Hazout 1995
Hazout 1995
Hazout 1995
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory
1. INTRODUCTION
* I am greatly indebted to Edwin Williams and Roger Higgins for discussions of and
comments on the material presented in this paper. The comments of an NLLT reviewer led
to improvements in the organization of this material. H. Borer's editorial comments were
helpful in preparing the final version.
2. THE DATA
al-waziir -a
the minister-ACC
As can be seen in the Arabic examples in (3) and (4), the head of an
action nominalization construction is a typical noun in that it shows Case
marking, depending on the position it occupies in the sentence. Thus, the
noun iRtiyaal 'assassination' is marked for Accusative and Dative in (3)
and (4), respectively.'
In their internal syntax, action nominalizations are nominal in that they
manifest the assignment of genitive Case to an NP (logical Subject or
Object). Examples (2) and (3) both have an NP standing in the bound
genitive (construct state) construction to the head.
In modern Hebrew the head and the subject may also appear in the
free and double genitive constructions as follows.
Free and double genitives allow for the occurrence of an adjective, modi-
1 The examples in (2) and (3) are from Standard Arabic. They are given here for the sak
of illustrating morphological Case marking, which is mostly absent in the spoken dialects.
Otherwise, our discussion is limited to the dialect known as Syrian Arabic, spoken in Syria,
Lebanon and Palestine.
fying the head noun; The adjective intervenes between the head and its
subject.2
the destruction the surprising Sel the army ACC the city
2 The impossibility of adjectives in the bound genitive variant is due to a general prope
of bound genitives rather than to a property of action nominalizations. (i) is a simple bound
genitive construction.
(i) bayit (*gadol) ha-mora
house big the teacher
Obviously, a major task of this paper is to integrate a generally motivated analysis of Semi
genitive constructions within an account of action nominalizations. For work on the differen
variants of genitive constructionss, see Borer (1984), Fassi-Fehri (1988), Hazout (1990),
Ritter (1986, 1990), and Siloni (1990), among others.
3 There is some dispute in recent work concerning the accusative marker et and the nature
of accusative Case assignment in action nominalizations (cf. Borer 1984, Siloni 1990) Analy-
ses of this construction that, unlike the one defended in this paper, do not attribute its verbal
properties to the occurrence of a verb (and a VP) in its underlying structure (cf. Ritter 1986,
1990; Siloni 1990) must account for the assignment of accusative Case in this construction
in some other way. Here there are two main possibilities. One is to claim that the accusative
Case is assigned by the particle et itself. The other is to claim that the accusative Case assigned
in action nominalizations is of a different kind from that assigned in regular sentences. In
our view, both options are wrong. The first is wrong since, generally, NPs marked by et
have all the properties of direct objects and, therefore, must be viewed as governed by a
verb rather than by something else. Besides, the corresponding Arabic construction has
nothing which would be the equivalent of et. Rather, Arabic action nominalizations show
Besides the general fact that adverbs are an indication of the verbal
nature of the syntactic environment in which they occur, there are certain
facts about the distribution of adverbs (and adjectives) in action nominaliz-
ations, an account of which necessitates certain assumptions concerning
the internal structure of this construction. We consider these facts in the
next section.
admitted. Thus, while manner and time adverbials may freely occur in
these constructions, sentential adverbs are strictly excluded. (14) below
shows sentences with sentential adverbs at different positions in the sen-
tence. In (15) the action nominalizations corresponding to these sentences
are bad.
(16) and (17) below are the corresponding paradigms for manner and
time adverbials. These types of adverbs are perfectly admissible as demon-
strated in (17).
Given the general assumption that manner and time adverbials are at-
tached to the tree structure at the VP level (or are at least internal to
VP), whereas sentential adverbs are attached higher on the tree structure,
the ungrammaticality of the examples in (15) may be taken to indicate
that an underlying verbal constituent, to be postulated, goes up to the VP
level and no further. This implies that the required configuration is avail-
able at an underlying level of representation in order for such a distinction
as the one between the VP and the IP levels to be possible.
