0 INTRODUCTION

1. THE CONCEPT OF NOMINALIZATION
becomes clear that (24a) and (25a) are different structures: (24b) and (24c) are perfectly
grammatical whereas (25b) and (25c) are not:
(24) a. I still regret not going to school.
b. I still regret that I did not go to school.
c. I still regret the fact that I did not go to school.
(25) a. Not going to school is not a very sensible thing to do.
b. *That you do not go to school is not a very sensible thing to do.
c. *The fact that you do not go to school is not a very sensible thing
to do.
Furthermore, Heyvaert proposes that agnation is schematic in nature. First, it must be
noted that, as stated above, the relationship between nominalizations and clausal
structures goes beyond a one-to-one correspondence. It follows a pattern or schema that
can be deduced from the analysis of specific examples. As Langacker (1987a: 68)
proposes, nominals are instances of the same schema, “which captures the pertinent
generalization.”
Writing in the mid sixties, Dik (1967: 378) makes a similar point by stating that
nominalizations and the clauses they are related to are to be viewed as separate
constructions, as “the ‘derived’ complex word contains a semantic aspect not present in
the proposed underlying structure” and “the proposed underlying structure contains
semantic aspects not present in the ‘derived’ complex word.” Thus, a nominalized
construction lacks the feature tense possessed by the clause it is related to, as is shown by
the example in (26a). It thus could be rendered in terms of (26b), (26c) and (26d) below:
(26) a. John is the signer of the check.
b. John signs the check.
c. John signed the check.
d. John will be the signer of the check.
40