverbal nominalization, by looking at two main aspects: i) how their morphosyntax and interpretation are influenced by the lexical semantics and event structure properties of the base verb and ii) to what extent, if at all, their zero-suffix Ø makes them different from suffix-based nominals (SNs: e.g., the climbing). Much of the generative literature that discusses ZNs argues that, unlike SNs, ZNs in English are semantically idiosyncratic and morphosyntactically plain, which suggests that they cannot be given a compositional analysis derived from the base verb of the kind that SNs usually receive, especially when these realize arguments (e.g., John’s breaking of the glass < John broke the glass). This view is supported, among others, by the unsystematic realization of verbal arguments in ZNs (e.g., *John’s break-Ø of the glass). ZNs have thus been treated as idiosyncratic formations or ‘creative coinages’. Various empirical facts, however, challenge this analysis: for instance, some ZNs can realize arguments (cf. his climb-Ø of Kilimanjaro). Moreover, the idiosyncrasy claims are based on sporadic data, especially since the literature on zero derivation has usually focused on the more productive denominal verbs rather than on ZNs. This project brings a major contribution to this debate by offering an integrative study of the lexical classes and morphosyntactic patterns of ZNs, guided by the rich corpus data easily accessible today and by previous insightful studies on verb classes in English. The project starts with the assumption that, like SNs, ZNs receive both compositional and idiosyncratic readings. To determine the interplay between the two, it aims to answer the following three questions, which will also lead to the first insights into the theoretical modeling of the morphosyntax and semantics of ZNs: 1. How do different semantic verb classes correlate with compositional and idiosyncratic ZNs? 2. Which verb classes derive ZNs that realize verbal arguments? 3. How do ZNs semantically and morphologically differ from SNs (if at all)? The focus is English, whose ZNs are especially productive and offer a rich empirical basis. To further delineate the profile of ZNs from possibly interfering typological properties of one language, the study of English will be complemented by insights from Romance languages, especially from Italian – which offers two patterns of ZNs – and Romanian – which has no productive ZNs. This comparison will help to determine i) the specific verb classes that typically derive ZNs across languages and ii) how the broader meaning domain of ZNs in English is compensated for in languages with a restricted use of ZNs, especially via the use of SNs.