0 INTRODUCTION

7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Section 5.3 described the classification of nominals which would be used in the
analysis in Chapter 6. These were classified according to three different parameters,
namely, constituents of the NP (i.e. the nominal head as the sole constituent, only pre-head
dependents, only post-head dependents, and both pre- and post-head dependents), their
function in the superordinate sentence (i.e. subjects, objects, predicatives, complements of
a preposition, supplements or modifiers, and absolute position), and their internal syntax
(i.e. nominal, verbal or mixed). Finally, Section 5.3.2 dealt with the resolution of
difficulties that arose in the classification of nominalizations. Thus, nominalizations in
coordinated structures were statistically treated as independent units when the coordinated
structure showed ellipsis but where it could be safely assumed that the dependents were
shared by all the nominal heads. However, when the structures were asymmetric, this
assumption could not be proved and in such cases they have been treated independently. It
was also shown that –ing formations modified by locative (here, at home) and temporal
(today, at night) adverbials could be either nominal or verbal. Therefore, if there were no
other dependents that could determine their nature, these formations were classified as
ambiguous. If –ing formations were modified by manner or quantifying adverbs, they were
classified as verbal. In the case of items such as only, right and just, which could be either
adjectives or adverbs, they were classified as ambiguous if no other dependents clarified
their nature. Finally, –ing formations deriving from prepositional and phrasal verbs were
understood as deriving from the combination of the base verb plus the particle, and thus
the particle would not be counted as a post-head dependent of the nominalization.
237