The claim that the distribution of adverbs in Hebrew action nominaliza-
tions is syntactically, rather than semantically, determined is further sup-
ported by the following facts. As is mentioned above, adjectives can follow
the head noun in free and double genitives.
alot ha-Saxar
ha- ir ha-axzarit
the city the cruel
The facts just observed indicate that the configuration underlying these
constructions involves a distinction between a verbal domain, which allows
the occurrence of adverbs and excludes adjectives, and, conversely, a
nominal domain, which allows the occurrence of adjectives and excludes
adverbs.
Clearly, the admissibility of adverbs in action nominalizations is not a
In this section, we are concerned first with the core cases of action nomina-
lizations, that is, cases in which the head noun and the subject form a
bound genitive as in (22) below. These cases are common to both Hebrew
and Arabic. Free and double genitives which are special to Hebrew will
be examined later.
4 What we have in mind here is mainly the recent influential work of Grimshaw (1990)
derived nominals in English. Grimshaw makes the distinction between two types of nominal
complex event nominals, on the one hand, and simple event and result nominals, on the
other. She claims that the first type has an argument structure which must be syntactically
realized while the second type does not. Hebrew and Arabic action nominalizations are,
however, very different from Grimshaw's complex event nominals and are much more similar
in their properties to English gerunds, in particular the variant known as POSS-ING. (Our
use of the term 'nominalization' (or 'nominal') for the Semitic construction is due partly to
the fact that in the already established terminology in work on Hebrew grammar, the term
gerund is used for other constructions (see Berman 1978; Hazout 1992).) Thus, unlike English
event nominals and like the English POSS-ING gerund, Semitic action nominalizations allow
for the assignment of accusative case to an object and for the occurrence of adverbs. It is
our view, therefore, that Grimshaw's important work on event and result nominals is of
little relevance for the constructions studied in this paper.
S The analysis proposed in this section makes use of a variant of theta theory due mainly
to the work of E. Williams. The reader is referred to Williams (1987a), (1987b) and (1989).
We first present the structural derivation assumed here and then go into
further detail. Beginning with the cases involving an overt subject, the
underlying configuration assumed for (22a) is the following.
(23) DP
D NPi
I /
POSS NP2 N'
the boy N VP
(24) DP
D NPi
No VP
V N V NP3 Adv
NOM e
(25) DP
D NPi
e V NP3Adv
the apple
b. Arabic
i. (Form I) CaCaCa NaQaLa NaQL
transport transporting
ii. (Form II) CaCCaCa SaRRaBa taSRiiB
make drink making drink
(27) DP
D NPi
N'
N VP
(28) DP
NPi
NP2 N'
N VP
NOM V e Adv
The rest of the derivation of the subjectless variant involves head move-
ment of V to N and N to D and is identical to that of the active variant
as shown in (23)-(25) above. There is, therefore, no need to repeat it
here.
The role played by NOM is central and many of the properties of the
construction are explained by making certain assumptions about its nature.
As a bound morpheme taking a VP complement, NOM is a morphological
nominalizer in that it combines with a verb to produce a nominal head.
This aspect of our analysis is familiar from studies of corresponding ele-
ments (e.g., the English -ING) which occur in similar constructions in
other languages. Such assumptions have been made in much of the rel-
evant literature (See section 3.4). Here we would like to suggest that
NOM is a nominalizer in an additional sense, namely, in its thematic
function. Making use of a particular variant of theta theory developed by
Williams, we can give this intuition a concrete expression by thinking of
NOM as an element with an argument structure. First, as a noun, NOM
has an external R(eferential) theta role. The external theta role of NOM
is assigned up ("vertically") to become the external theta role of the entire
NP. For reasons that will become clear immediately, we assume that NOM
has an additional R-role which is necessarily internal. Thus, the lexical
representation of NOM contains the following information.8
8 Nominalizing morphemes of this general type can vary according to the numb
ments they may have and the indices associated with dtwese arguments. Hazout (1990, to
appear) develops a typology of nominalizers along these lines and studies the way in which
various properties of nominalization constructions can be explained on the basis of the
thematic properties of their head.
