0 INTRODUCTION

7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
obligatory. Sleeman and Brito (2010), despite accepting much of the theoretical model
proposed by Alexiadou, criticized her for sticking to the event versus result nominals
dichotomy proposed by Grimshaw (1990).
Section 3.3 analyzed the main dependents of action nominalizations. As a means of
classifying them, they have been divided into pre-head dependents (cf. Section 3.3.1) and
post-head dependents (cf. Section 3.3.2) following Fanego’s (1996) model. The items
found in pre-head position were usually determiners, possessives (not only pronouns but
also genitive NPs), adjectives, nouns and adverbs. Determiners and possessives occupy a
major role in the literature. It has been claimed (cf. Grimshaw 1990) that only the definite
article can fill the determiner slot with action nouns. However, more recently Heyvaert
(2000) argued that the indefinite article, the zero determiner and quantifiers such as no,
some, and any among others, can also appear with action nominalizations. As for the
possessive slot, in English it can be filled either by possessive determiners or PossPs. In
contemporary –ing nominals, this possessive represents the subject of the clause (cf.
Fanego 1998). However in earlier use it can also marginally represent the object (see
Jespersen 1940 [1909] V: §§9.2.2-4; Tajima 1985a: 42-5; Visser 1963-1973: §§1105-6).
Section 3.3.2 analyzed post-head dependents. The literature revealed that they were
usually of-PPs and by-phrases, and to a lesser extent other PPs as well as sentential
complements. Of-PPs were presented, together with possessives, as the two English forms
for expressing genitive meaning. Although they are not completely identical, some
overlapping exists between these two forms. In some cases only one construction is
adequate, and this adequacy is determined by a number of structural and semantic
231