25.12.2013 Views

0 INTRODUCTION

0 INTRODUCTION

0 INTRODUCTION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3. NOMINAL COMPLEMENTATION AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE<br />

nouns (i.e. complex event nouns) are capable of licensing arguments (Alexiadou 2001: 66),<br />

although she concedes that it is only in the case of event nouns that these arguments are<br />

obligatory. Following van Hout (1998) and Levin (1999), Alexiadou assumes that event<br />

structure 5 plays an important role in the licensing of argument structure. She relies on<br />

Levin’s (1999) proposal that verb-meanings have two components, namely one provided<br />

by the event structure and one provided by the core meaning, that is, the part of meaning<br />

idiosyncratic to a specific verb. This second component is the ‘constant,’ in Levin’s<br />

terminology. The constants are integrated into the event structure templates in order to<br />

yield the verb meanings. Alexiadou (2001: 67) equates constants with unspecified roots.<br />

Hence, the semantics of the root can license an internal argument. In this sense, the<br />

“presence of arguments is guaranteed independently of the eventive character of the<br />

outcome of word-formation” (ibid.). However, it must be conceded that arguments in<br />

process nominals such as (44a) below are always obligatory, whereas in result nominals<br />

such as (44b), arguments are optional. Alexiadou (2001: 66) assumes that the obligatory<br />

presence of arguments is determined by functional structure (voice and aspect), and only<br />

process nominals include voice and aspect in their internal structure.<br />

(44) a. the examination of the students at noon<br />

b. an exam (Alexiadou 2001: 11)<br />

Sleeman and Brito (2010) accept much of the theoretical model proposed by<br />

Alexiadou. However, they criticize that Alexiadou sticks to the dichotomy event versus<br />

result nominals proposed by Grimshaw (1990) despite the fact that it is not clear-cut. Thus,<br />

Sleeman and Brito (2010: 121) list five factors that illustrate the fuzzy boundaries between<br />

event and result nominals:<br />

5 According to Grimshaw (1990: 26), the event structure “represents the aspectual analysis of the clause, and<br />

determines such things as which adjuncts are admissible.” She proposes that each verb has an event structure<br />

associated with it.<br />

62

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!