(30) ,
Ni AVP
NOM V NP,
(R,R j) (LQj, BO)
In this structure the external theta role of the verb is first assigned vert-
ically to VP to become its external theta role. It is then assigned to NOM
or, more precisely, to the internal R-role of NOM. As the sister of the
VP subcategorized by it, NOM is always in a position in which it may be
assigned the external theta role of VP. Moreover, just as it is the case
with any instance of theta role assignment, here too the relation is not
symmetric. Rather, it is an asymmetric relation of linking in the sense of
Williams (1989). It is the external theta role of VP that is dependant on
Rj for its referential content. Therefore the linking of both theta roles is as
illustrated above. As far as the formal operation of theta role assignment is
concerned, the external theta role of VP is, at this stage, satisfied. More-
over, the operation in (30) must apply, since the external theta-role of
VP must be assigned. Most importantly, this role couldn't be vertically
assigned to N' and become its external theta role, since N' already has
an external theta role, namely, the external theta role of NOM. Therefore,
the assignment of theta-roles as indicated in (30) is the only available
option. Since the external theta role of the verb in (30) is satisfied, the
application of any further theta-theoretic operations is not necessary.9
We can now provide the following account for the lack of accusative
Case in the subjectless variant. Our explanation of this fact makes use of
the idea that accusative Case assignment may only be licensed in the
environment of certain functional elements (e.g., INFL, NOM, etc.). Fur-
thermore, we make use of the characterization of such elements as [+No-
minall depending on the way they interact thematically with the rest of
the construction. For example, if an element such as NOM absorbs the
9 In the variant of theta theory assumed here (cf. Williams (1987a, 1989) the assignment
an internal theta role is not obligatory. Therefore the internal R-role of NOM may remain
unexpressed.
theta role of a predicate (VP in this case), we may say that it functions
as an argument, that is, it serves as the substitute for an overt subject. In
such a state of affairs, it qualifies as [+Nominal]. [+Nominal] elements
do not license accusative Case assignment by the verb in their domain. In
the construction under consideration here, such a state of affairs arises in
the subjectless variant. In the active variant (See below), the subject theta
role is transmitted further to the subject NP and, therefore, NOM is not
nominal. The same generalization holds for the construction known as
Agent Nominalization studied in Hazout (1990, to appear).
We see then that the function of the internal R-role of NOM is crucial
to the syntax of this construction. If things stay as they are in (30), the
result is an action nominalization lacking an overt subject, with the internal
R-role of NOM receiving an arbitrary or generic interpretation. Crucially,
the analysis in (30) incorporates the claim that the subjectless variant of
action nominalizations is not an instance of passivization. This view is
argued in detail in section 3.3.
We consider next the variant exemplified by (22a) in which an overt
subject occurs. Its thematic structure is illustrated below.
(31) NPii
NP2j N
Ni VP.
NOM V NP3k
(Ri, R j) (Aj, BO)
the coindexation of thematic indices which takes place under certain con-
figurational conditions.10
We can say, therefore, that the subject NP is assigned a theta-role
through the mediation of NOM. That is, the subject theta role which was
assigned first to NOM may be said to have been passed on (although not
externally or vertically) rather than to have been absorbed by NOM. Note
that in a case where an NP is present in specifier position the operation
10 In the variant of theta theory adopted in this paper, nouns have an external theta
designated as R (for 'reference'). In Hazout (1990), we make the additional assumption that
nouns in general also have an internal thematic index that is unspecified for thematic content.
The argument structure of a regular noun, thus, looks as follows.
(i) (Ri, j)
The thematic structure of a simple genitive, such as that in (iia), would be as in (iib).
b. NP.
the parly NI
secretary
(Ri,j)
The genitive NP 'the party' is coindexed with the internal argument of the head 'secretary'.
The relation between the two entities referred to by the two members of the construction
is understood to be thematically free, thus, the absence of a thematic lable for the internal
argument of the head noun. A failure of this thematic coindexation to apply will result in a
construal of 'the party' as a modifier (in the manner of an adjective), that is, as a non-
referential NP. The expression as a whole would then denote a secretary of a certain type.
In this way we account for the ambiguity of interpretation generally associated with simple
genitives. An indexation of the genitive NP with the external R-role of the head is impossible,
since it would result in a coindexation of this NP with the higher NP, creating a situation in
which an NP is construed as coreferential with the NP in which it is contained (cf. the
NPi/NP, constraint of Williams 1982). We may say, therefore, that the coindexation of the
genitive NP with the internal thematic index of the head noun applies by default rather than
by virtue of a specific rule. The same theta-theoretic mechanism applies if the genitive NP
is in a Sel-phrase. Thus, (iiia), the free genitive counterpart of (iia), has the thematic structure
in (iiib).
