0 INTRODUCTION

3. NOMINAL COMPLEMENTATION AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
However, Grimshaw (1990: 65-66) qualifies her statement that only complex event
nominals have argument structure by saying that, in a sense, all nominals have argument
structure, as other kinds of nominal have an external referential argument (R), even though
they have no other argument. This argument differs from the “more familiar kind of
argument by the fact that it does not appear as a complement to the head, nor is it the
realization of a participant in the lexical conceptual structure 4 (lcs) of the word –there is no
sense in which R is the Theme, a Goal, or an Agent of a predicate” (Grimshaw 1990: 63).
In brief, the argument structure of result (e.g. exam) and simple event (e.g. event, race)
nominals cannot be equated with that of complex event nominals. Result and simple event
nominals have an argument structure composed by just their external argument (R).
However, complex event nominals, having an event structure like that of verbs, possess a
much more complex argument structure that must also satisfy the event structure of the
nominal.
Grimshaw’s view on argument structure is called into question by Picallo (1991),
who has shown that not only process nouns, but also result nouns may select arguments:
(43) a. La discussió de les dades va durar tot el dia. (event)
‘The discussion of the data lasted the whole day,’
b. La discussió de les dades es va publicar a la revista. (result)
“The discussion of the data was published in the journal.’
As opposed to Grimshaw’s lexicalist model, Alexiadou (2001) proposes a syntactic
model, within the framework of Distributed Morphology (see Marantz 1999), in which
word-formation takes place in syntax. In this approach, both result and event or process
4 The lexical conceptual structure of a verb or a noun is the “lexico-semantic representation (…) that
includes, among other things, the participants in the activities or states described by the verb” (Grimshaw
1990: 5).
61