Nominalization

1. Nominalizations

2. In linguistic research the term
n o m i n a l i z a t i o n is
:used for
the transformational process. 1
the concrete result of this process. 2

3. The term may also be used for complex noun phrases which
:function as subject or object, as
His continual drumming on the
(.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
closing-time
.

4. 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

5. Marchand postulates that the determinatum in such
nominalizations corresponds to a particular constituent of an
.underlying sentence
:He distinguishes the following types of reference
:S(ubject)-type
apple-eatlER, crylBABY
:bject)-type)0
eatinglAPPLE, drawlBRIDGE
:Pr(edication)-type
apple-eatling, arrivlAL
: Ad(verbial Complement)-type
oil refinlERY, carvinglKNiFE

6. 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
Bull
fight
‘
S
someone
S
fights
P
-ER
bulls '
O

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 illustrate
.Marchand's types of reference
O
oil
someone
S
P
AdP
refine
refines oil
P
O
- ery
at some place
O

11. 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"

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. :The question now arises
why such different reduced
syntagmas are derived from the same
complete syntagma
(?the sentence )

16. 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

17. 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

18. topicalization
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

19. 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 complex
.lexeme and the identical referent or denotatum

20. 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

21. The given information does not only
contain the relation of reference and
the 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

22. 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, carvingknife, 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

23. Marchand's basis for the classification is
obviously a purely syntactic one. However,
the distinction for example between the Stype 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

24. There is a linguistic theory which
understands the relationship between the
verb and other elements of the sentence
as syntactic-semantic relations, namely
Charles 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

25. 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 most
suffixal 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

26. 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 Adtypes. 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

27. 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 differences
between superficially and
morphologically parallel words and
. explain them better

28. the lexemes listed in (11a) are all
derivatives in -er, but represent
different '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

29. :11a) –ER
payer (Agent-)
cooker (Instrument-)
d i n e r (Location-)
m o u r n e r (Experiences)
(c o n t a i n e r (Object-Type
(11b) AGENT-TYPE)
grave-diggler
cut-throat
novel/ist
cook/0
(diner may also be an Agent-Type)
.