(coindexation) illustrated in (31) must take place, since this is the only
way for this NP to be thematically licensed.
Binding relationships between NP2 and NP3, coarguments of the under-
lying verb in the configuration in (31), are directly accounted for. NP2,
being assigned the external theta role of VP, stands to NP3, an internal
argument, in the same asymmetric relationship that would hold between
a subject and an object in a sentence."1 The contrast in (32) is, thus,
explained.
b. DP
D NP
the N'
N' SellP
secretary
1 We are assuming here the particular theta-theoretic variant of the binding theory
veloped in Williams (1987a) and (1989). In that approach, binding relations are cons
as relations between theta roles rather than as relations between NPs occupying syn
positions. In this approach a theta role acquires a binding-theoretic status depending o
NP to which it is assigned. For example, a theta role is a theta-anaphor if it is assign
an anaphor and so forth.
In this section we show how our analysis accounts for action nominaliz-
ation constructions which involve the free and the double genitive constru-
als. These cases are particular to Hebrew. Our main underlying assump-
tion concerns the nature of Sel-phrases. We take Sel-phrases to be adjuncts
and adopt Lebeaux's (1988) approach to adjuncts. In this approach, ad-
juncts may be freely adjoined to the tree structure at a later stage in the
derivation.12 In particular, a stage in the derivation later than NP-Struc-
12 We are assuming here the model of grammar developed by van Riemsdijk and William
(1981), who argue for the existence of an intermediate level of representation between D
and S-structure, a level to which they refer as NP-Structure. A'-movement, of which head
movement is a particular instance, maps NP-Structure onto S-Structure.
(36)a. NP-structure
NPk
det Nt
the Nk VP.
NOM V NP
(9Rk') NlO
eat
(4i, Bj)
13 This approach to Sel-phrases is discussed and argued for in detail in Hazout (1990).
b. S-structure
DP
D NP
the N'
N' VP.
N Sel Dani V NP
A~~~~( (i) ll
V N e the apple
eat NOM
(Rgk,Ri)
(38)a. NP-structure
DP
D NP
POSS N'
N VP_
NOM V NP
QRk, R ) (6j, Bj) l
he
b. S-structure
DP
rF D NP
P0SS NP N'
he N' VPj
N Sel V NP
the apple
V N e e
eat NOM
Thus, in (37) the Sel-phrase is not integrated into the structure by the
theta-theoretic mechanisms of coindexation that are generally assumed in
this work. Rather, it is licensed by the mechanism involved in the phenom-
enon known as clitic doubling, the principles of which are independent of
the syntax of action nominals. The Sel-phrase in this structure is, thus,
licenced only by the relation in which it stands to the pronoun.
Our views with respect to clitic doubling in Hebrew genitive construc-
tions are discussed in detail elsewhere.14 The main idea of our account is
that the relation between the Sel-phrase and the clitic pronoun in a double
genitive is of the same logical type as that between an operator and a
bound variable and is regulated by the same principles which regulate
constructions with resumptive pronouns.15 At the relevant level of repre-
sentation (LF) the clitic pronoun is construed as a variable in an open
expression or a function which takes the genitive Sel-NP as its logical
argument, as follows.
There are verbs in Hebrew which may figure as transitive verbs in active
sentences but cannot be passivized. The two following pairs of examples
show the verbs calax 'cross' and hitxil 'begin, start', respectively. (41a)
and (42a) are the active sentences and their (b) counterparts are the
ungrammatical passives.
the preposition al 'on' is dropped and its object becomes the derived
subject.
If a passive verb like the one in (46) were the input to the nominalization
process proposed for this construction, one would wrongly predict the NP
in (47) to be grammatical.
The verb hiSpia 'influence' is far from being an isolated case in this
respect. In (48) we list verbs which manifest the same phenomenon. It is
likely that the possibility for a preposition to be dropped is related to its
semantic contribution. That is, a preposition may be dropped only if it
has no semantic import and its presence is arbitrarily required by a certain
verb.
3.3.3. Anaphors
and a VP. Thus, Chomsky (1981) (and the slightly different proposal of
Schachter 1976) suggests the structure in (55). (55) is assumed to be a
configuration in which the subject NP is assigned genitive Case.
(55) NP
NP VP
(56) NP
NP N'
ING VP
Here the nominal affix -ING is the head. Thus, genitive Case assignment
to the subject receives a more natural explanation and the surface ordering
of elements is accounted for by assuming the application of Affix-Hopping
to -ING.
Somewhat intermediate between Chomsky's and Horn's positions is that
of Jackendoff (1977), which assumes the following PS-rule for gerundive
nominals.
(58) DP
POSS D'
D VP
ING
(59) DP
John's D'
D NP
ING VP
V DP
Finally, following the spirit of Abney (1986, 1987), but adopting a more
elaborate view of the structure of Noun Phrases, Ouhalla (1988) captures
the same intuitions by proposing the following structure.
(60) A rP
Spec A'
Agr NOMP
NOM' XP P
ING Sc XI/V
t the ball
In (60) the subject moves to the Spec of AgrP in order to receive genitive
Case by coindexation with Agr. The appropriate morphological output is
derived by the successive applications of head movement as illustrated by
the arrows. An interesting feature of Ouhalla's analysis is the idea that
the head, hit, is unspecified for grammatical category. It is recategorized
as V by percolation of features following head movement to the verbal
morpheme -ING. This categorial specification affects the entire constituent
up to its maximal node (deviating slightly from Ouhalla's 1988 pre-
sentation, we express this idea here by the notation XP/VP).
We see, then, that the verbal aspect of the syntax of POSS-ING gerunds
is captured in more or less the same way throughout the developement
of generative grammar, since at least the early seventies. The main idea
of these analyses, that of an underlying verb, is assumed in the present
work as well. As already stated, however, none of these proposals is
sufficient in our view to deal with the additional complexities of the Semitic
construction which differs from the English gerund in the ways observed
above.
16 For a recent defense of the lexicalist hypothesis, see DiSciullo and Williams (1987).
D VP
NPj V'
V NP2
Under this proposal, V moves to D and NP1 is assigned genitive Case by D, a nominal
category.
Fassi-Fehri's proposal is, however, extremely sketchy and, therefore, hard to evaluate.
We can only point out certain potential difficulties. First, the head of an action nominal is
morphologically a noun in that it carries, in the standard Arabic dialect studied by Fassi-
Fehri, morphological Case marking. It is not clear how this fact can be accommodated into
an analysis which views an action nominal head as a verb. Secondly, the analysis in (i) has
nothing to offer with respect to the particularities of the Hebrew construction. These include
the free and the double variants as well as the occurrence of adjectives. The analysis in (i)
adopts an idea of Abney's which was designed for the treatment of English gerunds. How-
ever, as observed in fn. 6, there are crucial differences between the English and the Semitic
constructions which may be summarized by characterizing the latter as more nominal. Thus,
our criticism of Abney's (1986) analysis as inadequate for the analysis of the Hebrew
construction carries over to Fassi-Fehri's proposal. Finally, a potential problem for this
proposal is the analysis of the subjectless variant which is not discussed by Fassi-Fehri (1988).
It seems that the only available view of this variant under Fassi-Fehri's proposal is as an
instance of passivization. An explanation by which the same effect is achieved through the
interaction between a verb and a nominalizer, as this is done in our analysis, is not available
under this proposal. However, it seems to us that the evidence against passivization presented
in section 3.3 is overwhelming and, therefore, problematic for Fassi-Fehri's (1988) analysis.
While in the (a) examples the object argument is in the accusative Case,
the arguments in the (b) variants are in the genitive Case, one in the
bound and the other in the free genitive. The most likely interpretation
of (61a) is one in which it refers to the event of Dan's seeing Dina. (61b),
on the other hand, although somewhat vague, is more likely to be assigned
a generic interpretation, in which reference is made to Dan's way of
viewing Dina in general.
The contrast in (62) is much sharper. (62a) can only have the event
interpretation by which it refers to the event of the destruction of Jerusa-
lem by Picasso (say, a Roman emperor). For (62b), on the other hand,
the most likely interpretation is radically different. In a pragmatic context
in which Picasso is widely known as a famous painter, it is most likely to
be construed as referring to a picture depicting the destruction of Jerusa-
lem which was painted by Picasso.
In fact, an NP of the form of (62b) may also have an event interpreta-
tion, in which the Sel-NP is construed as an agent. This may possibly be
brought out more clearly by (63), in which the Sel-NP is the name of the
real destroyer of Jerusalem.
(64) DP
D NP
POSS NP N'
Picasso N VP
NOM V NP
destroy Jerusalem
the interpretation of the subject and the Case marking of the object
receives a simple account.'8
18 The difference between the (a) and the (b) examples in (61)-(62) is reflected in other
syntactic properties. The most striking difference has to do with the phenomenon of clitic
doubling. In a structure of the type in the (b) exampes, if the object NP is a pronoun, then
it must be coreferential with the NP in the Sel-phrase.
On the other hand, clitic doubling is impossible for the variant in the (a) examples.
In the (a) examples above, the verb is followed by two accusative marked
NPs, whereas in the (b) examples, the order of the two NPs is reversed.
The first is marked for accusative and the second is governed by the
dative preposition li. The two variants may be schematically represented
as follows.
Equally, NP2 may serve as an antecedent to NP3, but the reverse does
not hold.
20 The data in this section is borrowed mainly from Hoyt (1989), as well as from Mushaweh
(1986).
(i) John caused the following: Khalid held the suitcase in the
kids house.
(ii) It was in the kids house that John made Khalid hold the
suitcase.
1-mikrofilm
the microfilm
(77) IP
NP1 VP
V NP2 VP
\ I
CAUSE V NP3
(Ai, Bj Y , DI
(78) IP
NPi VP
V NP2 VP
Vi CAUSE V NP3
In (78) both NP2 and NP3 are govemed, either by a lexical verb or by
the trace of a verb, and are in this way assigned accusative Case. Within
the variant of binding theory assumed here (based on Williams 1987a,
1989), the binding facts with respect to (77) are directly accounted for.
Given the principle that two elements X and Y may be anaphorically
related if they are coarguments (or coarguments of coarguments), NP1
and NP2 in (77) may be anaphorically related, since they are coarguments
of the verb CAUSE. The same holds with respect to NP2 and NP3 as
indicated by the arrows in (77). Since NP1 and NP3 are not coarguments,
they may not be anaphorically related. Note that the two verbs in (77)
constitute two separate thematic (argument) complexes and, therefore,
(79) IP
NPi VP
V NP2 VP Adv.
I
CAUSE V NP3 Adv.
This fact follows from the hierarchical structure assigned to this construc-
tion by our analysis. In this structure each of the two NPs is governed by
a different verbal head, the two heads being strictly linearly ordered with
respect to each other.
Summing up our analysis of the double accusative variant, this analysis
relies crucially on the assumption of a double-VP configuration, the two
VPs being headed by the morpheme CAUSE and a verb, respectively.
The surface causative verb is the output of a syntactic operation.
Turning now to the dative variant, we note first the following obser-
vation made by Cowell (1964).
In some cases ... the first object of the causative may be replaced by a la-phrase and put
after the remaining object: Sawwaf jeruHak le-ddaktoor 'show your wounds to the doctor',
samme9 darsak la- ?abuuk 'recite your lesson to your father'. The use of a prepositional
complement with the causative in lieu of a first object generally implies a certain idiomatic
specialization with respect to the underlying simple verb: samma9 meaning 'to recite', kauab
meaning 'to dictate', etc. (p. 241)
Similar facts are observed by Mushaweh (1986) for Syrian Arabic, as well
as for the standard dialect. Thus, the interpretation associated with the
double accusative is strictly compositional and can be paraphrased as
'make, or force, someone to do something'. In contrast, a dative construc-
tion may receive idiomatic and derived meanings.
One might say that the ability to undergo semantic drift is the property
par excellence of lexical items. If this is so, then one is led to the conclusion
that the causative verb which occurs in dative constructions is a single
lexical item inserted in its complex morphological form at the level of NP-
structure.
The effect of the lexical process by which a causative verb is formed is
twofold: First is the addition of an external agent theta-role, second is the
internalization of the external theta role of the verbal form. The resulting
verb has only one accusative Case feature to assign and, therefore, a
special mechanism is invoked by which a dummy Case-marker, li, is
inserted. The structure of a dative causative construction is the following.
(81) IP
NPi VP
The facts observed earlier with respect to the dative construction are
accounted for as follows. First, NP1 and NP3 can be anaphorically related
by virtue of being coarguments. As to cliticization, NP3 in (81) is governed
by the lexical head CAUSE-V and can be cliticized onto it (cf. (72)).
This analysis of the dative variant is further supported by facts about
adverbial modification. Given the analysis in (71), we should not expect
ambiguity in the interpretation of adverbs of the kind observed for the
double accusative variant. (82) confirms this prediction.
It follows that at least the double accusative variants, the (a) examples in
(83)-(84), must involve a syntactic derivation of the type argued for
above. The head nouns in (83)-(84) may be viewed as a combination of
the three morphemes NOM, CAUSE, and V. However, at least with
respect to the double accusative, the combination CAUSE-V must be
viewed as syntactically derived, that is, it must have at least the substruc-
ture (85a) and, therefore, may only be assumed to have the underlying
structure (85b).
(85)a. VP
V NP2 VP
CAUSE V NP3
b. NP
NPi N'
N VP
NOM V NP2 VP
CAUSE V NP3
following and would be unable to account for the respective order of NP2
and NP3.
(87) DP
D NP
NPi N'
N NP2 NP3
5. CONCLUSION
The main task of this paper has been to provide an explanation for the
mixed verbo-nominal properties of the action nominalization construction
in Hebrew and Arabic. It was shown that a satisfactory explanation of
these properties is possible by postulating an underlying representation in
which a VP figures as the complement of the abstract nominal head
NOM. It was further shown that the postulation of such an underlying
representation not only makes possible an explanation of the verbal pro-
perties of this construction, but also of some configurationally conditioned
phenomena, such as the semantic construal of adverbs and the respective
distribution of adverbs and adjectives. The main element of the proposed
analysis is the abstract nominalizer NOM. The most important assumption
about NOM concerns its argument structure and the way it interacts with
the rest of the construction. This aspect of the analysis was executed
within the particular approach to theta theory proposed in Williams
(1987a, 1987b, 1989). NOM is a thematic nominalizer in that it provides
the external R-role which makes it possible for the construction as a whole
to be an argument. Given its internal R-role, NOM can also satisfy the
external theta role of VP and in this way function as a substitute for a
missing NP subject. It is only within a non-lexicalist approach that abstract
elements such as NOM may be postulated. Section 4 presented evidence
for a non-lexicalist approach to Hebrew and Arabic Action Nominaliza-
tions.
REFERENCES
Ouhalla, Jamal: 1988, The Syntax of Head Movement: A Study of Berber, Ph.D. Dissertat
University College, London.
Ritter, Elisabeth: 1986, 'NSO Noun Phrases in Modern Hebrew', J. McDonough and B.
Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 17.
Ritter, Elisabeth: 1990, 'Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Mode
Hebrew', unpublished ms., UQAM.
Riemsdijk, Henk van and Williams, Edwin: 1981, 'NP-Structure', The Linguistic Review 1.
Schachter, Paul: 1976, 'A Nontransformational Account of Gerundive Nominals in English',
Linguistic Inquiry 7.
Schachter, Paul: 1985, 'Parts of Speech', in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and
Syntactic Description 1, Cambridge University Press.
Siloni, Tali: 1990, 'Hebrew Noun Phrases: Generalized Noun Raising', unpublished ms.,
Universite de Geneve.
Travis, Lisa: 1984, Parameters and Effects of Word-Order Variation, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Williams, Edwin: 1981, 'Argument Structure and Morphology', The Linguistic Review 1.
Williams, Edwin: 1982, 'The NP Cycle', Linguistic Inquiry 13.
Williams, Edwin: 1987a, 'Implicit Argument, Binding Theory and Control', NLLT 5.
Williams, Edwin: 1987b, 'NP Trace in Theta Theory', Linguistics and Philosophy 10.
Williams, Edwin: 1989, 'The Anaphoric Nature of Theta Roles', Linguistic Inquiry 20.
Wright, W.: 1988, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Cambridge University Press.
9 Kalaniyot St.
Haifa, 34353
Israel